Kamal Jeet Singh (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2068

Kamal Jeet Singh (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2068 (19 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Kamal Jeet Singh
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2440578

Tribunal:General Member M Simmons
Place:Canberra
Date: 19 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 19 September 2025 at 11:15am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine student – breached visa conditions – cancelled enrolment in registered course – changed to VET course – misunderstood visa requirements – new course at lower level to which visa was granted – specific career goal – invested support by family – qualifications now obtained – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 48, 109, 116, 128, 134B, 140, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.43A; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criteria; Schedule 8, Conditions 8202 and 8207
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 22 October 2024 made by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with a visa condition. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 August 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should affirmed.
Background
The applicant is an Indian national born 10 July 2001. He was granted a Subclass 500 Student Visas 27 October 2022 and travelled to Australia on 1 November 2022 for the purpose of pursing a Bachelor Information and Communication Technology.
On 19 September 2024, the delegate issue the applicant with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). They relevantly stated that:
Your Student visa was granted in relation to the following registered course(s): Level 7 (Bachelor Degree) 12 September 2022
The Department has access to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which provides the Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) and study records of international students registered to study in Australia.
PRISMS indicates that you no longer hold enrolment in the registered course(s) you held at the time of grant of your visa.
PRISMS indicates that you are currently enrolled in the following registered course(s): Level 4 (Certificate IV) 14 April 2023
You have not maintained enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted and therefore have not complied with the requirements of subclause (2)(b) of condition 8202.
Based on this information, there appear to be grounds for cancelling your visa under section 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act because you have not complied with a condition of the visa.
The NOICC notes that according to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), the applicant’s visa was granted in connection with an AQF Level 7 Bachelor Degree course. However, on 14 April 2023 the applicant changed to an AQF Level 4 Certificate IV course, which appeared to be in contravention of condition 8202(b).
On 3 October 2024 the applicant provided a response to the NOICC. In that response, the applicant conceded that he did not comply with condition 8202(b) when he downgraded his enrolment, and provided details arguing why, despite this, his visa should not be cancelled.
On 22 October 2024 the delegate determined to cancel the visa.
With the help of Mr Yadav, the applicant applied to the Tribunal to have that decision reconsidered on 26 October 2024.
On 28 August 2025, the applicant made written submissions to the Tribunal via Mr Yadav. Those submissions include a legal submission, statutory declaration from the applicant, completion letter and transcripts for Certificate III and Certificate IV courses, visa grant documents, overseas qualifications, identity documents and a statement from the applicant’s father.
On 29 August 2025, Mr Yadav emailed the Tribunal stating:
I hope this email finds you well, please find the evidence of the email screenshot and print of the email attached below.
This document shows that we did send the applicant his BVE grant letter on the same day to his email address.
Attached to that email was a screenshot of correspondence from Mr Yadav to the applicant forwarding a Bridging E visa grant notice on 21 November 2024.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
Under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that a visa holder has not complied with a condition of the visa. However, the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) may prescribe circumstances in which a visa is not to, or must, be cancelled: s 116(2) and (3). Further, the Regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister must, must not, or may, have regard in determining whether a ground for cancellation is made out under s 116(1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), and the weight to be given to such a matter: s 116(1A).
There are currently no prescribed circumstances under s 116(2) requiring the visa not be cancelled, or under s 116(3) requiring the visa to be cancelled, that apply.
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 the Regulations. If satisfied the applicant has breached condition 8202, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled under s 116(1)(b). In determining whether the visa should be cancelled, the decision-maker must have regard to all relevant circumstances, which may include matters prescribed under s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A, and other matters of government policy.
Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?
Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:
·be enrolled in a full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)
·maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the policy for regulated qualifications in the Australian education and training system. It is monitored and maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, in consultation with the states and territories. It is made up of 10 levels as follows: 1 – Certificate I; 2 – Certificate II; 3 – Certificate III; 4 – Certificate IV; 5 – Diploma; 6 – Advanced Diploma, Associate Degree; 7 – Bachelor Degree; 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma; 9 – Masters Degree; 10 – Doctoral Degree.
During our discussion, the applicant confirmed he understands he breached condition 8202 by enrolling in a lower course. Similarly, written material provided to the Tribunal also affirms that the applicant agrees he breached condition 8202 by downgrading his enrolment.
I am satisfied, the applicant’s visa was granted on Bachelor Information and Communication Technology course, which would have provided an AQF level 7 qualification. However, on 14 April 2023 the applicant changed to an AQF Level 4 course, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis. Accordingly, the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. I am satisfied the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(b).
Consideration of discretion
Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised.
reg 2.43A
For temporary visas other than criminal justice and enforcement visas, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker must have regard in determining whether they are satisfied as mentioned in s 116(1)(b): s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A of the Regulations.
When the delegate made their decision, there were no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. However, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Reporting Protections Regulations 2024 (Cth) introduced a new reg 2.43A, which prescribes workplace exploitation matters that must be considered when determining whether to cancel certain temporary visas including student visas. The Amending Regulation commenced on 1 July 2024, and apply in relation to a breach of a visa condition that occurred before, on or after 1 July 2024.
There is no suggestion that the applicant has been involved in a ‘workplace exploitation matter’, and he confirmed this during our discussion. As such regs 2.43(2)(a) and (b) are not relevant in this particular matter. I give this factor neutral weight in considering whether the exercise the discretion to cancel.
Reg 2.43(2)(d) Whether there is any evidence that the visa holder is not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa
A student visa is granted for the purpose of permitting a holder to engage in approved study in Australia and obtain desired qualifications. The requirement of condition 8202(2)(b) goes to this core purpose of the visa by encouraging visa holders to undertake studies at the same or higher AQF level to the course they were enrolled in when the visa was granted.
The applicant told me he has already obtained a Certificate III and IV, and his purpose to remain in Australia is to obtain a Diploma. Once he completes his Diploma, he wants to build a career in India by opening a garage or workshop.
Noting he already holds two Australian qualifications in automotive repair, I asked him why he needs further qualifications in order to pursue his desired career in India. The applicant told me that his Certificate III and IV are “not worth much”, when I asked him to explain what he meant by this he told me he needed a Diploma in order to work on electric vehicles in his garage.
On his own evidence, he has no intention to undertake a course in Australia at AQF level 7, which is the AQF level of the course he was granted the visa in order to undertake. On the information presented, I consider these factors weigh somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Other considerations
Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, when considering whether to exercise the discretion to cancel I have had regard to matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s policy guidelines ‘General visa cancellation powers’ (s 109, s 116, s 128, s 134B and s 140)’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters. The applicant’s written submissions address these factors, and we also discussed them during the hearing.
The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia
The applicant asserts his purpose for coming to and seeking to stay in Australia is to undertake studies. However, a student visa is not granted for the purpose of the holder undertaking any Australian qualification they wish. The applicant claims he did not understand the requirements of condition 8202(b).
Asked whether he has a compelling need to remain in Australia, the applicant told me he needs to stay in Australia to finish his studies, particularly the Diploma course he wishes to study. I appreciate this may be his preference, however I do not consider this gives rise to a compelling need to remain which would weigh in his favour when considering the discretion to cancel.
On his own evidence, he has no intention to undertake a course in Australia at AQF level 7, which is the AQF level of the course he was granted the visa in order to undertake. On the information presented, I consider these factors weigh somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant told me he does not have study rights attached to his current visa. I noted that he had told the Tribunal he completed studying a Certificate IV in April 2025, for which he has provide academic documents, and asked why he would continue studying if he knew that he had no study rights presently. I noted that the PRISMS record indicates the applicant’s current bridging visa, granted in November 2024, has the ‘no study’ condition 8207 attached to it.
He responded that his family were concerned about his visa cancellation. I directed him back to the question. He confirmed that his current visa does not allow him to study, but that he was studying while holding that visa. Asked why he would breach a further visa condition he replied “I was scared and stressed after visa cancellation and my family pressurised me”. He then told me that he did not know his current bridging visa did not allow him to study, and that he only found out he was not permitted to study “when his application to the Tribunal was opened”.
I noted that Mr Yadav helped the applicant to apply to the Tribunal in October 2024 and the bridging visa was granted in November 2024. As the applicant has had guidance from a migration agent since October 2024 until present, I asked whether he knew that from November 2024 he was not permitted to study but decided to do so anyway. The applicant reiterated that his family pressured him to finish his course, and because his course was partially completed he decided to finish it. He then told me that he did not know that his visa conditions did not permit him to study.
I expressed concern that after the applicant’s visa was cancelled for breaching a condition, and after he sought professional assistance from Mr Yadav, that he would breach a second visa condition. The applicant told me that Mr Yadav only told him in July 2025 that he did not have study permission attached to the bridging visa he received in November 2024.
Mr Yadhav told me that he informed the applicant in July 2025 while preparing for the Tribunal hearing that he did not have study rights. He also told me that he emailed the applicant a copy of the bridging visa grant notice in November 2024 and that the applicant “should have checked his visa”. The post hearing submission confirms that Mr Yadhav forwarded the bridging visa grant notice to the applicant in November 2024, though there is no record of him highlighting or explaining to the applicant the applicable visa conditions.
At best, it strikes me as extremely careless, that after having his visa cancelled due to breaching a visa condition, that the applicant and Mr Yadhav would not take more care to ensure there were no further compliance issues. Given both the applicant and Mr Yadhav have sought to characterise the breach of condition 8202 as being the fault of a previous representative and not the applicant’s, it is very poor that, on one view, the applicant has possibly not received appropriate professional assistance for a second time. While it appears Mr Yadhav did inform the applicant of the bridging visa grant in November I note that there is nothing before me to indicate that the applicant was alerted to and informed of the requirements of condition 8207, which is precisely the criticism of the previous representative in respect of condition 8202. Indeed, Mr Yadhav told the Tribunal that he only informed the applicant of this condition in July 2025.
Given the history of this matter, I would also expect the applicant to take greater care and responsibility in ensuring that they did not breach any further visa conditions. His evidence was, for example, that he was aware of the work limitation visa condition he has been subject to during his time in Australia and that he has always complied with it. At best, this strikes me as quite careless, and not suggestive of the applicant taking seriously his visa obligations, that he would not ensure he abided by all visa conditions after the cancellation. I consider this factor weighs strongly in favour of exercising discretion to cancel.
The degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
It is asserted that visa cancellation would cause hardship to the applicant and his family. told me that they have been providing him with some financial support while he has been in Australia and that he would be stressed if he cannot obtain his Diploma in Australia.\
I note that the applicant already has two Australian qualifications in his desired field. He has had the benefit of studying, working and living in Australia for a number of years. If his visa remains cancelled he will not be able to pursue his preferred Diploma. However, I do not consider that any hardships which may arise to the applicant or his family in the event he cannot continue his studies in Australia as so grave so as to weigh against exercising the discretion to cancel, noting he already holds multiple Australian qualifications. When asked he did not explain, and it is not apparent to me, why he could not pursue his dream of opening an garage in India with the qualifications he already holds. I give this factor neutral weight in considering whether the exercise the discretion to cancel.
Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose
It is asserted that the applicant did not intentionally breach condition 8202 but did so as a result of incorrect advice from an education agent.
He indicated he came here to undertake a Bachelors, but when he went to university he was “quite disturbed”. I asked him to explain what happened that led to him abandoning his Bachelor degree. He suggested he was disturbed and distressed, as he could not understudy the study pattern and methods. He claims he then came to know of the possibility of undertaking automotive studies. There is no material before me to indicate the applicant contacted his first education provider to discuss and seek to remedy the difficulties he claims he was experiencing in undertaking his course. He told me that he never contacted them to try and overcome his difficulties with his Bachelor studies. He told me “I did not have any interest in this course. Then I spoke to my family and an agent and I decided to change my course”.
I noted it is a big decision to decide to study a Bachelor course abroad, and that I was unclear why he would walk away from this course so easily without speaking to the university about what they could do to help him remain in that course. The applicant did not answer my question, responding instead: “I was interested in Automotive Industry and I am passionate about electric vehicle my intention is to learn skills in this course. I was disheartened with Bachelor course”. I directed him back to my question, noting that universities have resources for students who are struggling. I asked why, if he was committed to pursuing a Bachelor in Australia, he would not in first instance talk to the university about ways he might be able to remain in the course. He told me he did not talk to anyone in the University, and that he was new in Australia and disheartened with the course. The applicant also told me that he never contacted the Department of Home Affairs to understand his visa responsibilities when changing courses, instead relying on the advice of the education agent.

I have doubts in respect of the applicant’s evidence regarding the circumstances which gave rise to the breach of his visa condition. He has not provided any evidence of the erroneous advice he claims he relied on. Nothing the absence of any supporting information in respect of these contentions, I consider the attribution of blame for this noncompliance on the education agent solely to be highly convenient, and in the context of this matter, not persuasive. That he consulted his family and an education agent in first instance when he was struggling with his Bachelor, and never consulted his University, does not suggest to me that he was ever particularly motivated to pursue the Bachelor course. Considering the lack of cogent and corroborate detail as to how the visa breach came about, in its totality, I consider this factor weighs somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
There is no information before me to indicate that the applicant has engaged in any behaviour of concern in respect of the Department. I give this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140
There are no dependent family members included with the grant of the applicant’s visa. There will not be any consequential cancellations if the applicant’s visa is to remain cancelled. I give this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and if so, for how long, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention
There are mandatory legal consequences that may apply in the case of visa cancellations. A person who is present in Australia without a visa is liable to be detained and removed. There may be restrictions on obtaining a further visa, particularly s 48 of the Act would limit further visa applications while the applicant remained onshore. Further, due to the operation of Public Interest Criteria in Schedule 4 of the Regulations, the applicant may also be unable to be granted further visas to Australia offshore for three years from the date of cancellation. I consider these legal consequences are the intended and legitimate consequences of a visa cancellation as drafted into Australia’s migration law.
The applicant indicated that if he had no lawful permission to remain in Australia in the future, he would depart the country. Given this, I do not consider that a possible consequence of the cancellation remaining in effect would be his detention.
While I note that consequences which may flow from visa cancellation may limit or restrict certain future visa applications by the visa applicant, I also consider that these provisions were drafted to give effect to parliament’s intent. As such, I give this consideration neutral weight in my assessment.
Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement, family unity and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation
The applicant is a citizen of India. He suggested that he does not have any concerns about returning to India. The applicant did not maintain, and there is no evidence before me that Australia’s international obligations would be breached by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The applicant has no children whose interests would be affected. I give this factor no weight in the consideration of the exercise of the discretion.
Conclusion
I have had regard to the circumstances of the applicant and the totality of his evidence. On balance, I consider the weight of the factors I am required to consider support a decision to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa. Notably, after breaching condition 8202 and after obtaining new representative to assist with the cancellation of his visa for breaching that condition, the applicant has breached condition 8207. The context of this second breach suggests that the applicant is, at best, very careless in respect of ensuring he understands and complies with his visa conditions. While it seems that Mr Yadav may not have clearly informed the applicant of this condition as he may be expected to do, ultimately I consider the applicant shares responsibility for understanding and complying with his own via conditions. Furthermore, he squarely indicated he has no intention to ever pursue an AQF level 7 or higher course while in Australia. Thus he his purpose for seeking to remain in Australia is not pursue a course at the requisite AQF level. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  29 August 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Harsh Yadav (MARN: 2117646)
ATTACHMENT – Extract from Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
…
Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a)     a Defence student; or
(b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c)      a secondary exchange student.
(2)A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a)     must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and
(b)     subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
(c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:
(i)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;
(ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.
(3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.
ATTACHMENT – Extract from reg 2.43A to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
2.43AMinister must have regard to certain matters in considering cancellation of certain temporary visas for breach of visa condition
(1)This regulation applies in relation to a visa if:
(a)     the visa is a temporary visa other than:
(i)a criminal justice visa; or
(ii)an enforcement visa; and
(b)     the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with a particular condition (the relevant condition) to which the holder’s visa is subject; and
(c)      regulation 2.43B does not apply in relation to the visa.
(2)For the purposes of paragraph 116(1A)(a) of the Act, the Minister must have regard to the following matters in determining whether the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act:
(a)     any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is a government entity if the certificate:
(i)was issued in relation to the visa holder in respect of a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)sets out the matters agreed to by Immigration and the government entity;
(b)     any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is not a government entity and that states that the entity considers that:
(i)there is prima facie evidence that the visa holder has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)if any law limits the time within which a proceeding may be instituted, or a complaint made, in relation to the workplace exploitation matter—that time has not expired; and
(iii)there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter by which the visa holder has been affected;
(c)      whether there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(d)     whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa;
(e)      whether the visa holder has committed, in writing, to do both of the following:
(i)to take action, in a timely manner, to resolve the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(ii)to comply in future with the visa conditions to which the holder’s visa is subject;
(f)      whether the visa holder has failed to comply with a commitment of a kind mentioned in paragraph (e) of this subregulation, or paragraph 2.43B(2)(d), (3)(d) or (4)(d), that the visa holder has previously given in relation to the visa.
(3)Subregulation (2) does not limit, or otherwise affect, a power or duty of the Minister to cancel the visa under:
(a)     paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance with a condition (other than the relevant condition) to which the visa holder’s visa is subject; or
(b)     a provision other than paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act.
Note:For example, see subregulation 2.43(2) for the circumstances in which the Minister must cancel a visa.