MAROM (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, made by the applicant and a secondary applicant. The dispute before the court was whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of financial capacity to meet the requirements of clause 500.214(3) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by C. Packer.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had demonstrated genuine access to sufficient funds to meet the costs and expenses during their intended stay in Australia, and whether the evidence provided met the requirements of the relevant financial capacity instrument, LIN 19/198. Specifically, the court had to consider if a bank statement from the applicant's parents' account in their home country, along with a supporting statement, constituted adequate proof of financial capacity and genuine access to those funds.

The court considered the evidence provided by the applicant, including income statements and a bank statement from The Siam Commercial Bank Public Company Ltd (SCB) showing a fixed deposit of AUD139,776.20 held by the applicant's parents. While the Tribunal gave no weight to the applicant's income statements, it found the SCB bank statement to be in the specified form as a money deposit with a financial institution. The Tribunal was satisfied that the amount shown in the bank statement was sufficient to meet the travel, living, and course costs for both the applicant and the secondary applicant. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the close familial relationship and the formal undertaking of financial support from the parents demonstrated genuine access to these funds.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the visas to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the first named applicant met the criteria under clause 500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.