Islam (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2041

Islam (Migration) [2018] AATA 2041 (18 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Md Tariqul Islam
Mrs RASHNA SHARMIN SHANTA

CASE NUMBER:  1713157

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/2401943

MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen

DATE:18 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 18 April 2018 at 2:05pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Federal Circuit Court Remittal – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student – Lack of study over a long period of time– Living in Australia for over 10 years – Inconsistent evidence as to why he is currently enrolled in a Bachelor of Business course – Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 573.223

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 19 August 2015. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visas on 11 January 2016. At the time the visa application was lodged, the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa contained a number of subclasses: Item 1222 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted depends upon: the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course (Subclass 570 - 575); for certain applications made on or after 24 March 2012, whether the applicant is an ‘eligible higher degree student’ (Subclass 573 – 574) or ‘eligible university exchange student’ or ‘eligible non-award student’ (Subclass 575); whether the applicant has the support of the relevant Minister (Subclass 576); or whether the applicant has applied on the basis of being a Student Guardian (Subclass 580).

3. Movement records indicate that the first named applicant (the applicant) arrived in Australia on 26 October 2006 and was granted subclass 572 visas to 18 July 2012. He was then granted a subclass 573 visa to 19 August 2015. The applicants applied for the visas on 19 August 2015. He has departed Australia from 21 September 2008 to 11 November 2008 and 12 April 2010 to 9 June 2010.

4. With the application to the Department the applicant submitted a COE to study an Advanced Diploma of Marketing. The evidence indicates he successfully completed this course on 15 August 2016. To the Tribunal on 16 January 2018 he submitted an offer to study a Bachelor of Business from 15 January 2018 to 11 December 2020.

5. Evidence from the Department decision[1] and that provided by the applicant at hearings and in documentation provided by the applicant, indicates he has successfully completed the following courses.

   ·Diploma of Accounting from 2/2007 to 4/2008

   ·Diplomat of Tourism from 11/2008 to 11/2009

   ·Certificate IV and Diploma of Human Resources Management from 3/2010 to 3/2011

   ·Diploma of Business from 5/2011 to 6/2012

   ·Advanced Diploma of Marketing from 8/2015 to 8/2016

   [1] The Department decision was attached to the Application for Review.

6. The evidence also indicates he was enrolled in a Bachelor of Business from 16 July 2012 to 19 June 2015 but the applicant notified cessation of studies on 16 August 213. He was then enrolled in a Bachelor of Professional Accounting from 15 July 2013 to 31 July 2015 but his enrolment ceased on 21 November 2013. He was again enrolled in a Bachelor of Professional Accounting from 7 April 2014 to 31 December 2015 but he notified cessation of studies on 26 August 2014.  He again enrolled in a Bachelor of Business from 24 October 2016 to 16 August 2019 but he did not commence the course. He has now submitted an offer of enrolment to study a Bachelor of Business from 15 January 2018 to 11 December 2020.

7. In response to an invitation to comment from the Department as to why the applicant did not study in certain periods, he provided the following response in a submission dated 25 September 2015.

   ·He claims to have gone though many ups and downs due to the death of a close family member including his mother who died three months after his first arrival in Australia. He claims even having such a painful event he completed the Diploma of Accounting.

   ·He claims he has completed a Diploma of Human Resources and Diploma of Business. He claims he requires the skills provided in these courses with accounting to run a business.

   ·He outlines why marketing and enrolling in the Advanced Diploma of Business is important to running a business.

   ·He outlines why he has chosen Australia to study and submits that study in Australia is very highly regarded

   ·He claims he received financial support from his father but his sister’s husband died last year (2014) and he used to look after the business and this led to the collapse of his father’s business. He claims his father is recovering from the business and is committed to sending him the necessary expenses for his educational purposes.

   ·He submits that he considers his current marketing course will be an asset for his future career as either an employee for a renowned company or a business man. He claims there are many Bangladeshi companies who require marketing qualified people. He claims since he has qualifications in accounting, business and human resources, together with his marketing qualification these will assist him in obtaining a better job in Bangladesh.

   ·He claims he has always been a genuine student but at times failed due to the sudden deaths of close family members and relatives that deeply affected his education in Australia.

8. He submitted death certificates indicating the death of his sister-in-law’s husband in April 2014, his grandmother in 2012 and his mother in 2007.

9. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 11 January 2016. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.573.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) is not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. The delegate was concerned as to his lack of study from 9 November 2013 to 6 April 2014 and 13 August 2014 to 14 August 2015. He noted in this period there was no request for deferral from his education provider or that the applicant sought professional help despite claiming to suffer stress for this extensive period for the reasons claimed. He was also concerned that during these periods he continued to work and was concerned as to his extended length of time in Australia with only two short trips outside. He referred to the applicant being granted a subclass 573 visa in 2012 but ceased studying and has not competing any course at this level.

10. The applicant applied to the Tribunal (differently constituted) and attached the Department decision.

11. He submitted a number of statements to the Tribunal (differently constituted) adding the following.

    ·As to the intention to cancel his visa in 2010, he claims his beloved grandfather was ill and he took a holiday from school between 12 April 2010 and 29 May 2010 but his grandfather died on his flight back from Sydney. He claims he informed the college and sent the death certificate but claims he was devastated by his death and could not recover from his mental devastation. He claims his grandfather was very dear to him and he mostly grew up with him. He claims this was particularly so after the death of his mother. He claims he was suffering from depression. He claims he was sent the first warning letter while he was overseas and then he started to recover and went back to school in September 2010. He claims he was reported to the Department but submitted a written appeal in October 2010 but did not hear back. He attached the death certificate of his grandfather and a Doctor’s report. Attached also was a letter from the Department dated 3 December 2010 advising it had decided not to cancel his visa.

    ·In October 2010 his wife came to Australia and her uncontrolled behaviour, going out without being asked placed him under much pressure. He claims she asked for money and all the time went out with friends. He claims his wife’s behaviour heavily interrupted his study in 2011 and 2012.

    ·He claims in 2013 his grandmother died and he became upset. He claims his then College became aware.

    ·He again referred to the death of his sister’s husband who suddenly died in 2014. He notes that this affected his father and the business, resulting in his father being unable to send money. He claims his sister was also distressed. He said this was the main reason why he was not enrolled between August 2014 and August 2015.

    ·He claims due to the death of close family members in the previous 7/8 years (as he was writing this in 2015) due to this and the behaviour of his wife he was totally unable to concentrate on his studies and this resulted in him being unable to successfully continue.

    ·He argues that his failure to complete his studies and be enrolled was due to his mental state and the compassionate and compelling circumstances he has outlined.

12. He also submitted an Affidavit from his father dated 9 October 2016 outlining that his son will return to Bangladesh and take care of his firm. He attached the Trade Certificates for his father’s business. The applicant attached a medical imaging report and receipts from August 2016 as to having a colonoscopy. There was also a medical report from August 2015 included as to having an incision and drainage of a perianal abscess.

13. His representative added in a submission dated 13 October 2016 that his father owns a business in Bangladesh and wants the applicant to join it. He claims joining his father’s business gives the applicant incentive to return home. He submits the applicant is the only son and while he has two sisters they are not interested in the family business. He notes in Australia the applicant works as a part-time taxi driver and his wife in a patisserie. He notes the applicant has been unable to work for the last few months and attached the medical certificate referred to above. He notes that the cancellation of a number of COES was due to changes in course rather than ceasing study.

14. The applicant attended a hearing at the Tribunal (differently constituted) on 20 October 2016 as did the applicant’s representative. On 21 October 2016 the Tribunal (differently constituted) affirmed the delegate’s decision.

15. On 15 June 2017 the Federal Circuit Court ordered by the consent of both parties that this matter be remitted to the Tribunal for reconsideration as the Tribunal (differently constituted) erroneously found that the applicant had been living in Australia for 14 years, yet at the time of the Tribunal (differently constituted) decision the first named applicant had been living in Australia for approximately ten years.

16. On 5 December 2017 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants and invited them to attend a hearing on 17 January 2018. The letter, among other matters, requested the applicant provide an explanation of any gaps in his enrolment and any documentary evidence relevant to this explanation. It noted the Tribunal will assess whether he intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and asked him to provide a written statement addressing this issue by referring to Direction 53, which was attached.

17. The applicant’s representative provided an offer of enrolment to study a Bachelor of Business and a submission dated 11 January 2018. Among other matters, he submits that the applicant’s study was brought to an end by the decision of the delegate.

18. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 17 January 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. Their representative attended the hearing. The Tribunal raised with them that the matter before it is whether the applicant meets the requirements of cl.573.223(1)(a). It outlined the section, the relevance of Direction 53 and that the Tribunal needs to be satisfied on the evidence before it that he is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as student.

19. The applicant advised that he had enrolled in the Bachelor of Business. He said he paid $1900 and the Tribunal questioned why there was no COE submitted or evidence in this regard. The Tribunal noted the offer indicates he is to pay $1,500 per subject to a total of $36,000. It noted that the offer did not indicate he was to pay $1900 or that it was $1900 per subject and questioned whether he had actually enrolled or paid. He said he was genuine in his wish to study and his education agent had advised him to pay $1,900. As to why he had enrolled or gained an offer of enrolment just before the hearing, he said that he was awaiting the outcome of the Tribunal hearing as he was not sure what was going to happen.

20. The Tribunal raised with him its concern that he has not studied since he completed the Advanced Diploma of Marketing on 15 August 2016 and raised with him as this is a period of approximately 18 months it questioned whether he was genuine in his claim to want to study. It raised with him that since June 2012 he has only completed the Advanced Diploma of Marketing, from August 2015 to August 2016 as before that the last course he successfully completed was in June 2012. It questioned whether he was using the student visa program to maintain residence. He said in 2012 when he received the subclass 573 visa he did the first semester but failed all the subjects. The Tribunal questioned whether he was genuine in his wish to study a Bachelor of Business as when on the Subclass 573 visa he failed all subjects in the course in the first semester and had several attempts at different Bachelor courses but did not successfully complete any subject or course.

21. He then referred to the issues he had personally faced as to his reasons for not successfully completing the courses. He then referred to the loss of his mother in 2007 and that this led to mental difficulties and a nervous breakdown. He referred to the difficulties with his wife in 2010 and this caused much stress. He said he and his wife patched things up in 2013/2014. He said he then thought he would switch to business. He said he then decided to go back and finish a marketing course but his visa was refused. The Tribunal asked if there were any other reasons and he said the main reason was that he was depressed.

22. The Tribunal noted that from 2013 he did not inform the school of the difficulties he was suffering and the effects it was having on his study. The Tribunal is of the view if he was credible as to his reason for not studying it may expect he would have advised the school. He said he should have but he had no one to advise him.

23. The Tribunal referred to his work history of working in marketing in 2013 and working as a taxi driver from 2015 and questioned why if he could work he was unable to study. He then referred to the death of his grandfather in 2010 and the sudden death of his brother-in-law in 2014 as the reasons he had difficulty studying. He said after his brother-in-law’s death the business fell down and he was unable to support his father and this affected him. The Tribunal asked if he returned hone as he was upset he could not support his father. He said he did not. The Tribunal noted that it was odd he did not return home if he was so affected. It also raised with him that it questioned the effect on his mental health as there was no medical evidence as to the mental affects this had on him or evidence he had approached the school.

24. The Tribunal noted he had been in Australia since 2006, a period of approximately 11 plus years with limited return and questioned whether he was a temporary entrant. He said he could not return as he could not face his father as he had not achieved what he was meant to. The Tribunal noted his evidence as different to that in his statement as to why he could not study successfully from 2012, including as to continuing difficulties with his wife in the period after 2013. It noted that his previous evidence was that this had resolved by 2013. He said he is dead today and he has mixed up the dates but he wants to study. It noted he had not referred to the death of his grandmother.

25. The Tribunal raised its concern that he had bene living in Australia studying a range of courses, outlining the areas, all in the vocational area and there appeared no course progression or educational pathway. He said he has always wanted to achieve a degree in business.

26. As to why he and come to Australia to study; he said so he could educate himself and return to his father’s business. The Tribunal raised a number of concerns in this regard; particularly that he had not mentioned this in his earlier GTE statements as to his career aim.

27. The Tribunal questioned why he had not commenced the Bachelor of Business in 2017 and he said it was hard to carry the expenses of the court case and studying.

28. The Tribunal asked questions as to the current Bachelor of Business he has an offer of enrolment for and he claims to be enrolled in. He said the only thing he knows is that he went to the agent. He said he knows what it will be like as he has done business before. He said he had not researched the course and did not know the names of the subjects. He said he had not looked or researched it online. The Tribunal questioned whether he was genuine in his intention considering the course is $36,000 and he knew very little about it. It noted he had also provided inconsistent evidence as to the cost of the subjects as to that outline din the offer. He said once he attends the course he will see the course coordinator and find out the details.

29. He said he had no military commitments in Bangladesh or civil or political reasons why he cannot return. He said all his family are in Bangladesh, and his wife is with him in Australia.

30. The Tribunal asked as to the value of the current course to his future. He said he wants a degree and to help his father with his business. He said his Dad is alone and needs help. He said personally he wants to achieve a degree. The Tribunal raised that this appeared rather vague and then he said that they are manufacturers and need marketing, management and accounting. He said his father has struggled since the death of his brother-in-law in the last four and a half years.

31. As to whether he had anything to say; he said he knows things have not gone his way and he should have completed the course previously but it is now his true intention to complete it and return.

32. The representative referred to the submission and particularly point 11.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

33. Having regard to the applicant’s current proposed course of study, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 573.

34. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the time of decision criterion in cl.573.223. Clause 573.223(1)(a) relevantly states:

    (1)The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    (a)         the Minister is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

    (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

    (iii)if the applicant is a minor – the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    (iv)any other relevant matter; and

    (b)         …

35. In considering whether the applicant satisfies this criterion, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.53, Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student Visa applications, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

1. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended to guide decision makers to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion. In making the decision the Tribunal has considered all the evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the applicant’s circumstances and immigration history, and all matters as outlined in Direction No. 53 and any other matters it considers relevant.

2. Having considered the applicant’s claims against all the factors specified in Direction 53, and taking into account relevant information, the Tribunal finds the applicant does not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion. This finding is based on several factors as outlined below.

3. As to the applicant’s circumstances in his home country, no evidence has been presented that the applicant’s economic circumstances would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to Bangladesh. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that political and civil unrest would result in the applicant choosing to remain in Australia indefinitely. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of military commitments that would present as a significant motive not to return. It accepts the evidence that the courses he has undertaken in Australia and wishes to undertake are considered as having a better reputation than the equivalent in Bangladesh. The Tribunal accepts that he has close and strong family ties in Bangladesh, including his father and sister. It notes his wife is with him in Australia although as a dependent. It accepts that his circumstances in Bangladesh are indicative of a person who is only a temporary entrant and wishes to return to their country.

4. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant currently has an offer to study a Bachelor of Business to December 2020. While it has concerns as to whether he is actually enrolled in this course as the payment fee he detailed was different to that stated in the Offer, it is prepared to accept he is. It also accepts he has successfully completed a Diploma of Accounting, a Diploma of Tourism, a Certificate IV and Diploma of Human Resources Management, and a Diploma of Business. It accepts he was enrolled and successfully completing courses from his arrival in 2006 until June 2012 when he finished the Diploma of Business. It accepts he was enrolled and successfully completed an Advanced Diploma of Marketing from August 2015 to August 2016. However the successful completion of courses is but one of many considerations relevant to the assessment of whether the applicant, in regard to the current visa application, intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

5. The above information indicates the applicant has been in Australia since October 2006 when he arrived on a student visa, a period of approximately 11 and half years and wishes to continue to study until December 2020, a period of approximately14 years. The Tribunal views his extended length of stay in Australia, and wishing to remain in Australia for 14 years as indicative of a person who does not intend to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily. In making this finding the Tribunal notes he has returned to Bangladesh on two occasions for approximately two months in 2008 and two months in 2010; but does not accept that such short visits over the extended period he and his wife (since her arrival in 2010) have been in Australia, as overcoming its concern that his extended length of stay in Australia may lead it to find he does not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily.

6. The Tribunal also views as significant that since his arrival in Australia in 2006, a period of over 11 years he has only successfully completed six courses named above, all at the vocational level and in a range of areas including Accounting, Tourism, Human Resources Management and Marketing. It also views as of particular concern that while the holder of a subclass 573 visa from November 2012 to August 2015 he did not successfully complete any courses at this level or any courses at any level. His evidence is he failed all subjects in the first semester in the Bachelor of Business commenced in 2012 and that he was enrolled in the Bachelor of Professional Accounting and again in a Bachelor of Business but did not complete any subjects. When the Tribunal raised its concern with the applicant as to his study history from 2012 to August 2015 he referred to the mental difficulties he faced, including depression due to the death of his mother in 2007, the death of his grandfather in 2010, the death of his grandmother in 2013 and difficulties with his wife from 2010 to 2013. He also referred to the sudden death of his sister’s husband in 2014 and the devastation this had on his father’s business and his sister. He claims that these matters affected his mental health, including suffering depression and stress, thereby affecting his education in Australia. However, as raised with the applicant, and for the reasons below, the Tribunal does not accept he is credible that these are the reasons he did not achieve course progress or pass any subjects in this period. Firstly, there is no evidence the applicant sought a deferral from the education provider on the basis that he was experiencing personal and medical problems as claimed. Secondly, there is no medical evidence or evidence he sought professional help as he was experiencing mental stress, depression or devastation that affected his ability to study in Australia. The Tribunal is of the view that if the mental problems he was facing for the reasons he claims rendered him unable to study and pass courses for a period of two to three years that he would have advised the education provider or sought medical or professional help, however the evidence is he did not. Thirdly, it has concerns as to why if he was facing these difficulties as a result of family difficulties he did not return home as he was able to on his visa. The evidence is that the last time he returned to Bangladesh was in 2010. Fourthly, his evidence is that he worked during this period from 2012 to 2015 as a part-time taxi driver and before that in marketing. The Tribunal questions if the applicant was suffering the mental difficulties he claims which rendered him unable to study how he was able to work during this period. The Tribunal therefore does not accept that his lack of course progress in this period was on account of any mental difficulties, depression, and a breakdown or due to the effects of the deaths of his family members, effect on his father’s business or his wife’s behaviour. The Tribunal views his lack of course progress in the period from June 2012 to August 2015 as indicative of a person using the student visa program to maintain residence and not indicative of a person who is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

7. Also of concern is that the applicant has provided inconsistent evidence as to why he is currently enrolled/under an offer of enrolment to study a Bachelor of Business. To the Tribunal the applicant has claimed and provided evidence that he wants to achieve a Bachelor of Business so he can return and work in his father’s business. In this regard to the Tribunal he provided an Affidavit from his father confirming this. He also said he wanted to return with a Bachelor’s degree for his father’s sake. Despite claiming at the hearing in January 2018 that he had held this aim since he came to Australia and his aim was to return to his father’s business, he did not indicate this in evidence to the Department. Rather he claimed that he wanted to study in Australia to obtain the skills to work in a business and to find a suitable and better job in Bangladesh. His lack of consistency as to his future career aim leads the Tribunal to find he is not credible as to why he wishes to study the Bachelor of Business, being to work in his father’s business and to satisfy his father. Further the Tribunal has difficulty accepting that he would remain in Australia for eleven years to educate himself to return to his father’s business, even if he could not face him without a business degree. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence as to his future career aim and why he is studying the business course as lacking in credibility. In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the written evidence but based on the applicant’s lack of credibility this does not overcome its concerns.

8. The Tribunal also views as of concern as to whether he is genuine in his reasons for studying the Bachler of Business his evidence that he has conducted no research, including online as to the current course he is enrolled in/under an offer of enrolment. In this regard he was unable to name any of the subjects and could not provide any information as to the course. He said the cost of the course was $1,900 per subject whereas the offer of enrolment indicates it is $1,500 per subject. His lack of knowledge and research as to the course is particularly of concern as the course cost is significant, at $36,000. The Tribunal has considered his evidence that he will speak to the course coordinator when it begins and he has done business before but is of the view if he is genuine in studying this course, considering the cost of the course, he would have been able to provide more information to the Tribunal than he could about the course and have done some research.

9. The concerns raised above lead the Tribunal to not be satisfied that he wishes to undertake the Bachelor of Business for his stated career aim or for any of the reasons he claims. Rather it is of the view he is using the student visa program to maintain residence in Australia.

10. As to the applicant’s immigration history, there is no evidence before the Tribunal he has previously travelled to Australia or anywhere else before 2006, or applied for a permanent visa or other visa to Australia or other countries, other than applying to Australia for student visas.

11. In making the decision the Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it, including that he is enrolled/under and offer of enrolment, has previously completed the courses claimed in Australia, has said he will return home on completion of his studies, has stronger family ties in Bangladesh than Australia, the reasons he did not achieve course progression previously, that he is now able to study as he has overcome past problems and all the other matters he has raised; however for the reasons outlined above does not accept he is undertaking the current study for the reasons he claims, but rather using it as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.

12. Based on what is evidenced of the applicant’s circumstances overall, including his immigration and study history, his circumstances abroad and in Australia and other matters the Tribunal considers relevant, including in respect of Direction 53, as detailed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because the Tribunal is not satisfied that he intends to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily having regard to the evidence advanced and considered cumulatively above. . Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.573.223(1)(a).

13. The Tribunal has found the applicant does not meet an essential requirement of cl.573.223. With the exception of Subclass 580, the other subclasses within visa Class TU all contain an identical requirement. For reasons given above, the Tribunal also finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements of these subclasses. In respect of Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa, there is no material before the Tribunal that suggests the applicant meets the prescribed criteria for that subclass. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet a criterion for the grant of a Student Visa, it must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    Gabrielle Cullen
    Member