Karki (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1895

KARKI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1895 (5 SEPTEMBER 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Rubin Karki
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2420200

Tribunal:General Member N Schmitz
Place:Melbourne
Date: 5 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 05 September 2025 at 5:54pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – non-compliance with condition of visa – not enrolled in registered course – ground for cancellation conceded – discretion to cancel visa – one short course completed while holding previous student visa – no course completed and multiple cancellations of enrolment while holding current visa – mother and brother in home country and cousin in Australia – urgent return to home country because of mother’s health, unsuccessful attempts to pay fees and financial hardship – unsupported claims of ADHD and physical and mental health – significant period of non-enrolment – working throughout – vague plans for business in home country – fear of drunk father with criminal record can be considered via protection visa application – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 116(1)(b), (1A), 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.43A, Schedule 8, condition 8202(2)(a)
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

The applicant is a 25-year-old national from Nepal. He first arrived in Australia on 20 November 2018 on a Student (Subclass 500) visa.
On 30 November 2022, he was granted a second Student (Subclass 500) visa which would have expired on 4 October 2024. That visa was subject to condition 8202.
On 19 June 2024, a delegate of the Minister cancelled the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa pursuant to s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) on the basis that the applicant did not comply with condition 8202 which requires the visa holder to be enrolled in a full-time registered course.
On 27 June 2024, the applicant applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) for a review of that decision.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT was abolished and replaced with the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). The Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No.1) Act 2024 (Cth) (“the Transitional Act”) provides that review applications which were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are deemed to be applications for review by the ART and are to be continued and determined as such.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 12 August 2025 via Microsoft Teams video technology to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review and the representative attended the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should be affirmed.
Summary of the delegate’s decision
On 17 November 2023, the applicant was issued with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of his visa. The NOICC stated that the ground(s) for cancelling the applicant’s visa appeared to exist because he had not been enrolled in a full-time registered course since 29 March 2023 as required by visa condition 8202. He was invited to show that the grounds for cancelling the visa did not exist and to provide any comments about why the visa should not be cancelled.
On 23 November 2023, the applicant provided a written response with the following reasons:
a.On 9 April 2023, he urgently departed Australia to visit Nepal due to his mother having medical issues. He was in Nepal for 45 days and returned to Australia on 25 May 2023;
b.On 24 March 2023, the applicant received an email from his educational provider stating he owed them money for unpaid fees. The applicant claims he attempted to pay the tuition fees on 14 September 2022 but the money kept being refunded into his bank account;
c.The applicant became stressed and anxious and developed a medical condition where his face swelled and his vision was impaired making it difficult to leave the house and follow up his enrolment issues or work for some periods;
d.The applicant was unable to study due to financial hardship; and
e.His educational provider refused to issue him with a release letter so he could attend another course.
Attached with his response was an email from his educational provider dated 24 March 2023; a screen shot of a transaction dated 14 September 2022; a screenshot of an unsuccessful payment on 15 September 2022; and photographs of the applicant’s face.
On 19 June 2024, the delegate found that the applicant had not been enrolled in a full-time registered course since 29 March 2023. They found that the applicant had not complied with condition 8202(2)(a) of their visa and that the ground for cancellation under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act existed. They considered a range of circumstances, including the applicant’s response to the NOICC and his enrolment in a new course and concluded that the grounds for cancelling the applicant’s visa outweighed the reasons not to cancel the visa.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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.
Evidence before the Tribunal
The Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced to the Department and Tribunal, including the applicant’s oral evidence at hearing. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s record in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) and travel movement records.
During the hearing the applicant re-submitted the documents provided to the Department, including the full text of the email from his educational provider dated 24 March 2023 which is as follows:
Dear RUBIN KARKI
Warning Letter 2: Due to Misconduct on Non Payment of Fees
When you commenced your course with Macallan College Pty Ltd t/a Macallan College you signed a contract that you would abide by your visa conditions and Australian legislation for holders of student visas including the ESOS Framework: the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 as amended, the National Code 2008 and Macallan College policies and procedures the College Student Code of Behaviour.
The amount of $5,116.68 is still outstanding and you do not appear to have contacted the College in relation to this matter. This letter is to formally advise you in breach of student visa condition 8516, National Code standard 9.3.2 and Macallan College Code of Behaviour. Under the terms of Student Visa condition 8516, you must continue to satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.
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).
The applicant gave oral evidence that he was not enrolled in a full-time registered course since 29 March 2023. The applicant did not dispute that he had not complied with condition 8202(2) of his visa. This accords with PRISM records and information contained in the delegate’s decision record.
Therefore on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in and did not have a confirmation of enrolment (COE) in a full-time registered course from 29 March 2023 while the holder of a student visa. It follows the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) exists. As this ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal has proceeded to consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised.
At hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his personal circumstances, enrolment and study history, the reasons that led to his non-enrolment, why he was not enrolled in the relevant period and the discretionary criteria. The Tribunal asked him whether there was any other relevant matter the Tribunal should consider or whether there was anything else he wished to raise which had not be adequately covered during the hearing.
Tribunal Hearing
The applicant has never been married. He is currently single and has no dependent children. His family in Nepal comprises of his mother and brother. His parents divorced in 2019 and he has no contact with his father. In Australia the applicant has a cousin who has applied for permanent residency due to his partner being an Australian permanent resident.
The applicant completed secondary school in Nepal but has no formal qualifications. He told the Tribunal that he came to Australia in November 2018 to study a Diploma of Information Technology (IT) which he completed between 20 January 2020 and 22 March 2020. He acknowledged this was the only course he has completed whilst on a student visa.
Pursuant to s 359A of the Act, the Tribunal advised that there was some information that would be the reason or a part of the reason to affirm the decision under review. That information was that PRISM records indicated that since being granted the student visa on 30 November 2022, that the applicant has not completed any courses whilst the holder of that visa and had a series of COEs cancelled due to a change in his student details, non-payment of fees and non-commencement of studies. PRISM records indicated that he:
a.Enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Network Security between 30 March 2020 and 28 March 2021 but the COE was cancelled due to non-payment of fees;
b.Enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery between 16 November 2020 and 15 May 2022 and again between 17 May 2021 and 14 November 2022 and a third time between 6 June 2022 and 3 December 2023 but each of the COEs were cancelled due to unsatisfactory course completion;
c.Enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management between 11 July 2022 and 8 January 2023 but the COE was cancelled due to a change in his student details;
d.Enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management between 14 November 2022 and 15 May 2023 but the COE was cancelled due to non-commencement of studies; and
e.A Diploma of Hospitality Management between 5 February 2024 and 4 August 2024 but the COE was cancelled due to non-commencement of studies.
This information was relevant to the review because it may indicate that the applicant’s purpose of being in Australia was not to study in this period. A consequence of relying upon this information was that the Tribunal may decide to affirm the decision under review. The applicant was invited to comment on this information orally or in writing, at hearing or later.
The applicant did not dispute the records. He claimed he did not complete his courses due to the COVID-19 pandemic, money problems and his parents divorcing. The Tribunal indicated it had difficulty accepting that the COVID-19 pandemic was the reason for his non-enrolment given his student visa was granted on 30 November 2022, well after the COVID-19 restrictions ended. The Tribunal also indicated that it had difficulty accepting his parents divorce contributed to his non-enrolment given they divorced in 2019, three years prior to the grant of his student visa and four years prior to the non-enrolment period.
When asked whether there was a compelling need for him to stay in Australia to complete his courses and why he could not study them in Nepal, he claimed there was no seafood cookery education and therefore he needed to remain in Australia to gain knowledge. When asked about his future employment plans he claimed he had a dream to operate a seafood restaurant in Nepal. The Tribunal indicated that it had some doubts that this was a realistic future career option, noting that Nepal is a landlocked country and has a remote and mountainous terrain making access difficult. The applicant responded that he could transport seafood by road from China using a special cooler.
The Tribunal noted to the applicant that he had been onshore in Australia for over six years years, but during that time had only undertaken one short two-month course and achieved little progress. The applicant was asked if he wished to comment. The applicant claimed he had family problems and had Attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD). When asked if he had any evidence to support an ADHD diagnosis he replied in the negative but claimed that he had conducted a google search and his symptoms were consistent.
When asked how the applicant had financially supported himself whilst in Australia, he gave evidence that since 2020 (after the first COVID wave) until the time of hearing he had worked at a restaurant, working 30 hours per week during COVID-19 and 20 hours per week after restrictions lifted. When the Tribunal asked the applicant why he was able to work but not study he claimed he had to work to pay his fees and that if he did not work he would have gone into a deeper depression as he loves work.
When the Tribunal indicated that he did not maintain an enrolment for over 14 months and if he wished to comment, he claimed he had to travel overseas due to his mother being ill and claimed the teaching staff at his educational provider were racist and therefore he did not want to attend class. When asked to elaborate on his claims of racism, he stated his teacher told him ‘You don’t know these things’ and laughed at him in front of his class.
When asked about the circumstances in which the grounds of cancellation arose he replied:
a.His mother’s ill health: He claimed she had been unwell since September 2022 and had a hysterectomy in early 2023 and was the reason for his trip to Nepal. When asked why he did not contact his educational provider to defer on compelling and compassionate reasons, he claimed he did not know he could ask for a deferral and had a different migration agent at the time;
b.Technical issues paying his tuition fees: He claimed that he had tried to pay his tuition fees but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal referred to the reversal payment on 15 September 2022 where funds were returned to the applicant’s bank account. The Tribunal indicated there was no evidence to show the applicant had proactively sought to resolve the issue with his educational provider until being contacted six months later on 24 March 2023 (the contents of which confirm the same) and asked what he did, if anything. The applicant claimed he tried to contact his college but they refused to assist. He had no evidence to support these claims;
c.Medical condition; The applicant claimed he had an MSG allergic reaction to noodles. When asked when he became unwell and the duration, he claimed it occurred in January 2023 and lasted two to three weeks. He did not seek medical treatment or obtain a formal medical diagnosis. He had no medical evidence to support his claims, stating he was too embarrassed to go outside but took photographs of his face. The Tribunal asked how his condition contributed to his inability to maintain an enrolment. He claimed his face was so puffed up he could not see anything. The Tribunal indicated this was inconsistent with his evidence that he had been able to work at a restaurant 20 hours per week. The Tribunal also noted to the applicant that this only accounted for two at best three weeks out of the 14 month non-enrolment period. The applicant then claimed his condition was reoccurring and that he could not read or write due to his vision. When asked if he advised his educational provider about his health condition he replied in the negative; and
d.His educational provider refusing to release him from his course: The applicant claimed that he was not issued a release letter from his educational provider and that he tried to speak to them as soon as his COE was cancelled. The Tribunal indicated that an educational provider has discretion to refuse a request to release a student. The Tribunal also indicated he could have requested the release prior to becoming non-compliant.
When asked if he feared returning to Nepal, the applicant claimed he feared his father who was a drunk and had been to gaol for street violence. The applicant claimed he had to work to help his mother who had experienced problems since divorcing his father in 2019.
The applicant was asked whether there were any other relevant matters the Tribunal should consider or whether there was anything else he wished to raise which had not be adequately covered during the hearing. The applicant asked that he be given a further chance to complete his studies and for the Tribunal not to cancel his visa. The applicant stated he had to work to support his family.
Consideration of discretion
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. The prescribed matters are set out in the attachment to this decision.
Prescribed Considerations
The prescribed matters under reg 2.43A (a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) relate to circumstances where there is a written certification by a certifying entity in which the applicant has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter. There is no evidence to support that these prescribed matters are relevant considerations for this applicant.
Regulation 2.43A(d) requires the Tribunal to consider whether there is evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa.
The applicant was granted a student visa for the purposes of studying in Australia. Based on the applicant’s oral evidence and PRISM records the Tribunal is satisfied that he was not complying with the purpose of the visa. The applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course since 29 March 2023 for over 14 months which the Tribunal considers to be a significant period of time. The requirement to be enrolled in a course of study goes to the core purpose of the visa. The Tribunal places significant weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
The applicant enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management on 5 February 2024. The Tribunal has concerns about his motivation for enrolling in this course at the time he did and is using the student visa to maintain an ongoing residency; noting he did not commence the studies and yet was able to work at a restaurant 20 hours per week to financially support himself and his mother. His enrolment was unsurprisingly cancelled. This leads the Tribunal to find that he was not and is no longer seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa which the Tribunal places considerable weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
Non-prescribed Considerations
Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including 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 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 was granted a student visa on 30 November 2022. The purpose of his travel and stay in Australia during that time was to be a student. Although he was enrolled in multiple courses in Australia he did not complete any of them. All of his course enrolments have been cancelled for various reasons and at different times. The Tribunal regards his period of non-enrolment of over 14 months to be significant.
Conversely, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has been able to work continuously at a restaurant since 2020 until present between 20 and 30 hours per week. When asked why he was able to work but not study during his period of non-enrolment, he claimed it was because he loved to work and if he did not work he would go into a bigger depression and he had to pay his tuition fees. The Tribunal has considered but does accept this to be an adequate reason for his poor enrolment record. This is particularly so, noting one of his enrolments was cancelled due to non-payment of fees and given he has been able to work in an associated hospitality field. Overall, his conduct raises serious concerns that he is using the student visa to maintain a residency in Australia to work and earn money rather than study.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s reasons for his lack of course progression and poor enrolment record, including the COVID-19 pandemic, his parent’s divorce and associated money problems, his mother’s health and claims of ADHD and racism at his college.
The Tribunal does not accept COVID-19 or his parent’s divorce as being reasons for his non-enrolment in the relevant period noting his student visa was granted on 30 November 2022, long after his parents divorced in 2019 and COVID-19 restrictions lifted in October 2021. The Tribunal has also had regard to the applicant’s claims that he has ADHD which made it difficult to study but rejects these claims as it is not supported by any medical evidence. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s mother was unwell from September 2022 and underwent surgery in early 2023, this does not adequately account for the non-enrolment period commencing on 29 March 2023 which lasted for over a 14 month period. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s claims that he was subject to racism by a teacher at his educational provider and this was the reason he did not attend class but does not accept his claims. When the Tribunal asked that applicant to elaborate, he was unable to identify any racist comments but rather referred to felling embarrassed in front of his classmates. Overall, the Tribunal found the applicant’s evidence in respect of these claims to be vague, unsatisfactory and unconvincing. This leads the Tribunal to find that his purpose of being in Australia during the non-enrolment period was not to study. Overall this weighs heavily in favour of his student visa being cancelled.
Whilst the applicant claimed he worked so as not to go into a ‘bigger depression’ he did not claim to be suffering from depression and no medical evidence was provided in support. The Tribunal therefore gives this little weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
The Tribunal has also considered whether there is a compelling need to stay in Australia and him wishing to finish his hospitality management/cookery courses. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claims that seafood cookery is not available in Nepal. No evidence was provided to support these claims. Whilst cookery teaching in Nepal may not be as good as in Australia, the Tribunal does not find this represents a compelling need to remain in Australia. Similarly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s desire to stay in Australia so that he can complete a course and not disappoint his family constitutes a compelling need to travel or remain in Australia. This weighs in favour of his student visa being cancelled.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant did not comply with Condition 8202 for a period of over 14 months which the Tribunal considers to be significant. It is a condition that goes to the very core of holding a student visa. His period of non-enrolment and therefore the extent of his non-compliance, whilst holding that visa was significant. This weighs in favour of his student visa being cancelled.
There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has not complied with any other condition of his visa(s). This weighs in favour of his student visa not being cancelled.
The degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s family may be disappointed in him and has spent some money on travel, accommodation, course fees and associated expenses being an international student in Australia. However, the applicant gave evidence that he has financially supported himself by working in Australia since 2020 which helps to offset some of the financial hardship the applicant and/or his family may otherwise experience. The Tribunal further notes a number of his enrolments were cancelled for non-payment of course fees suggesting a relatively limited financial investment in his education. As noted the applicant has only completed short two-month course, despite being onshore in Australia for over six years. The Tribunal does not accept that he has invested a lot of money to study in Australia or that the cancellation of his student visa places him in a perilous position that he could not extricate himself from.
The applicant told the Tribunal that he came to Australia to study and that he has dreams to operate his own seafood restaurant. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled he will be unable to complete his hospitality management/cookery courses in Australia. The Tribunal further accepts that seafood cookery in Australia may be better than in Nepal. As indicated above, the Tribunal does have some concerns about the viability of such a business given Nepal is a landlocked country. Notwithstanding he will be unable to finish his courses, the Tribunal gives this low weight against cancelling the visa.
Whilst the applicant gave evidence of having a cousin in Australia, he did not suggest they had a close relationship. The Tribunal notes his cousin’s visa is independent to that of the applicant. The Tribunal places limited weight in favour of not cancelling the student visa.
The circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose
The applicant’s non-enrolment gave rise to the grounds of cancellation. The Tribunal has considered his evidence including his mother’s health, technical issues paying his tuition fees, a medical condition and his educational provider refusing to release him from his course.
His mother’s medical condition was known for some time and she underwent surgery around January 2023 before the applicant’s non-enrolment period commenced and long before the applicant’s visa was cancelled. As put to the applicant at hearing, if he was unable to study he should have contacted his educational provider and requested a deferral. He also had the option to contact the Department. This weighs in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The applicant claimed he had technical issues paying his tuition fees. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that he was refunded $1,800 on 15 September 2022 approximately six months before his non-enrolment period commenced. There is no evidence to show that he sought to resolve the issue with his educational provider until being contacted on 24 March 2023. The contents of that email support the same. It is the responsibility of the visa holder to maintain a valid enrolment and ensure that fees are paid as required. Whilst the applicant claims to have suffered financial hardship no evidence was provided to show that the applicant had tried to come to a resolution with his educational provider. As such, the Tribunal gives this matter little weight.
The applicant claimed to have suffered from a medical condition as a result of stress and anxiety. No medical evidence was provided to support a medical diagnosis or treatment, the duration of his claimed illness and how it contributed to his inability to maintain his enrolment. The Tribunal has considered his oral evidence that he became unwell in January 2023 for approximately two to three weeks. As put to him at hearing, this did not account for his non-enrolment period since 29 March 2023 for 14 months and was inconsistent with his evidence of maintaining continuous employment working 20 hours per week. The applicant then claimed that the health issue was reoccurring and he was too embarrassed to go outside. The shifting and inconsistent course of the applicant’s evidence leaves the Tribunal entirely unconvinced that the applicant’s condition was reoccurring. The Tribunal did not find these claims to be credible. They are also unsupported by any medical evidence. The Tribunal does not consider these claims to be a satisfactory explanation for the extended duration in which he was not enrolled in a registered course. As such, the Tribunal gives this matter little weight.
The applicant claimed that he was not issued a release letter from his educational provider. As noted in the delegate’s decision and put to the applicant at hearing, Educational Providers are obligated to manage student visa holders within the ESOS Act and National Code of Practice Framework. The applicant claimed he requested a release from his course but it was refused. The Tribunal indicated that an educational provider has a discretion to refuse a request to release a student. The Tribunal also indicated he could have requested the release prior to becoming non-compliant. Overall, the Tribunal gives little weight to this matter.
For the reasons cited above, the Tribunal does not accept that the COVID-19 pandemic, his parents’ divorce in 2019 and associated money problems, claims of ADHD and alleged racism at his educational provider were reasons for his non-enrolment.
Overall, the Tribunal places some weight in favour of his student visa being cancelled.
The applicant’s past and present behaviour towards the Department
The applicant engaged positively with the Department by responding to the NOICC in a timely manner. There is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has not been cooperative in dealing with the Department in the past. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there would be any consequential cancellations under s 140
The applicant is single with no dependent children. The applicant gave evidence that his cousin has applied for permanent residency as his spouse is an Australian permanent resident and works as a registered nurse. There is no evidence that any other person’s visa would or may be cancelled if the applicant’s visa were cancelled. The Tribunal gives this factor some weight in favour of cancelling the applicant’s visa.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to cancellation
There are mandatory consequences in the case of the cancellation of the visa, including detention and removal from Australia, as well as difficulties in obtaining any further visas. If the visa remains cancelled the applicant would likely be granted a Bridging visa for a short period of time to allow him to finalise his affairs before returning to Nepal. If the applicant remained in Australia without a valid visa, he would be residing unlawfully and liable to detention and removal.
The applicant gave oral evidence that he intended to comply with any lawful direction to depart Australia, and therefore the likelihood of the applicant being detained is remote.
If the visa is cancelled, the applicant may be subject to a restriction under s 48 of the Act and the applicant would be restricted to applying for a limited class of visas under the Act. Under public interest criterion (PIC) 4013 he also may in some cases not be granted a further visa for three years from the date of cancellation. The cancellation may also restrict the applicant’s future ability to make a valid application for any visa other than those prescribed in reg 2.12 while onshore. There is no restriction on the visa he can apply for once he leaves Australia.
The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation.
When asked by the Tribunal whether he had any fear of returning to Nepal he replied that he feared his father who was a drunk and had been to gaol. When asked when he last had contact with him he claimed it was by phone before he came to Australia.
While these circumstances do not appear to breach the non-refoulement requirement or similar provisions, the Tribunal is of the view that any claims can be considered via a protection visa application if he fears the relevant harm on return. The Tribunal is of the view that this is the appropriate mechanism for assessing his claims if he fears return to India.
There is also no information before the Tribunal that a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa would be in breach of the Conventions of the Rights of the Child (CROC) or that it would be in contravention of the Convention Against Torture. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Any other matters
There are no other relevant matters raised by the applicant or in the information before the Tribunal.
Conclusion
Considering the circumstances individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant’s student visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  12 August 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Yubaraj Upreti (MARN: 2318226)
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.