Lama (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by Sarita Lama and Prakrit Shrestha of a decision not to grant them Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas. The review was conducted by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Peter Haag. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant, Sarita Lama, met the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, specifically concerning her enrolment in a registered course of study.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant, Sarita Lama, satisfied the primary criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, as set out in clause 500.211 of the Regulations, which requires the applicant to be enrolled in a registered course of study at the time of the decision. A related issue was whether the dependant applicant, Prakrit Shrestha, satisfied the criteria for a student visa, contingent on the primary applicant meeting her visa requirements.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 500.211(a) mandates enrolment in a registered course of study, defined as a full-time registered course. The applicant's last valid enrolment in a Bachelor of Professional Accounting course had been cancelled on 21 April 2016. Despite a specific request from the Tribunal for information regarding current enrolment, the applicant failed to provide a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) or any other evidence of current enrolment in a registered course. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of clause 500.211. As Sarita Lama did not meet the primary criteria, Prakrit Shrestha, as a dependant, could not be considered a member of the family unit of a person holding a student visa, and therefore also failed to satisfy the relevant criteria for a student visa.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.