Karim (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the Department of Home Affairs' decision not to grant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had enrolled in a Higher Education Course but did not commence it, instead enrolling in a different course on the commencement day of the original course. Furthermore, the applicant had breached their work rights by working approximately 40 hours per week.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, specifically cl.500.212(b) of the Regulations, which requires the applicant to intend to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted. This assessment required consideration of Direction No. 69, which outlines factors relevant to assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the course to their future, their immigration history, and any other relevant information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the visa. This conclusion was based on the applicant's failure to commence the Higher Education Course as stated in their application and their subsequent breach of work conditions by working excessive hours. These actions indicated an intention not to comply with the conditions of the visa, thereby failing to satisfy cl.500.212(b). Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the visa.