Maliangkay (Migration)

The applicant, Maliangkay, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed the refusal of his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The refusal was based on the applicant's failure to maintain enrolment in a registered course, a criterion for the visa. The applicant had not responded to a notice issued under s 359(2) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) inviting him to provide information or evidence regarding his enrolment status.

The primary legal issue before the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia was whether the AAT had erred in law in affirming the delegate's decision. Specifically, the court considered whether the AAT had failed to adequately consider the applicant's submissions regarding his enrolment and whether the AAT's finding that the applicant had not provided a satisfactory explanation for his lack of enrolment was unreasonable or unsupported by evidence.

The court found that the AAT had properly considered the material before it, including the applicant's submissions. It was open to the AAT, on the evidence presented, to conclude that the applicant had not satisfied the criterion relating to maintaining enrolment in a registered course and had not provided a satisfactory explanation for this failure. The AAT's decision was therefore not affected by an error of law.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.