Jambal (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2072

Jambal (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2072 (8 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Ms Myagmarsuren Jambal
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2411411

Tribunal:General Member S Fitzsimons
Place:Melbourne
Date: 8 September 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 08 September 2025 at 11:39am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – registered course of study – enrolment cancelled – opportunity to provide further evidence – request for a decision without a hearing – clear and unambiguous request – issues can be adequately determined – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024, ss 55, 106
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.111, 500.211, 500.212
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 26 April 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant applied for the visa on 30 October 2023. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
On 11 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing, to give evidence and arguments in support of her review application. The hearing was listed for 11:30am on 29 August 2025 and was to be conducted by video via MS Teams. The hearing invitation asked the applicant to provide all documents she intended to rely on to support her case to the Tribunal by 22 August 2025. In addition the hearing invitation stated:
“In addition, please provide the following information at least 7 days before the hearing date so that a decision can be made as quickly as possible:
1.A copy of your current Certificate of Enrolment (COE) or other document/s that show you are currently enrolled in a course of study as defined in cl500.111 and as required by cl500.211(a) of schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) for the grant of the visa.
We may assess whether you are enrolled in a registered course of study.
Please note that not being enrolled in a registered course of study may be a reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review, even if this is not the same criteria or issue considered by the delegate.
This is a time of decision criteria.
2.If you have not already done so, documents that show your past studies in Australia, including copies of all your attendance certificates, academic transcripts and certificates of completion as well as documents evidencing any work related to past or intended studies in Australia. Please ensure that you have provided us with the most up-to-date information.” [emphasis in the original]
On 21 August 2025, the Tribunal received an email from the applicant in response to the hearing invitation in which the applicant stated: “Hi Dear, I would like to request that Tribunal to make decision without a hearing, I will accept any decision. Case number:2411411.” The email was sent from the applicant’s authorised email address. On 22 August 2025, the applicant sent another email to the Tribunal which read: “Hi dear, I would like to request for tribunal make decision without hearing, I will accept any decision from the Tribunal. Here is my details. Case 2411411, Myagmarsuren Jambal. If you need more information, pls let me know Thank you, Myagmarsuren” This email also came from the applicant’s authorised email address.
In accordance with procedural fairness requirements, on 22 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s359A of the Act (the s 359A letter), inviting comment from her regarding information which, subject to her comment or response, would provide the reason, or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The s359A letter was sent to the applicant after her email dated 22 August 2025 was received by the Tribunal. The information put to the applicant in the s359A letter was:
“Invitation to Comment on new information that is unfavourable to your review application
In conducting your review, we are required by s359A of the Migration Act 1958, to invite you to comment on certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.
Please note, however, that we have not made up our mind about the information.
For your student visa application to be successful, it is a requirement of clause 500.211 of the Migration Regulations 1994, that you are enrolled in a registered course of study.
A review of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) student record indicates that on 10 April 2025, your enrolment in a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) [105301C] was cancelled for the reason of non-commencement of studies. There is no indication on the PRISMS record that you are currently enrolled in any registered course of study.
If we rely on this information in making our decision, we may find that you are not currently enrolled in a course of study. This would mean that you do not meet clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The consequence of the Tribunal relying on this information is that it would be the reason or part of the reason for the Tribunal to affirm the decision of the delegate to refuse to grant you a Student visa.
As the Tribunal conducts a review of your case on its merits, that is, taking a fresh look at your student visa application, the Tribunal may make a decision on a different basis to the decision the delegate made.
This also means that if you request the Tribunal to make a decision without a hearing, and the Tribunal proceeds to make a decision because it considers the issues can be determined in your absence, the Tribunal may make an unfavourable decision.” [emphasis in the original]
The s359A letter also referred to the applicant’s request for a decision to be made in the absence of a hearing. The Tribunal’s letter stated:
Your request for a decision in the absence of a hearing
On 11 August 2025 we sent a letter inviting you to attend a hearing on 29 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments relating to the issues arising in your case. On 21 August 2025 you responded to the Tribunal advising you would not attend the hearing and requested that the Tribunal make a decision (without holding a hearing) in respect of your application for review. The Tribunal has therefore cancelled the hearing that was listed for 29 August 2025.
The Tribunal makes its decisions independently of the delegate who refused to grant you a student visa. The Tribunal looks at your application afresh and makes its own decision on all of the relevant information before it. This means that the Tribunal may make a decision on a different basis to the reasons given by the delegate. Your student visa application was refused because the delegate was of the view that you had not provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the delegate you genuinely intended on remaining in Australia temporarily.
The reason the Tribunal invited you to a hearing is because the Tribunal is unable to make a decision wholly in your favour on the information currently before it. Accordingly, a hearing was listed to allow you to provide further information in support of your application.
In undertaking its review, the Tribunal is required to make the correct or preferable decision independently of the Department. At the time the Tribunal makes its decision it may have regard to claims and evidence that were not before the delegate, but which are relevant to the review. Therefore, the Tribunal may make different findings of fact than those made by the delegate, who decided to refuse to grant you a Student visa; and the issues that the Tribunal wishes to raise with you may also be different to those considered by the delegate. In reviewing your case the Tribunal now raises with you a different issue that was not before the delegate at the time of the delegate’s decision, which relates to your current enrolment status.” [emphasis in the original]
The s359A letter invited the applicant to comment on the information relating to the information relating to the PRISS record indicating that she was not currently enrolled in a registered course of study, and also invited her to provide any further written evidence or submissions or to contact the Tribunal if she would like to attend a hearing or advise the Tribunal if she was seeking legal advice (and the letter contained a link to information about legal assistance providers). The Tribunal requested the applicant’s comments in writing by 5 September 2025 and the Tribunal’s letter indicated that it would consider any request from the applicant for further time in which to comment if further time was required.
The applicant did not respond to the s359A letter by the requested date and as of the date of this decision there is no indication on the Tribunal case file that the applicant has responded to the Tribunal’s s359A letter.
Should the Tribunal make a decision in the absence of a hearing?
Before considering whether the issues in this case can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing, the Tribunal has considered whether the applicant has been given a reasonable opportunity to present her case to the Tribunal.[1]
[1] s55 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
On 25 June 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant advising her that it is a requirement for a student visa for her to be enrolled in a registered course of study, and that she be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. Accompanying the Tribunal’s email was a request for the applicant to complete a Student Visa Information (SVI) form and return it to the Tribunal within 14 days.
On 8 July 2025 the applicant uploaded her completed SVI form online to the Tribunal. One of the questions in the SVI form is “Does the Main Applicant have a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study?” Underneath that question is a yes/no field. Directly underneath the yes/no field it states: “Not being enrolled in a registered course of study may be a reason, or a part of the reason, for the Tribunal affirming the decision under review, even if this is not the same criteria or issue considered by the primary decision maker.” In response to this question the applicant answered “No.”
As indicated above, on 11 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting her to appear before the Tribunal at a hearing, to give evidence and arguments in support of her review application. She expressly declined that invitation in both of her emails dated 21 August 2025 and 22 August 2025.
The Tribunal then sent a s359A letter to the applicant (as detailed above) inviting comment from her regarding information which, subject to her comment or response, would provide the reason, or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review and gave her two weeks in which to respond to the Tribunal. The applicant has not responded to the s359A letter.
On the basis of the information in the Tribunal’s SVI form and email, the hearing invitation and the s359A letter, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has had a reasonable opportunity to present her case in accordance with s55 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act).
The Tribunal may make a decision without a hearing if all three components ((a), (b) and (c)) of s106(3) of the ART Act are satisfied. Section 106(3) states:
This subsection applies if:
(a) the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party        to the proceeding or the hearing of the proceeding; and
(b) either:
(i) the decision is wholly in favour of the applicant; or
(ii) the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the                 hearing of the proceeding; and
(c) it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can        be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding.
The parties in this case are the applicant and the Minister, who is a non-participating party[2] and so s106(3)(a) of the ART Act is met.
[2] s348A(1) of the Migration Act 1958.
In this case s106(3)(b)(i) is not relevant. Section 106(3)(b)(ii) requires that “the applicant requests the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding.”
The emails received by the Tribunal on 21 August 2025 and 22 August 2025 were both from the applicant’s authorised email address and she included her name in both emails. The Tribunal considers that the wording in each of the applicant’s emails (as quoted above in [‎6]) is clear and unambiguous in the applicant’s request for a decision in the absence of a hearing. For these reasons the Tribunal is satisfied therefore that the applicant has requested a decision in the absence of a hearing and therefore s106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act is met.
The third component of s106(3) that must be satisfied before the Tribunal can determine a matter in the absence of a hearing is whether it appears to the Tribunal the issues for determination can be “adequately determined.” This first requires identification of what are the issues to be determined, before then considering if it appears to the Tribunal those issues can be adequately determined.
“Adequately determined” is not legally defined. In relation to s106(3)(c), the Explanatory Memorandum to the Administrative Review Tribunal Bill[3] relevantly states: “In all of the above circumstances, the Tribunal must consider that the issues can be adequately determined in the parties’ absence. This means that the Tribunal cannot exercise these powers if there are issues that they consider they cannot resolve without seeking further evidence or submissions from the parties.”[4] The Explanatory Memorandum also relevantly states that “[t]his clause supports the objective of the Tribunal resolving matters as quickly and with as little formality and expense as a proper consideration of the matters permits, especially given the time and resources required to conduct a substantive hearing.”[5]
[3] Accessible online:
[4] Ibid at paragraph 670.
[5] Ibid at paragraph 671.
The Tribunal, in conducting a merits review[6] stands in the shoes of the Minister. This requires the Tribunal to consider and determine the issues fresh. In this case, whilst the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant as required in cl 500.212 of the Regulations, the issue before the Tribunal now, is whether the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study as required in cl 500.211 of the Regulations.
[6] s3 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024.
In this particular case the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has been provided with a reasonable opportunity to provide evidence and information relevant to the current issue in dispute, being whether she is enrolled in a registered course of study, and that the Tribunal has explained to the applicant the consequences of relying on information indicating the lack of her enrolment in a registered course of study. The applicant has not taken up the opportunity to provide comment on the issue in dispute or provided any further evidence for the Tribunal’s consideration. In these circumstances the Tribunal is satisfied that s106(3)(c) has been met and accordingly the Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision in the absence of a hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl 500.211 to cl 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicant as set out above, pursuant to s359A of the Act advising that the Tribunal had PRISMS information before it that indicated she was not currently enrolled in a registered course of study. The s359A letter clearly explained to the applicant that if the Tribunal was to rely on that information, it may, subject to any comment she made, lead the Tribunal to find that she is not enrolled in a registered course of study and as a consequence, may be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review.
Via the s359A letter, the Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on the PRISMS information. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s s359A letter.
Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl 500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl 500.211.
‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl 500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), to provide the course to overseas students.
According to the PRISMS website, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment is responsible for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. It is recorded that PRISMS is a computer system developed by the Department in association with the Department of Home Affairs for the purpose of receiving and storing information about accepted overseas students that is given to the Secretary under the ESOS Act. It is further noted that PRISMS provides a secure system for providers of registered educational institutions to comply with legislative requirements by issuing confirmations of enrolments as ‘evidence of enrolment’ in a registered full-time course as required by the Department of Home Affairs and reporting changes in course enrolment, particularly where study ceases, or the duration of the study changes.
It is therefore apparent that PRISMS is a business record of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and is used by the Department of Home Affairs as evidence of enrolment for the purposes of assessing the grant of student visas. While it is possible providers may not update PRISMS as required, the Tribunal accepts that PRISMS is a reliable record of enrolments unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in relation to a particular case.

In this case the PRISMS records indicate that the applicant is not currently enrolled in a registered course of study. The applicant also stated in her SVI form that she is not enrolled in a course of study. On the basis of the PRISMS records and the applicant’s response in her SVI form regarding her enrolment status, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is not currently enrolled in a registered course of study.
There is nothing before the Tribunal that indicates the applicant wishes to remain in Australia to enable the marking of a postgraduate thesis, or that she is either a Foreign Affairs or Defence student and the applicant does not claim to meet any of those alternative criteria in cl 500.211. Therefore, as the Tribunal has found that the applicant is not enrolled in a course of study as required in cl 500.211(a), the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements of cl 500.211 of the Regulations are met.
Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Dates of hearing(s): N/A