MALOLES (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training visa. The applicant was enrolled in a Certificate IV in Business, a Diploma of Business, and an Advanced Diploma of Business, with the latter being the principal course of study. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the requirements to be considered a "genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student," as stipulated by clause 572.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the evidentiary requirements outlined in Schedule 5A of the Regulations, given that the applicant was not an "eligible vocational education and training student" under clause 572.223(1A). This involved assessing whether the applicant provided sufficient evidence regarding English language proficiency and financial capacity, as prescribed for the highest assessment level applicable to the applicant's course of study. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had access to sufficient funds to meet the costs and expenses of their proposed stay in Australia.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant, not being an eligible VET student, was required to meet the criteria in clause 572.223(2) by providing evidence in accordance with Schedule 5A. The Tribunal found that the applicant met the requirements of clause 572.223(2)(a) and (c). Clause 572.223(2)(a) pertains to providing evidence in accordance with Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level, and clause 572.223(2)(c) relates to having access to sufficient funds as demonstrated in Schedule 5A.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to the delegate for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant met the criteria specified in clauses 572.223(2)(a) and 572.223(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.