Mukhija (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2597

Mukhija (Migration) [2019] AATA 2597 (29 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Hanish Mukhija

CASE NUMBER:  1730600

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/3171672

MEMBER:D. Triaca

DATE:29 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 29 May 2019 at 1:37pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – no response to s 359(2) invitation – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – genuine temporary entrant – enrolment status – no evidence of enrolment at time of decision – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 20 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 1 September 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The Tribunal formally wrote to the applicant pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicants to provide further information to the Tribunal on 5 April 2019. The invitation advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 23 April 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement he might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s nominated address, being the address provided by the review applicant in connection with this application for review.

6. On 18 April 2019, the applicant responded to the Tribunal in writing (359 Response) and consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing.

7. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: Section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

8. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

9. In these circumstances the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department as well as information that may be discerned from the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the review application.

10. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

11. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

12. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria.

    Enrolment (cl.500.211)

13. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl.500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.

14. ‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.

15. By the 359 Response, the applicant confirmed that he does not have a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course of study. There is no other evidence before the Tribunal that would suggest that the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study at the date of the decision and in those circumstances, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence set out in his 359 Response and finds that he does not have a current enrolment in a registered course of study.

16. Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.

17. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    D. Triaca
    Member