MIANGSANTHIA (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant, Miangsanthis, sought to challenge the decision of the delegate. The Tribunal, presided over by Member Wendy Banfield, was tasked with determining whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was enrolled in an approved course of study at the time of the decision, as required by clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must be enrolled in a "full-time registered course," which is further defined by the regulations. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's failure to respond to a hearing invitation and provide requested evidence of enrolment.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary criterion for a Subclass 500 visa is enrolment in a registered course of study at the time of the decision. The applicant was invited to provide a Certificate of Enrolment (COE) or other proof of current enrolment, but failed to do so. Furthermore, records from the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicated that the applicant's previous enrolments had been cancelled and that she was not currently enrolled in any course. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had indicated a willingness to re-enrol if granted the visa, but this did not satisfy the requirement of being enrolled at the time of the decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. As the applicant did not claim to meet the criteria for any alternative visa class, the Tribunal affirmed the original decision not to grant the visa.