Mohammed Abdul Adil (Migration)

Mohammed Abdul Adil (Migration) [2020] AATA 5243 (28 September 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Mohammed Abdul Adil
CASE NUMBER:  2001291
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3219043
MEMBER:Frank Russo
DATE:28 September 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 28 September 2020 at 4:19pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – enrolment in a higher-level course ceased – applicant changed to Vocational courses – English language requirements – course cancelled by education provider – non-commencement of studies – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 8, Condition 8202
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 21 January 2020 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s.116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had not maintained enrolment in a registered course at the same level as, or higher than, the registered course in relation to which his visa was granted, and therefore no longer met the requirements of sub-clause 8202(2)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). 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 is a 38-year-old Indian national. The Student visa was granted in respect of the applicant’s enrolment in a Master of Information Technology at the University of New South Wales (UNSW).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 September 2020 by telephone hearing to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Urdu and English languages.
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
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202(2)(b) of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s.116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.
In addition to his application form and the reasons for decision of the delegate and copy of the notice of the decision sent by the Department, the applicant provided the Tribunal with the following additional documents:
a.An undated and unwitnessed statement headed ‘statutory declaration’, provided to the Tribunal on 4 and 7 August 2020;
b.Confirmations of Enrolment (CoE) for the following courses:
i.Diploma of Business at Trinity Institute from 25 February 2019 to 23 February 2020; and
ii.Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at South Sydney College, from 20 April 2020 to 4 April 2021;
c.Award of the Diploma of Business, issued by Trinity Institute on 31 January 2020;
d.Letter of enrolment from South Sydney College, dated 6 August 2020, confirming the applicant’s enrolment in the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management; and
e.Record of results in the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, as at 6 August 2020.
The Tribunal has read and had regard to these documents in making its decision. The Tribunal also notes and has read and had regard to the documents contained within the Department’s file. In particular, the Tribunal notes and has had regard to the applicant’s response to the Department’s Notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) of the visa. This response includes a statutory declaration declared by the applicant on 20 December 2019.
Does the ground for cancellation exist?
Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:
·be enrolled in a full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)
·subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).
The Tribunal notes that under 8202(3), a holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
a.is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
b.changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis that the applicant had not maintained enrolment in a registered course at the same level as, or higher than, the registered course in relation to which his visa was granted. More particularly, the visa was cancelled because the applicant was not enrolled in a Masters degree course (AQF level 9) for a period of approximately 17 months, when the initial grant of the Student visa was for the applicant to gain a Masters-level qualification.
The applicant was not enrolled in a course at AQF level 10, and therefore the consideration in clause 8202(3) is not relevant.
At the hearing the applicant gave evidence that he arrived in Australia on 27 June 2018 with the plan of pursuing the Master of Information Technology, for which he had a CoE with a start date of 23 July 2018. The applicant told the Tribunal that he enrolled in this course upon arriving in Australia and attended for three weeks, however after that UNSW cancelled his CoE.
The applicant confirmed that he was next enrolled in a Diploma of Business at Trinity Institute, which he commenced on 25 February 2019. At the time of the hearing the applicant had completed this course and had provided the Tribunal with a copy of the certificate for this qualification. He is currently enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, which commenced on 20 April 2020 and which has an end date of 4 April 2021. The applicant confirmed that he has not had been enrolled in any other courses besides these since his arrival in Australia.
The applicant acknowledged that he was not enrolled in a Masters level course (AQF Level 9) from 13 August 2018, when his enrolment in the Master of Information Technology was cancelled, until the date of the delegate’s decision on 21 January 2020, and agreed that he had breach the condition of his visa and there were grounds for cancellation of the visa, although he stated that there were reasons why he could not re-enrol in another Masters level course. The Tribunal noted that such evidence was relevant to the exercise of the discretion whether to cancel the visa.
On the evidence before the Tribunal as set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was not enrolled in registered course at the same level, or at a higher level than the registered course in relation to which the Student visa was granted, from 13 August 2018 until the date of the delegate’s decision on 21 January 2020. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(b).
Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa
Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. 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 Procedural Instruction ‘General visa cancellation powers’.
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
The applicant told the Tribunal that the purpose of his travel to and stay in Australia was to complete the Master of Information Technology, which he stated was his dream. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a Bachelor of Engineering and Computer Science which he was awarded in India in 2016.
The applicant stated that his plans if the visa is not cancelled are to complete the Master of Information Technology, after which he intends to return to his home country and use this qualification of his and his parents’ lives. The Tribunal noted that the applicant is currently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, which is scheduled to end on 4 April 2021. The Tribunal questioned how his current enrolment is relevant to his stated plan to enrol in the Master of Information Technology. The applicant stated that he would ‘100% pursue a Masters’ after completing the Advanced Diploma. He stated that his current Advanced Diploma is ‘in response’ to his previous enrolment in the Diploma of Business, but he intends to next enrol in the Master of Information Technology.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to whether he had attempted to enrol in or obtain a letter of offer for another Masters-level course since his enrolment in the Master of Information Technology was cancelled. The applicant gave evidence that he had attempted to enrol in three or four Masters courses, but he did not have an IELTS test score. He stated that his enrolment in the Master of Information Technology was accepted without the need for an IELTS test score, but each of the universities and colleges where he made subsequent enquiries indicated they required an IELTS test score of at least 6.5. He stated that as he did not have such a score, he was unable to enrol in another Masters-level course.
The applicant was enrolled in a Diploma of Business from 25 February 2019, which he has since completed. He is now enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Leadership. The applicant stated that his intention is to next enrol in the Master of Information Technology. The applicant’s current course of study is at the Advanced Diploma level, at an AQF level below that of the Masters level, for which the Student visa was granted, and the applicant’s enrolment history indicates that he has not been enrolled in a Masters-level course since 13 August 2018. Although there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has a CoE or letter or offer to re-enrol in the Master of Information Technology, the Tribunal is willing to accept on the basis of his oral evidence that he continues to be interested in pursuing studies at the Masters level. After he completes his current course. Therefore, although the applicant’s current studies are not consistent with the purpose for which the Student visa was granted, the Tribunal has nevertheless has regard to his stated intention of enrolling in a course at the Masters level in future. Accordingly, I give this consideration some weight against cancelling the visa.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant was not enrolled in a course of study at the Masters level (AQF level 9) from 13 August 2018 until the delegate’s decision on 21 January 2020, a period of approximately 17 months. The Tribunal considers this to be a significant period of breach.
Although the applicant has been enrolled in courses of study since 25 February 2019, these courses have been at the vocational level and were not at a sufficient AQF level to meet the condition in 8202(2)(b).
The applicant told the Tribunal that he has complied with the other conditions of his visa, including the work limitation. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has breached this condition. Given the significant length of time over which the breach of condition 8202(2)(b) occurred, I give this consideration weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
When asked about the degree of hardship that may be caused as a result of the cancellation of his visa, the applicant stated that it was his dream to finish the Masters course and obtain the qualification and then return to his home country to support his family. He stated that if this dream is not fulfilled it will be a very big blow and a shock. He stated that it will be a big trauma for him and take its toll on him, and that he may go into a depression as he came to Australia with a clear goal which will not be fulfilled. When questioned what hardship it may cause to his family, the applicant stated that it would be a source of embarrassment to them as it is something they had all worked towards. When questioned whether there was any other potential hardship, he stated that there was nothing further.
The Tribunal accepts that there would be some hardship on the applicant if the visa were cancelled, including it would mean that he may not be able to complete his current course of study or then enrol in the Master of Information Technology at this time. The Tribunal accepts that this may result in financial, psychological and emotional hardship for the applicant and members of his family. The Tribunal notes however that the applicant, on his own evidence, has completed a Bachelor degree in India, and therefore has an existing graduate qualification at a level which is higher than the vocational courses in which he is currently enrolled. The applicant therefore has an existing professional qualification which would be a potential source of opportunity for him. However, having regard to the degree of hardship which I accept may be caused, I give this consideration some weight against cancelling the visa.
Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose
In his oral evidence, the applicant stated that he enrolled in the Master of Information Technology at UNSW and attended the course for two weeks, however in his third week the enrolment was cancelled by UNSW with no reason. The applicant stated that he spoke to his agent, who also stated that he had not been given a reason why the enrolment was cancelled.
The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to what communication he had with the university regarding the cancellation of his CoE. The applicant stated that he spoke to the administration department of the university, who told him that his enrolment had been cancelled. When questioned whether he had asked for the reason for the cancellation, he stated that he had asked for a reason, but the administration department was unable to give him one. When questioned whether there were any other reasons for the cancellation of his enrolment, the applicant stated he did not know of any and that he was not given any information.
Adopting the procedure in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant information from his enrolment records from the Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database. The Tribunal explained to the applicant what the PRISMS database is and the relevance of the records to the review before the Tribunal. The Tribunal noted that according to the applicant’s PRISMS record, he was enrolled in the Master of Information Technology commencing on 23 July 2018 and ending on 15 September 2020, but this enrolment was cancelled on 13 August 2018 due to non-commencement of studies.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that the enrolment information within the PRISMS database is updated by education providers, and the information in his PRISMS enrolment record indicates that his enrolment in the Masters course was not cancelled for no reason at all, but because he had not commenced his studies. The Tribunal explained to the applicant the consequences of relying upon the information, namely that it may be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant understood the relevance and consequences of the information being relied on. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any comments or wished to respond in relation to the information contained in his PRISMS enrolment records and advised that he may be granted time to comment on or respond to the information if needed.
The applicant indicated that he wished to respond to the information at the hearing. The applicant again stated that he was not provided with any reason as to why his CoE had been cancelled. The Tribunal questioned the applicant whether he sought an explanation from the university, particularly in light of his travel from India shortly before this to undertake the Masters course. The applicant responded that he did seek an explanation, but the only one he had been given was that the CoE had been cancelled. The Tribunal questioned whether he received any information about appeal rights in relation to the decision. The applicant stated that he received nothing.
The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had provided the Tribunal with a document headed ‘statutory declaration’ in August 2020, and provided the Department with a separate statutory declaration, declared on 20 December 2019, in response to the NOICC. The Tribunal notes that the statement provided to the Tribunal has not been dated or witnessed and therefore does not meet the requirements for a statutory declaration, although it has been signed by the applicant, and the Tribunal therefore considers it to be a statement by the applicant.
The Tribunal noted that in the statement provided to the Tribunal in August 2020, the applicant made similar claims to those which he gave in his oral evidence, stating that UNSW cancelled his enrolment in the Masters course within a very short period of the course start date. He stated that the university did this without informing him by email, phone call or message, and that he did not know the reason why this enrolment was cancelled, nor was he given a fair opportunity to continue the course as his CoE had been cancelled. The applicant then states that it was a big shock, and due to his lack of an IELTS test score he was unable to gain admission to another university or college. The applicant then lists a range of factors which influenced his decision to study the Diploma of Business, including health-related and psychological factors. He lists ‘Health instability, homesickness, anxiety and depression’, as well as feeling fearful, experiencing a lack of sleep, ‘deep thinking’ about his parents, losing his mental ability and feeling completely broken and like a failure. He lists a lack of communication and low English language proficiency as reasons why he could not cope with things.
In the applicant’s statutory declaration provided to the Department, there is no reference to his claim that UNSW had cancelled his enrolment in the Masters course without providing any notice or reasons. Rather, the applicant states as follows:
Due to the reasons mention below I could not continue my studies in master’s course. However, I enrolled in diploma course at Trinity Institute on 25^th February 2019. I thought that it would be helpful if I have less study load as well as easy to follow lectures and subject understanding …
The applicant then made similar claims regarding his ‘Lack of communication, low English language proficiency and health instability’ as the major factors for his choosing to study the Diploma course. The applicant went on to state:
Studying masters seems not possible at that moment because of the stress, anxiety and master’s degree study load.
The Tribunal raised concern with the applicant regarding the apparent inconsistency in the reasons for the breach set out in the statutory declaration and his more recent statement, noting that the earlier declaration to the Department contains no reference to UNSW’s decision to cancel his CoE without notice or reason. In response the applicant stated that the reason for this is because the declaration provided to the Department was prepared in response to the Department’s questions about what he was going through at that time. He stated that the Department had asked him a ‘big question’, which was why he had decided to enrol in the Diploma of Business. He stated that the Department had not asked him why his CoE for the Masters course had been cancelled.

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s response, including whether it provides a reasonable explanation for the omission in his statutory declaration to the Department, of his claim that his CoE was cancelled by UNSW without notice or reason. While the Tribunal accepts that at the time of receiving the NOICC, the applicant may have been focused on explaining why he was enrolled in a diploma-level course, the Tribunal does not accept this as a complete explanation. The Tribunal notes that the NOICC was issued in the standard format used by the Department for such notices and drew the applicant’s attention to the cancellation of his enrolment in the Master of Information Technology on 13 August 2018. The NOICC also set out the matters for consideration which the delegate would take into account in exercising the discretion to cancel the visa, including ‘the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose’.
The Tribunal finds that in responding to the NOICC, the applicant was on notice regarding the relevance of the reasons for the cancellation of his enrolment in the Master of Information Technology. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s claim that his enrolment had been cancelled without notice or reason is a significant claim to make, which if found to be credible, would indicate that the circumstances of the breach were beyond his control. The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s omission to mention such a claim in his response to the NOICC, when such information would go to the heart of the response about the circumstances of the breach, indicates that the claim is of more recent origin.
Even if the Tribunal were to accept the applicant’s explanation for this inconsistency, the Tribunal does not accept the reasons the applicant provided in his oral evidence as to why his CoE for the Masters course was cancelled. As noted above, the applicant’s PRISMS enrolment record indicates that his enrolment in the Masters course was cancelled on 13 August 2018 due to ‘non-commencement of study’. This information was updated on the applicant’s PRISMS enrolment record by his education provider. The Tribunal prefers the information contained in the applicant’s PRISMS record, given this information was updated by the education provider and the applicant has not provided any credible evidence to indicate that this information is incorrect. The applicant has not provided any evidence of enquiries to UNSW following the cancellation of his enrolment, other than his oral evidence that he spoke to the administration section. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence regarding this conversation with administrative staff to be unconvincing, and considers that a genuine student who had travelled from India to start a Masters course, could reasonably be expected to make further enquiries of the university regarding the reasons for cancellation of the enrolment, if no reason was given in the first instance. In addition, the Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that a university of UNSW’s reputation would cancel an enrolment in a Masters course without providing a reason for the cancellation.
For these reasons the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s explanation of the cancellation of his enrolment in the Masters course, and instead prefers the explanation provided in his PRISMS record, namely that the enrolment was cancelled because the applicant failed to commence the course of study.
The Tribunal has had regard to the other factors which the applicant has set out in his statutory declarations. The Tribunal has considered the psychological and health-related reasons which are set out in the statutory declarations. No medical evidence in support of these health issues has been provided to the Tribunal or the Department. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to whether he had sought any treatment regarding these claimed conditions. The applicant stated that he did not seek any treatment for these conditions, but that he felt better after he socialised. He explained that his friends encouraged him to get outside and get fresh air, after which he felt better. As there is no evidence to support the applicant’s claims regarding psychological or health conditions, the Tribunal gives these claims little weight.
The Tribunal has considered the other claims contained in the applicant’s statutory declarations, including his claims regarding his low English language proficiency, his attempts to enrol in other Masters courses and his lack of an IELTS score, but considers that the key circumstance leading to the breach was the applicant’s failure to commence his studies towards the Master of Information Technology. There is no evidence that the applicant contacted UNSW to seek a deferral of his studies, if there were any compelling or compassionate reasons as to why he could not commence this course. There is no evidence that the applicant sought advice from the Department regarding his visa responsibilities. Rather, the applicant chose to remain in Australia for a further 17 months in breach of the condition of his visa. The Tribunal gives little weight to the applicant’s claim that he was unaware of the requirement that he maintain enrolment in a course at the same level, or higher, as that for which the visa was originally granted. The Tribunal considers it the applicant’s responsibility to be aware of the conditions subject to which his visa was granted, as well as to advise the Department of any change in his circumstances. On the evidence before the Tribunal, I find that the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were not beyond the applicant’s control, but were the result of the applicant’s failure to commence his studies in the Master of Information Technology and the subsequent cancellation of his enrolment by the education provider. Accordingly, I give this consideration significant weight in favour of cancelling the visa.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department
There is no information to suggest that the applicant has been uncooperative with the Department. The Tribunal notes the applicant responded to the NOICC issued by the Department, and therefore appears to have engaged with the Department. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.
Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140
The applicant confirmed at hearing that there are no persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140. On the evidence before it the Tribunal weighs this factor neither in favour nor against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
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
The Tribunal is mindful that a cancellation could lead to the applicant becoming an unlawful non-citizen who could be detained and removed from Australia pursuant to s.189, however he could apply for a Bridging visa in order to settle his affairs in Australia. The applicant would need to seek advice regarding his immigration status. The Tribunal is mindful that a visa cancellation could mean that the applicant might face difficulties in being granted further visas in Australia and that he could also be subject to a three-year exclusion period unless he meets the relevant Public Interest Criterion.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether there were any particular considerations it should have regard to, given these mandatory legal consequences, to which he stated that he understood the consequences and acknowledges that what he did in regards to the breach of his visa condition was wrong, however he now knows what the conditions of the visa are and he would be sure not to do anything wrong again. He stated that he does wish to pursue a Masters course after his current course.
The Tribunal notes that the consequences would mean the applicant would be prevented from applying for further Student visas for three years, which would delay his ability to undertaking the Masters degree studies which he claims he continues to wish to pursue. Although the applicant does not currently have a CoE or offer of enrolment for a Masters-level course, the Tribunal has considered the effect of the legal consequences on this stated plan. Accordingly, I give this consideration some weight against cancellation of the visa.
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
The applicant has two children, although the applicant has confirmed that both are in India. There is nothing to suggest, and the applicant does not claim, that Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements or any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children, which would be breached as a result of the cancellation. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal weighs this factor neither in favour nor against cancelling the visa.
Any other relevant matters
The applicant told the Tribunal that he is a genuine student and has continued studying. He has completed a Diploma course. He stated that the 6-month gap in his studies from 13 August 2018 to 24 February 2019 was caused because he was in shock and didn’t know what to do. The Tribunal acknowledges that after a six-month gap in his enrolment the applicant enrolled in the Diploma of Business, which he has completed, and that he is now enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management. Although the Tribunal has already considered this evidence in relation to other considerations, such as the applicant’s purpose for staying in Australia and the hardship which may be caused to the visa holder, the Tribunal has in the circumstances considered it as a separate relevant factor.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether in addition to the above, there were any other relevant matters, to which he confirmed there were not. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight against cancelling the visa.
Considering matters as a whole
The Tribunal has considered the weight given to each consideration. In particular, the Tribunal notes the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose and has given this consideration significant weight in favour of cancelling the visa. The Tribunal has also given weight to the extent of compliance with the visa conditions, in favour of cancelling the visa. The weight given to these considerations outweighs that given to certain considerations against cancelling the visa.
Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.
Frank Russo
Member

ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
…
Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a)a Defence student; or
(b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c)      a secondary exchange student.
(2) A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a)      must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and
(b)      subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
(c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:
(i) the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;
(ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.
(3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.

[2020] AATA 5243

28 September 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Statutory Interpretation

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction