Maiztegui (Migration)

[2018] AATA 2024

Maiztegui (Migration) [2018] AATA 2024 (13 April 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Inaki Maiztegui

CASE NUMBER:  1700416

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/2719109

MEMBER:M. A. Jackson

DATE:13 April 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 13 April 2018 at 4:25pm

CATCHWORDS
Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Overseas Students Health Cover– Decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.215, 500.218, Schedule 8, condition 8501

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 on 20 December 2016 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 17 August 2016. 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.500.215 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because he did not provide evidence of adequate arrangements in Australia for health insurance during the period of his intended stay in Australia (until 01 September 2017).

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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.

6. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the enrolment requirement of Clause 500.211 of the Migration Regulations.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 11 April 2018 in relation to Overseas Students Health Cover. He provided a Certificate of Insurance from Allianz Global Assistance for Overseas Visitors Health Cover – Visitors Plus and Basic Extras with a start date of 22 January 2018 and no end date. He did not provide a Certificate of Insurance for Overseas Students Health Cover in accordance with visa condition 8501 of Schedule 8 of the Migration Regulations.

8. The applicant provided evidence to the Tribunal that he had been awarded a Bachelor of Science degree with a major in Ecology by the University of Queensland within the period of his Bridging Visa A (class WA) granted on 13 October 2016. He had then considered studying a Master’s degree in a related field.

9. The applicant was asked at the hearing if he was currently enrolled in a course of study as required by the mandatory criterion in clause 500.211(a) and the applicant responded, no, that he was not currently enrolled in a course of study.

10. The applicant gave evidence that he had sought to enrol in a Master’s level degree but had not successfully enrolled.

11. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he understood that not being enrolled in a course of study meant that he did not meet a mandatory visa criterion. The applicant responded yes, he understood. The applicant also confirmed that he understood that the issue before the Tribunal had now changed to whether he was enrolled in a course of study.

12. The applicant did not seek from the Tribunal further time to gain enrolment and said he had a current working holiday visa (TZ-417 granted 22 December 2017). He said he had resolved to remain in Australia where he had a partner and a shelter dog, and where he wished to reside for a further period of time. The applicant advised that beyond that, he did not intend to return to his home in Argentina but would instead seek to go elsewhere, perhaps to Europe, for a period of six months.

13. The Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, clause 500.211 is met.

14. 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

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

    M. A. Jackson  Member