Lee (Migration)

In the matter of *Lee (Migration)*, the applicant sought review of a decision not to grant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had failed to provide requested information to the decision maker and was not enrolled in a registered course of study, lacking a current confirmation of enrolment. The case was heard by Vanessa Plain, a Member of the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, specifically the requirement under clause 500.211 of the Regulations that the applicant be enrolled in a course of study at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's obligation to provide sufficient information to enable the decision maker to establish the relevant facts.

The Tribunal reasoned that it is the applicant's responsibility to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met, and that while the onus of proof is not strictly applicable in administrative decision-making, the applicant must supply the relevant facts. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had confirmed holding a Confirmation of Enrolment at the time of their initial application to the Department, but there was no recent evidence before the Tribunal to satisfy the requirement of current enrolment in a registered course of study, as defined by the Regulations. As the applicant did not claim to meet any alternative criteria within clause 500.211, nor the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student Guardian) visa, the Tribunal was unable to be satisfied that the visa criteria were met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.