Mundra (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2763

Mundra (Migration) [2020] AATA 2763 (28 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:  Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Paridhi Mundra Mr Rohit Lakhotia

CASE NUMBER:  1915218

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1758765

MEMBER:  Peter Booth

DATE:  28 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 28 May 2020 at 10:15am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – no response to tribunal request for information – no evidence of enrolment in registered course – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000

Migration Act 1958, ss 359(2), 359C, 360(3), 363A

Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 500.212, 500.211, 500.111, r 1.03

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 Home Affairs on 12 June 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

1. The applicants applied for the visas on 9 April 2019. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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.

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

1. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

1. On 20 April 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information about the review application in writing. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s registered migration agent and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 4 May 2020 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 they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

1. The applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if an applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. The Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision without taking further steps to obtain the information.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is currently enrolled in a registered course of study.

Enrolment (cl.500.211)

1. 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.

1. ‘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.

1. The applicant did not respond to the Tribunal’s request to provide information and has not otherwise provided any information to the Tribunal in support of the application for review. One of the matters that the Tribunal must be satisfied of, at the time of decision, is whether the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study. The Tribunal notes that no such evidence has been provided by the applicant. The decision of the delegate dated 12 June 2019, refusing the application for the student visa notes that at the time of the application the applicant was proposing to undertake a Diploma of Business. The application for a student visa refers to a confirmation of enrolment in a course designated A82DB564 was held by the applicant. However a perusal of the Department file, which has been provided to the Tribunal, discloses no confirmation of enrolment documents. The Tribunal accepts that the delegate was satisfied at the date of the decision, namely 12 June 2019, that the applicant was then enrolled in a relevant course of study. However there is no such material before the Tribunal as at the date of consideration of this matter. This is a critical matter upon which the Tribunal must be satisfied at the time of making the decision. 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.

1. 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.

1. The application by the primary applicant having been unsuccessful, it follows that the application of the secondary applicant must fail also.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Peter Booth Member