Mandeep Kumar (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5643

Mandeep Kumar (Migration) [2018] AATA 5643 (6 December 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Mandeep Kumar

CASE NUMBER:  1701850

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/3806132

MEMBER:Sean Baker

DATE:6 December 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

Statement made on 06 December 2018 at 1:41pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas – Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa – genuine student – enrolment ceased without applicant’s knowledge – gap in studies – payment to college during non-enrolment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 119, 140
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 8 Condition 8202; rr 1.40, 2.43

CASES

MIMA v Hou [2002] FCA 574

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 24 January 2017 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa under s.116 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(fa)(i) on the basis that the applicant was not, or was likely not to be, a genuine student. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled. The applicant provided a copy of the decision record and a copy of the notification of cancellation to the Tribunal.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 October 2018 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

4. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. Under s.116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s.116(1)(fa)(i). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.

   Does the ground for cancellation exist?

6. A visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(fa)(i) if the Minister is satisfied that the holder of a Student visa is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student. Alternatively, it may be cancelled under s.116(1)(fa)(ii) if the Student visa holder has engaged, is engaging, or is likely to engage, while in Australia, in conduct (including omissions) not contemplated by the visa.

7. In MIMA v Hou [2002] FCA 574, the Court held that the ‘genuine student’ concept in section 116(1)(fa)(i) is ‘directed to circumstances where a student visa holder has been in literal compliance with the visa conditions… yet has not conducted him or herself as a genuine student for instance in relation to behaviour at lecturers [sic], and is generally occupying a place in a tertiary institution which could well or potentially be taken up by a genuine student’ (per Conti J at [32]).

8. For matters where the notice of proposed cancellation under s.119 was sent on or after 27 March 2010, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker may have regard in determining whether the ground for cancellation under s.116(1)(fa) exists: s.116(1A), r.2.43(1C) and (1D) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The prescribed matters are set out in the attachment to this decision.

9. This is not a case in which the prescribed matters are in issue. It is clear that the matters which may be considered go beyond the prescribed matters: s.116(1A).

10. As set out in the decision record which the applicant provided to the Tribunal:

    Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicates that MANDEEP KUMAR has not maintained the study plan that he outlined when he applied for his current subclass 572 student visa.

    The information before me indicates that MANDEEP KUMAR was granted a Student (Temporary) Vocational Education and Training Sector (subclass 572) visa which was granted on 24 April 2015.

    When MANDEEP KUMAR applied for the visa his study plan was:

    -    Diploma of Marketing (COE; 6FDA5659) with South Pacific Institute (16 March 2015 – 28 February 2016)

    -    Advanced Diploma of Marketing (COE: 6FDA6019) with South Pacific Institute (14 March 2016 – 12 March 2017)

    PRISMS shows that he commenced the diploma of Marketing and studied between 16 March 2015 and 19 July 2015.

    On 22 July 2015, the enrolment in Diploma of Marketing (COE; 6FDA5659) was then cancelled due to variation reason: Change to a course in the same sector. Subsequently cancelling Advanced Diploma of Marketing (COE: 6FDA6019).

    On 22 July 2015 he obtained a new enrolment in Diploma of Marketing (COE: 74C73F50) course date between 20 July 2015 and 28 February 2016 and Advanced Diploma of Marketing (COE 74C74D46) course dates 14 March 2016 to 12 March 2017, with South Pacific Institute.

    PRISMS shows he studied this course between 20 July 2015 and 4 January 2016.

    On 8 January 2016, his COE in Diploma of Marketing (COE: 74C73F50) was cancelled due to “Student Notifies Cessation of Studies”. This subsequently cancelled his COE for Advanced Diploma of Marketing (COE 74C74D46)

    On 11 October 2016 he obtained a further enrolment in Diploma of Marketing (COE:  853F3452) course duration 26 September 2016 to 8 January 2017. PRISMS show that the course was completed on 8 January 2017. However, there is no evidence that he successfully completed this course.

    Therefore, Departmental records suggest:

    -    He applied for a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Vocational and Training Sector (subclass 572) visa which was granted 24 April 2015 to study Diploma of Marketing and Advanced Diploma of Marketing. He therefore did not maintain the study plan that he outlined when you applied for his student visa.

    -    He did not study between 8 January 2016 and 26 September 2016.This indicates that he had not studied for a cumulative period in excess of eight (8) months.

    -    He does not currently hold a valid CoE in a Vocational Education and Training Sector level course required by your visa.

    During the application process for this student visa MANDEEP KUMAR stated that his intended purpose of travel to and stay in Australia was to study. MANDEEP KUMAR was granted a TU-572 visa to study Diploma of Marketing and Advanced Diploma of Marketing however he did not complete both these courses.

    MANDEEP KUMAR did not study for a cumulative period in excess of eight (8) months between 8 January 2016 and 26 September 2016.

    MANDEEP KUMAR holds a TU-572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa but since 9 January 2017 has not enrolled in a Vocational Education and Training Sector course and has not enrolled in a course of study that is a principal course of a type specified for Subclass 572 visas by the Minister in an instrument made under regulation 1.40A.

    Based on the above assessment, I do not accept that MANDEEP KUMAR is a genuine student, given his lack study whilst remaining in Australia on a visa granted for the primary intention to study.

11. The applicant responded to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) sent to him by the Department. In that response he indicated he did not consider the ground existed, and said:

    He is a genuine student here in Australia for the purpose of studying.

    His enrolment in Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Marketing were cancelled on 22 July 2015 without his knowledge. The issuing of new enrolment in these same courses on 22 July 2015 was also unbeknown to him.

    His enrolment for Diploma and Advanced Diploma of marketing which were cancelled on 8 January 2016 were cancelled without his consent. South Pacific Institute never notified him of this.

    In October 2016, he was verbally informed that his enrolment was cancelled due to non payment of fees and the provider asked him to re-enrol. They charged him $3000 for his re-enrolment. He is confused why his COE would have been cancelled in January 2016 and the provider would be willing to re-enrol him after such a long time. He believes this is a violation of the Education Services for Overseas Students (ESOS) Act. He requests that the Department enquires as to the procedure followed by this institute to cancel his enrolment.

    He has successfully completed his Diploma of Marketing on 8 January 2017.

    He advises that South Pacific Institute was formerly called Rogue Institute.

    He has provided an article relating to his provider and students fleeing from this institute.

    When he originally enrolled with South Pacific Institute in March 2015, the institute informed him that they monitor a student via their course progress, that students are not required to attend any classes on a regular basis. If there was a problem with their assignments the institute would notify the students. He never received a call relating to poor academic progress.

    He states that the provider has been known to carry out assignments for the students and that this is a malpractice. He advises that when this was in the media he tried to change providers however he was worried about a delay in course completion if he changed education providers. He also thinks this should be investigated due to a breach of the ESOS Act.

    The applicant sets out his study history since 2009 and notes that he has completed 6 qualifications, has always complied with visa conditions, achieved satisfactory course progress and never breached any visa conditions.

12. The applicant also provided an article: Cook, H., “Thousands of students flee private colleges following state government crackdown” The Age, 11 August 2016, (accessed at .

13. A submission was provided prior to the hearing. This sets out several inconsistencies, the first being a payment made to South Pacific on 4 March 2016 by which date, according to the decision record, he was not enrolled. The submission asks how did they accept this payment towards studies if he was not enrolled. The submission goes on to note that the visa cancellation office had requested information from the provider about the inconsistency in information provided – whether the applicant had ceased studies as listed on PRISMS and what the note ‘student requests to change to new training package.’ The submission includes a number of articles about the provider, and also claims that in January 2017 the applicant paid $2000 towards a CoE for his advanced diploma of marketing but this was not provided and his visa was cancelled.

14. At the hearing I discussed these matters with the applicant. The applicant said he had arrived in Australia in August 2009 to do automotive technology and mechanics, having completed his Year 12 and then two years of his Bachelor of Arts in India. He said he had completed his certificate III in ESL, a certificate III in automotive mechanical technology, and a diploma of management all at Ashmark Institute. There was then a break, he explained that he had to transfer from Ashmark as it was closed down, so then he re-enrolled at Brighton Institute and completed his Diploma of Automotive management. He did a certificate IV in automotive technology and a diploma of business at Acumen Institute. He then enrolled for his Diploma of Marketing and Advanced Diploma of Marketing at South Pacific.

15. I asked if it was right that his Diploma had been cancelled on 22 July 2015. He said that was right but the provider did not inform him, they changed the course plans.

16. I then raised the information in the decision record that on 8 January 2016 his enrolment in the Diploma of marketing was cancelled due to ’student notifies cessation of studies’. The applicant said he had not been informed of this by his college – he had kept going to school regularly.

17. I asked, if that was the case, had he completed his diploma of marketing on 28 February 2016 as per his enrolment. He said he had started his advanced diploma. I asked had he completed his diploma. He said he had not. I asked if he has spoken to his provider about this and he said he had not, he said he started the next course. I asked if he had got a certificate or transcript of having completed his diploma. he said he had not. I asked if he had asked about that. he referred to the ‘statement of attainment’ for South Pacific Institute and said that they had informed him his enrolment was cancelled in January and then they had enrolled him in the same course again. He said he did not know he was not enrolled until September 2016. He said he had kept going to school, it was in September they told him his enrolment was cancelled, they told him to re-enrol in the Diploma of Marketing and so that is what he did.

18. I explained that I was having difficulty with his claim that he had been studying from January 2016 until September 2016 when the information before me did not appear to indicate this. He said when they told him his enrolment was cancelled he was shocked. I noted I found it difficult to believe that he would have thought in early 2016 that he had completed his Diploma of marketing and asked if he had received a certificate or transcript of completion in February or March 2016. He said he had not. I noted that I may come to the view that the course had been cancelled, as indicated in the decision record, because the applicant had notified cessation of studies and that he was therefore aware and that this was his choice. He said it was not and he was not aware.

19. The applicant claimed that the written receipt he provided to the Tribunal dated 4/3/16 for $1,000 showed that he was studying the Advanced Diploma at that time, and he also noted his Commonwealth Bank account had a transaction dated 12 January 2016 for $500 to the provider. I noted that these were evidence that he had paid money to his provider on these dates, but these may have been money owing for his previous course, and I was not sure that they indicated he was studying or thought he was studying after 8 January 2016.

20. Later in the hearing he said that the provider told him he owed money for his diploma. He said they had told him they would give him the certificate for the Diploma and Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) for the advanced diploma as well. I noted that this seemed a different explanation from what he had previously told me was his understanding of what the payments were for – that they were for the advanced diploma. He said that at that time he was really scared and they said they were going to help him.

21. I noted he had then obtained a CoE for the Diploma of marketing for study from 26 September 2016 to 8 January 2017. I asked if he had completed that Diploma. He said he had. I asked if he had any evidence of that and he again referred to the statement of attainment. I noted that one subject was only partially completed and that the statement indicated that the completed subjects formed ‘part’ of the Diploma of Marketing so I might doubt that the applicant had completed the Diploma. He said he had but that the college had closed down.

22. The applicant said he completed his Diploma on 8 January 2017. I noted that from this time until the cancellation he did not appear to have held a valid CoE, although I noted it was a short period from 9 January to 24 January 2017 when the visa was cancelled. He said that during that time he paid his provider $2, 000 for the CoE for the advanced diploma. He said that they told him they had already done the CoE but did not send him the CoE and by that time the visa was cancelled. I asked if he had a written receipt for this payment like the one he had provided to the Tribunal dated 4/3/16. He said he did not as they had said that time they would send him the receipt by email with the CoE.

23. I asked if he was saying that as far as he was aware in January 2017 he had a CoE for the advanced diploma already. He said that that was after September, they told him they had cancelled the enrolment in January, when he re-enrolled they just gave him the CoE for the diploma of marketing. I asked why he had not got the CoE for the advanced diploma re-issued in September/October 2016. He said he had not because his diploma course was finishing after two months. I asked again why he had not got the CoE for the advanced diploma at the same time as the CoE for the diploma in October 2016. He said because his course was supposed to finish in January 2017 and his visa cease date was May 2017. I asked would that not be an additional reason to get the advanced diploma CoE re-issued so that he could seek a visa extension. He said that there were still some months. I noted that I was still not sure I understood why he had not got the advanced diploma CoE re-issued  He said that he was scared and they gave him only the Diploma CoE and said by the time he finished they would give him the other.

24. I then returned to his claim that from the time he believed he had finished his diploma on 28 February 2016 he had started his advanced diploma and asked how he had been going to advanced diploma subjects he was not enrolled in and had not paid for. He responded that he had paid his fees twice already and they never informed him about what was really happening, he just went to school. I noted that I might take the view that in this period he had not been attending his provider and taking advanced diploma subjects and doing assignments in this period and might take the view that therefore he was not a genuine student for this period. He repeated that he had paid his fees in March 2016. I noted again that I might take the view that these were for money owed, rather than for that course.

25. I then raised with the applicant an additional concern. I noted that he had held student visas for 7 years taking a range of low level, comparatively cheap courses, and that this may indicate his motivation was to remain in Australia rather than to study and progress. He said his intention was to study. I asked what his plan was if he completed the proposed studies. He said after his diploma of marketing his plan was to go back to India and work in the automotive industry, this will help him market his own business after his experience of automotive technology. I noted that my understanding was that the Diploma of marketing would be gained by someone to manage or work in a team in a medium to large business in a marketing area,[1] which did not appear to be what he was indicating to me. He said that it would help him in his business.

    [1] See and

26. Later in the hearing the applicant said that he was a genuine student; he had been studying all the time, he never had an issue with any other institute, only this college which had been called a rogue institute. I asked if he had made a complaint to the Overseas Education Ombudsman or to ASQA about South Pacific. He said he had not. I asked why not if he was claiming that the institute had been responsible for all of the issues that we had been discussing. He said when he learned his enrolment was cancelled in October 2016 that was so shocking to him. I asked why he had not complained then and he said that they had re-enrolled him so he thought everything would be fine but then he received the cancellation. I noted he appeared to be saying that that cancellation was entirely the fault of the provider so had he made a complaint. He said no he was really lost. And scared of everything. He said that South Pacific had closed in January 2018.

1. The applicant’s representative said that the institute was not following guidelines. He said the surprising thing was that in October without any hesitation they enrolled him. He said that there had been no warning letters on the file.

2. I have carefully considered the evidence of the applicant. I remain concerned that he has not explained the circumstances surrounding the period in which he was not enrolled. Nor has he explained why he needs to undertake the proposed courses. Whilst this study plan was accepted by the Department, in the light of the period that he remained not enrolled, I think it legitimate to question what these things, together, indicate about his genuine intentions to study and his genuineness as a student.

3. I accept that South Pacific was a provider of concern to the Victorian state government in 2016 leading them to cancel their contracts for provision of services to South Pacific in August 2016 and that South Pacific closed down as the applicant said in January 2018. I note the article provided by the applicant indicates that most of the providers were still registered with ASQA at that time, and the applicant has claimed that he continued to study with this provider until at least December 2016/January 2017. As the delegate notes, the article provided also indicates that students affected were referred to their local TAFEs to continue courses.

4. I have carefully considered this information. It appears that there were concerns with South Pacific leading to action by the State Government and ultimately to the closure of South Pacific. However, I do not believe that this explains in whole or in part the behaviour of the applicant. He has not made a complaint to the relevant oversight bodies, which would have provided corroboration of much of his claims. I remain concerned that he claims that he continued studying for the eight months he did not hold a CoE, in the belief that he had completed his diploma and was studying his advanced diploma. I do not accept this claim because I think it would have been clear to the applicant that he had not, in fact, completed his diploma at the end of February 2016, as he was not issued a completed transcript or certificate for the diploma at that time. I do not accept his claim that the institution told him they would issue it later or needed money to issue this to him. I also do not accept this claim because I do not accept that, despite South Pacific being a poor provider that has been shut down, they would have allowed an applicant to attend and undertake assessment in a class that he was not enrolled in and that they could not charge him for. I do not accept that that money the applicant paid on 12 January from his Commonwealth account, the money he paid on 4 March 2016 for which he has a written receipt were for his advanced diploma but were payments towards his diploma, as he latterly claimed at the hearing. Given all of these concerns, I do not accept that the applicant was studying at this time, either his diploma or advanced diploma, in the mistaken belief that he was enrolled. I find that the applicant was aware that he was not enrolled for, at least, much of this period and I find that this then raises serious questions about whether the applicant was in this time, a genuine student.

5. A further factor which goes to this consideration, which I discussed with the applicant at hearing, is his study history and what I find it indicates of his genuineness as a student. As I explained to him, over the 7 years he had held his student visas, he had taken comparatively low level, comparatively cheap course, with little in the way of progression over that time.  noted to him that this was indicative of a person whose motivation to remain in Australia was not for the dominant or major purpose of study. I did not find the applicant’s explanations at all convincing. I did not find his explanations of what he would use his diploma and advanced diploma of marketing for to be convincing – having carefully looked at the information I do not accept, given my earlier concerns and findings above, that he was undertaking these courses, and proposes to undertake these courses, for the stated reason of returning to India and work in the automotive business and market that business. Having carefully considered his study history as set out above, and his proposed courses, I find that these indicate to me that the applicant is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student because the courses he has undertaken are low level and he has not progressed but changed to courses at the same level over a period of years, and he cannot clearly explain how the courses he was undertaking when the visa was cancelled, and that he proposes to undertake, fit coherently into his claimed career path of setting up a business in the automotive sector.

6. Having considered these concerns, I find that the applicant is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student.

7. For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s.116(1)(fa)(i) exists. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s.116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled.

   Consideration of discretion

8. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

9. I have had regard to the response to the NOICC but I note that this largely went to questions of whether the ground existed, as does the submission made to the Tribunal. I have considered these below. At hearing I discussed with the applicant the below matters and sought from him any further information that may go to the consideration of the discretion.

   the purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

10. The applicant claimed that his purpose in coming to and staying in Australia was to study. Whilst I have the above concerns with the genuineness of the applicant’s intention to study in the period considered above in 2016, I am willing to accept that the applicant did study and complete his course prior to this date, and I therefore give this factor some weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    the extent of compliance with visa conditions

11. I explained to the applicant that the information in the Departmental decision, which he had not disputed, was that he was not enrolled in a registered course between 9 January 2016 and 10 October 2016, which we had discussed in the context of the ground, above. I explained that this was a breach of condition 8202(2) on his student visa, that he be enrolled in a registered course or a course of study or training, and that I would need to take this into account. He acknowledged this. The applicant said he had been working as a security guard part time during the period he held a student visa, and had don’t 15-18 hours a week. He said now he was not working but was being supported by friends and family. There is no evidence before me to indicate that the applicant has breached conditions other than 8202 when he held his student visa. The breach of condition 8202(2) was for a considerable period and as above I have not accepted his explanations for this, I therefore give this some weight towards the visa being cancelled.

    degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

12. I explained this factor to the applicant. He said that if the visa remained cancelled it would lead to every kind of hardship. He said there was emotional hardship as he had been stressed after the visa cancellation and really sad. I asked about his family and he said that they are really concerned too but are still supporting him.

13. I accept that if the visa remains cancelled it will cause some hardship to the applicant. However, he was not able to detail any particular or significant hardship he would suffer and so I give this only little weight in favour of the visa not being cancelled.

    circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. If cancellation is being considered because of relationship breakdown, whether the relationship has broken down as a result of family violence. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control

14. The applicant claimed that the circumstances here, as discussed above, were beyond his control. He also said that if he got the visa back he could study the course.

15. Having carefully considered the circumstances, as above, and including the information provided in the response to the NOICC, the submission to the Tribunal and documents that the applicant has provided, I do not accept that the circumstances in which the ground arose in this case were beyond the applicant’s control. As above, I find that the applicant was aware that he was not enrolled for much of the eight month period, for the reasons set out above, and I have also found that the applicant’s study history and proposed study is indicative that he is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student. These are my findings in relation to the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose. Considering these fairly, and taking into account y findings in relation to the provider as above, I find that the circumstances in which the ground arose were not beyond the applicant’s control.

16. Further, as above, I find that the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose have led me to find that the applicant is not, or is likely not to be, a genuine student. I consider that this is a very important factor when considering whether to reinstate the applicant’s student visa and I give this significant weight towards the visa being cancelled.

    past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department

17. The applicant has been cooperative towards the Department and Tribunal. I give this little weight in favour of the visa not being cancelled.

    whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

18. Not relevant in this case.

    whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

19. I must consider any mandatory legal consequences if the visa remains cancelled. The applicant would continue to hold a bridging visa for only a short time if the decision is affirmed. At hearing I asked the applicant what he would do if the visa remained cancelled. He said that he would return to India. Having taken his response into account I find that there is very little chance that affirming the cancellation would lead to mandatory detention. Whilst there may be limits on the ability of the applicant to apply for further visas, this is the intended operation of the provisions. I give this factor little weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

20. The applicant said that there was no reason he could not return to India, that he just wished to stay and study for the advanced diploma. Taking his response into account I find that there is no indication that any international obligation would be breached if the visa remains cancelled. I give this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    if it’s a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has strong family, business or other ties in Australia

21. The visa under consideration was a temporary visa. This facto is therefore not applicable.

    any other relevant matters

22. The applicant reiterated evidence he had earlier given that he was a genuine student. He said that if he held the visa once more he would study the advanced diploma and return to his country. Having considered this further information I give this no weight given my findings above.

23. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled

    DECISION

24. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa.

    Sean Baker
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT – Extract from r.2.43 of the Migration Regulations 1994

    …

    (1C)For subsection 116(1A) of the Act, the Minister may have regard to the matter mentioned in subregulation (1D) in determining whether he or she is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 116(1)(fa) of the Act.

    (1D)For subregulation (1C), the matter is that participation in a course of study by the holder of a student visa has been deferred or temporarily suspended by the provider of the course of study:

    (a)because of the conduct of the holder; or

    (b)because of the circumstances of the holder, other than compassionate or compelling circumstances; or

    (c)because of compassionate or compelling circumstances of the holder, if the Minister is satisfied that the circumstances have ceased to exist; or

    (d)on the basis of evidence or a document given to the provider about the holder’s circumstances, if the Minister is satisfied that the evidence or document is fraudulent or misrepresents the holder’s circumstances.