LI (Migration)

[2018] AATA 3235

LI (Migration) [2018] AATA 3235 (10 July 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Kong Yeung LI

CASE NUMBER:  1703046

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/135214

MEMBER:Jennifer Cripps Watts

DATE:10 July 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 10 July 2018 at 12:31pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Genuine temporary entrant – career direction changed – long list of cancelled enrolments – VET qualifications – time spent in Australia – possibility of studying in home country – false and misleading information – previous visa cancellations – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 500.212, 500.217, Schedule 4 PIC 4020

CASES

Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35
Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274
Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 17 February 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 11 January 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

4. The visa application that is the subject of this review was refused on 17 February 2017.  The applicant applied for review by the Tribunal on 22 February 2017, within time, and provided the Tribunal with a copy of the Department’s decision to refuse his student visa.  The applicant’s matter was constituted to this member and, on 13 April 2018, the Tribunal sent the applicant a written invitation to attend his hearing scheduled on 7 June 2018.    

5. The invitation to the hearing also included information relating to what types of evidence and statements the applicant should consider providing to the Tribunal before the hearing, specifically addressing the issue of whether he “...is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student by referring to Direction No.69.”  The Tribunal attached a copy of an extract from the Migration Act 1958, Direction Number 69 – Assessing the Genuine Temporary Entrant criterion for Student Visa and Student Guardian Visa Applications to the invitation, for his ease of reference.  The applicant was informed in the cover letter to the hearing invitation that he should refer to the delegate’s written decision and the reasons why he did not meet the criteria for the grant of the student visa.  He was also informed he should provide a copy of his current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE). 

6. The applicant responded to the hearing invitation indicating he would attend the hearing and provided the Tribunal with some documents in support of his application prior to the hearing.  The Tribunal requested, prior to the hearing, that the applicant provide copies of his payslips and tax return summaries for 2016, 2017 and 2018.  The information was provided and has been considered.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 7 June 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

8. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent, Mr Wenwei Zheng, Migration Agent Registration Number 1570029.  Mr Zheng attended the hearing.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student: cl.500.212. The delegate found that the applicant did not satisfy cl.500.212 and refused the visa for this reason. The Tribunal has also considered whether the applicant meets the Public Interest Criteria in cl.500.217.

    Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

11. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    (a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

    (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

    (iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    (iv)any other relevant matter; and

    (b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

    (ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

    (c)of any other relevant matter.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

12. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

13. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) criterion.

14. The Tribunal has considered all relevant facts and matters and holds substantial concerns that the applicant is using the student visa programme to maintain residence.  A distinction is drawn between whether he intends to genuinely study, which is a claim made by the applicant, and the requirement that he is a genuine temporary applicant.  That is, that he considers his time in Australia to be temporary and the evidence satisfies the Tribunal that the applicant is a GTE when regard is had to relevant matters in Direction No.69.

    Background

15. The applicant is a 27 year old citizen of China.  He has resided onshore since 2007, holding student and associated bridging visas.  He has also held other temporary visas, including a subclass 485 temporary graduate visa and a subclass 487 (dependant) temporary skilled visa.  In the same month as his latest student visa application was made, the applicant also applied for a 487 skilled visa as the primary applicant to work in the field of real estate in Sydney, nominated by the company he was working for – the nomination was refused. 

16. The 487 visa was refused on 14 January 2017.  The applicant applied for the student visa that is the subject of this review intending to study real estate and giving his career goal as working in real estate in China.   He still did the course that he had intended to do when he made the applicant, a Certificate IV in Property Services (Real Estate), commencing in January 2017 and finishing in June 2017. 

17. However, in October 2017, the applicant decided to change course and career direction, claiming that he now intends to do a commercial cookery course and then a Diploma in Hospitality Management so that he can return to China and takeover his parents’ restaurant business, the Sun Chateau Wenzhou Restaurant.  He said restrictions on real estate investment for Chinese citizens had resulted in a downturn in real estate transactions and that, for this reason, he had revised his career goal because working in real estate would no longer be profitable.

18. It is mentioned in the delegate’s decision that in 2011 the applicant had a student visa cancelled under the general power of s.116 of the Act for failing to comply with his visa conditions, specifically condition 8202, which requires, essentially, that a student visa holder enrols in a course, maintains enrolment and continues to meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.  He applied to the Tribunal for review of the 2011 student visa cancellation.  The Department’s decision to cancel his student visa was affirmed by the Tribunal (then the MRT) in 2012.  The applicant next applied for judicial review in 2012 and was unsuccessful in the Federal Circuit Court.  He returned to China in 2012 and was granted a subclass 485 temporary skilled visa in October of the same year.  The applicant returned to Australia a few months later, in February 2013, holding a 485 skilled visa that ceased in October 2013.  He was then granted a 457 skilled visa as a dependant of his wife.  That visa ceased on 26 May 2016.  The applicant was next granted a subclass 572 temporary student visa in May 2016 that ceased in January 2017.

19. The applicant is a citizen of China and came to Australia as a high school student in 2007.    Australia has been his primary place of residence since then.  He has held temporary or associated bridging visas during the 11 or so years he has resided in Australia.  The Tribunal has significant concerns about the applicant’s motives for pursing the grant of a student visa.   He has been working for a company called Compass Realty since 2015 and, in January 2017, his skilled visa was refused because the nomination was not approved.  He had, up until the time the student visa was refused in 2017, had a clear career path – real estate.

20. When the student visa was refused, despite having studied real estate and having gained fairly extensive and relevant work experience while living in Australia, he decided to enrol in a commercial cookery course and Diploma of Hospitality Management.  The applicant claims that he now intends to return to China to work in hospitality with his parents, helping to manage their restaurant.  He has provided no evidence that he made any inquiries or even considered study in China where, it is reasonable to think, he could work in his parents’ business, thereby gaining relevant work experience.  He has elected, instead, to remain living in Australia, studying hospitality but continuing to work part-time in real estate. 

21. The applicant has had a previous cancellation for breach of the conditions of a student visa.  He has long list of cancelled course enrolments, noted in the delegate’s decision, including courses from Diploma to Masters level, in the fields of Commerce, Management, Business Administration and Marketing.  He has changed career direction from real estate to restaurant management.  The applicant says that his father is suffering ill health and that he is needed to go back and take over.  He provided no reliable evidence that his father’s health requires that the applicant return to China to take over the business.

22. If the student visa that is the subject of this review is granted, with a prospective end date of November 2019, the applicant will have been onshore as a temporary visa holder for more than 13 years.  In the Tribunal’s view, his academic history is less than satisfactory.  He has not held student visas for the whole 12 years.  From 2013 to 2016 he held temporary skilled visas and this has been taken into account.  From 2006 to the time of this decision, the applicant has had many course cancellations and has completed only the following courses:

    a.2006-2009      Academic English, short courses

    b.2010-2011      Foundation Certificate of Commerce, one year

    c.2012               Graduate Certificate Business Administration, three months

    d.2016               Certificate IV Property Services, one year

23. He has completed only short and relatively inexpensive courses over a very long period of time and is, at the time of this decision, enrolled in an unrelated field to the study he has previously undertaken.  He is enrolled in commercial cookery and hospitality management.  In addition, the Tribunal does not consider that his academic progress, over such a long period of time, to support a finding that he has been a satisfactory student who has progressed academically.  By 2019, if the visa is granted and the applicant completes the hospitality course, he will have not progressed beyond VET level study and will only have achieved a Diploma level qualification.  

24. It is the Tribunal’s view that the applicant has a propensity to apply for any visa that will allow him to remain onshore.  Relevantly, apart from the student visas, he has applied for and been granted a subclass 485 visa at around the time his student visa was cancelled in 2012.  He applied for, and was granted, as a dependant, a subclass 457 temporary skilled visa that ceased in 2016.  Shortly after that ceased, he applied for a subclass 457 visa as the primary applicant – the nomination was not approved and the application was consequentially refused.  The applicant has, since 2012, applied for three temporary graduate or skilled visas so he could work in Australia. 

25. The Tribunal’s strongly held view is that the applicant is motivated to remain in Australia to work until such time as he can find a pathway to a more permanent arrangement.  The Tribunal is not satisfied, in his circumstances, considering his visa history and the time he has lived in Australia – now 12 years – indicates that he considers residing in Australia to be temporary.  Although he has visited his home country, the applicant has spent no time living in any other country for any significant period as an adult.  He came to Australia when he was 16 years of age and has resided in Australia for all of his adult life, from the age of 16 to the age of 27. 

26. The applicant’s parents live in China and have visited him in Australia on occasions.  The applicant has made trips back to his home country most years since his first arrival onshore holding a temporary student visa, from 2006 to 2018.  It is accepted that he has maintained ties with his parents.  However, given that the applicant is now 27 years of age and has not attended school (since he was 15) or university in China, and nor has he worked there, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he has anything other than very limited social or other personal ties to his home country.

27. At the time of application, the applicant said he had a career planned in property and real estate.  He was studying in this field and had also completed an MBA – he worked for a real estate company in Sydney.  He said at the hearing that he still works part-time for the same real estate company in Sydney.  He was asked why he is still working in real estate and said that he is still following up opportunities with Chinese clients and that later on, if he is doing the restaurant business, they might be possible investors.  The Tribunal’s view is that this points to his being less interested in hospitality as a career than he would have the Tribunal believe.

28. Notwithstanding the evidence he has provided relating to his job offer and plans to work in his parents’ restaurant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is committed to working in hospitality in China and would expect that if it is now hospitality that he is pursuing as a career, he might take the opportunity to get some relevant work experience while he studies (other than any work he does as part of his course requirements or assessment).  It is more likely, in the view of the Tribunal, that maintains his preference for working in real estate, notwithstanding that he is studying commercial cookery and says he will return to China to work for his parents in their restaurant. 

29. The applicant’s career goal at the time of application was to finish the real estate course and return to China to set up a real estate company selling Australian real estate.  He says that Chinese government restrictions on the ability of its citizens to purchase real estate overseas, relevantly in Australia, has meant he has had to revise his career plans which is why he now plans to work in hospitality, with his parents.  He appears, on the evidence, also to have changed his career goal around the time he unsuccessfully applied for a skilled visa working for the same real estate company, Compass.  The company’s nomination was refused and the applicant’s skilled visa application was refused as a result, in January 2017.  The Tribunal’s view is that he has changed direction to maintain residence, not because he genuinely intends to pursue a hospitality career.

30. The applicant’s new and revised career goal is to study commercial cookery and hospitality management so he can return to his home country and take over managing the family restaurant.  He has provided a job offer letter that states he has been offered a job, conditional upon his completing the Diploma in Hospitality Management.  He gave information at the hearing about things that are on the menu at the restaurant.  He provided some photographs of the restaurant.  These things have been considered.

31. However, the Tribunal is not persuaded this is a genuine job offer in all respects.  He says that he needs to study cooking because he needs to understand what a chef is going to do.  The applicant was asked if he is intending to obtain any relevant work experience while he studies cooking.  He said he hasn’t and isn’t planning to.    

32. At the time of application, the applicant was enrolled in a Certificate IV in Property Services claiming to be returning to his home country and work in real estate.  At the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in:

    a.02/10/2017 to 08/03/2019 Commercial Cookery

    b.11/03/2019 to 01/11/2019 Diploma of Hospitality Management

33. He provided a letter from Le Cordon Bleu, a Confirmation of Enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management (Commercial Cookery), commencing 13 July 2017 and finishing on 30 September 2019.  The total course fees were $59,667.  The course was cancelled and he instead enrolled in the two course at the Holmes Institute a few months later, with total tuition fees of around $23,000.  The Tribunal does not suggest that an applicant and student may not look for value.  However, given the concerns the Tribunal has about this applicant’s motivation for enrolment, it is viewed negatively that he enrolled in one course and then changed to a cheaper one soon after that also delayed his commencement and finish date by a number of months.

34. The applicant submits that he has chosen to study in Australia because of the quality of education and also because it will enhance his English language skills.  At the time of this decision, the applicant has resided in Australia for the best part of 12 years and is considered to have had ample opportunity to acquire and improve on his English language skills during that extended time.  He has provided no evidence that satisfies the Tribunal that he considered studying hospitality and/or commercial cookery in his home country.  He was asked if he had and said “no”.   He said that because his family’s restaurant is doing western food, it is important for him to be able to cook western because it is more marketable, for displays and the like.  He said the restaurant has on the menu food such as omelettes, steak, Minestrone soup and other Italian food.  The applicant was asked if he intends to be a cook at the restaurant and said he doesn’t.  The Tribunal does not accept that the commercial cookery course is relevant or necessary for him to work toward a career in restaurant management if he does not intend to work as a cook.  He could have gone straight into management, rather than, in the Tribunal’s view, extending his time onshore by enrolling in a commercial cookery course from October 2017 to March 2019, for 18 months.

1. It is reasonable to think that if the applicant had considered or chosen to study in his home country, he would have been able to gain some valuable work experience in his father’s restaurant business while studying a relevant course to progress to his new stated career goal of planning to take over managing the restaurant.  There has been no evidence provided that the applicant has any relevant work experience in hospitality. He says that one of the other shareholders’ in his father’s business agreed to him working in the business if he gets the Holmes qualifications - the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and Diploma of Hospitality Management.  There is no evidence of this condition being included in the offer of employment and the Tribunal does not accept the oral evidence about it as credible.

2. The Tribunal has considered all relevant facts and matters and, on the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.

   Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4020

4. The applicant was informed at the beginning of the hearing that the Tribunal had read the Department’s file relating to the student visa refusal that is the subject of this review and had formed a view, with regard to some answers he had provided in his online application, that the applicant had given false or misleading information.  It was explained that he must meet certain character requirements to be granted a student visa and was told that the Tribunal may consider this matter negatively and discuss it with him later in the hearing.  Later in the hearing, the Tribunal did discuss it with him.

5. To be granted a subclass 500 visa, the applicant must satisfy all the criteria, including 500.217 that means he needs to satisfy certain publish interest criteria.  Relevantly, the Tribunal refers to PIC 4020.

6. He was told that broadly speaking, to meet PIC 4020, it is required that:

   ·there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: PIC 4020(1); and

   ·the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and

   ·the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and

   ·neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).

7. The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.

   Has the applicant given, or caused to be given a bogus document, or information that
   is false or misleading in material particular?

8. The term ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ is defined in PIC 4020(5) and the term ‘bogus document’ is defined in s.5(1) of the Act (see the attachment to this decision). In contrast to the definition of ‘information that is false or misleading in a material particular’ in PIC 4020(5), the reference in the definition of bogus document to a document that was obtained because of a ‘false or misleading’ statement has no requirement that it be relevant to a criterion for the grant of the visa: Arora v MIBP [2016] FCAFC 35; Batra v MIAC [2013] FCA 274.

9. The requirement in PIC 4020(1) not to provide a bogus document, or false or misleading information, applies whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant: PIC 4020(3). It also applies whether or not the document or information was provided by the applicant knowingly or unwittingly.

10. While PIC 4020 refers to information that is false, in the sense of purposely untrue, it is not necessary for the Minister (or the Tribunal on review) to conclude that the applicant was aware the information was purposely untrue in order for PIC 4020 to be engaged. However, an element of fraud or deception by some person is necessary to attract the operation of the provision: Trivedi v MIBP [2014] FCAFC 42.

11. The applicant was asked, on the basis that he had a student visa cancelled in 2011, affirmed by the Tribunal and then had his appeal to the Federal Circuit Court dismissed in 2012 (mentioned in the delegate’s decision), why he had not disclosed this information in his written student visa application in 2017. The relevant questions and answers in the online application were read to the applicant and he was invited to comment or respond either at the hearing or a later time, having been given a s.359AA warning in line with the statutory wording.

12. Under the heading “Visa history” (at folio 7 of the Department file), appear the following questions and answers:

    a.Q:  “Has the applicant, or any person included in this application, held or currently hold a visa to Australia or any other country?”  A:  “No.”

    b.Q:  “Has the applicant, or any person included in this application, ever been in Australia or any other country and not complied with visa conditions or departed outside their authorised period of stay”?  A:  “No.”

    c.Q:  “Has the applicant, or any person included in this application, ever had an application for entry or further stay in Australia or any other country refused, or had a visa cancelled?”  A:  “No.”

13. The applicant did not comply with his student visa condition 8202, maintain enrolment, and the visa was cancelled.  The answers he gave to the above questions are considered by the Tribunal to be false and misleading in a material particular.

14. Further, in the section “Student declarations” (at Department folio 5), the applicant has indicated that he understood that “Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence”, but nonetheless did give false or misleading information about his previous student visa cancellation by answering “no” to the question asking if he had had a previous visa cancelled.  And, in the section “Declarations”, again indicated that he understood that “Giving false or misleading information is a serious offence”, and answered in the affirmative that he had “…provided complete and correct information in every detail on this form, and on any attachments to it.”

15. It was put to the applicant, under s.359AA of the Act as adverse information. The applicant was told that, as he had had a student visa cancelled, it appeared he had provided false or misleading information in his current application, in a material particular (for assessment of the criteria under cl.500.212), by not declaring his previous visa 2011 student visa cancellation. The applicant was told that this would be a reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision to refuse his student visa.

16. The applicant was told by the member that to be granted a 500 visa he needs to satisfy the character requirements and that this requires that he does not provide false or misleading information.  He was reminded that the requirement could be waived, as he was advised at the beginning of the hearing, on the basis that there are compelling and compassionate circumstances that would affect an Australian citizen or permanent resident or that would affect the interests of Australia.  He was offered the opportunity to take some time to speak to his representative before deciding if he wished to respond at the hearing or ask for more time to respond later.  There was short adjournment during which time the applicant consulted with his representative.  He returned to the hearing room and elected to respond at the hearing.

17. The applicant gave oral evidence claiming that it was in the interests of an Australian citizen that the requirement he meet PIC 4020 be waived.  He said he worked for the real estate agency, Compass, made a profit for them and said that he’s done deals that were beneficial to the company.  The applicant said he has referred Chinese investors to Compass.  The applicant apologised for not providing information about his previous visa cancellation in the 2017 student visa application.  The Tribunal has considered his oral submissions and accepts, on the face of it, that the applicant may be an asset to the company he works for.  However, it is the view of the Tribunal that his duties and the contribution he made are not so specialised or of a type that could not be performed by a competent real estate or business person, with or without a Chinese background.  The Tribunal’s view is that the company would not be so adversely affected by the applicant not working for them as to constitute compelling and compassionate reasons for the Public Interest Criteria to be waived.

18. The applicant gave oral evidence that his agent, someone called Martin (not the representative of record at the time of this decision) filled in the 2017 student visa application form and that the applicant had not informed him of the 2011 student visa cancellation.  It is incumbent on the applicant to ensure that the information in his visa application is complete and correct and the Tribunal finds that he provided information that was false and misleading in a material particular, either to his agent, in the application or both.  

19. It was incumbent on the applicant, in the Tribunal’s view, to ensure his agent had all relevant information to lodge his visa application and that he was sure that all relevant information had been provided. Given the number of visa applications this applicant has made, it is not considered plausible that he did not know he needed to tell his agent about the previous student visa cancellation. He declared, upon lodgment of the application, that his application had complete and correct information in it. The Tribunal does not accept it was innocent error that the information about the previous student visa cancellation was not included in the application. The information related to the applicant’s record of compliance with a previous visa condition: cl.500.212(b)(i).

20. On the basis of the above, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4020 for the purposes of cl.500.212.

21. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    Jennifer Cripps Watts
    Member