MOHAMMED (Migration)

This matter concerned the review of a decision to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 student visa. The applicant had failed to maintain enrolment in a registered course for approximately eight months, thereby breaching condition 8202 of the *Migration Regulations 1994*. The Tribunal was required to determine whether this breach had occurred and, if so, whether the discretion to cancel the visa should be exercised.

The primary legal issue was whether the applicant had complied with condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the *Migration Regulations 1994*. This condition mandates that a student visa holder must be enrolled in a registered course and achieve satisfactory course progress and attendance. If a breach of this condition is established, section 116(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* permits the cancellation of the visa. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's stated purpose for remaining in Australia and whether this constituted a "compelling need" to stay, as discussed in *Paduano v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs and Anor* [2005] FCA 211.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course between March and November 2018, which constituted a clear breach of condition 8202(2). Despite the applicant's stated desire to study for a brighter future, the Tribunal concluded that this did not amount to a "compelling need" to remain in Australia in the context of the visa regime. Applying the principles from *Paduano*, the Tribunal interpreted "compelling" in its ordinary, wide, and unqualified sense as "forceful," but found the applicant's reasons did not meet this threshold. Consequently, the Tribunal determined that the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's Class TU visa.