Nand (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 571, by a minor applicant. The applicant was enrolled in Year 2 of primary school in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the prescribed evidentiary requirements for the visa, specifically concerning the completion of schooling to at least Year 6 level. The decision was made by Wendy Banfield, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant was a 'genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student' and whether the applicant met the evidentiary requirements stipulated in Schedule 5A of the Migration Regulations 1994 for the highest assessment level applicable to them. This assessment level was determined to be level 3, given the applicant's passport from Fiji and the subclass of visa sought.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy the requirements for a subclass 571 visa, an applicant must provide evidence of having successfully completed schooling to at least Year 6 level, as per cl. 5A309(a)(ii) of the Regulations. The applicant, being aged 7 and in Grade 2, did not meet this specific criterion. While the applicant's father provided an explanation regarding his research and a sibling's successful visa application, this did not alter the regulatory requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 571 visa. As there was no evidence presented to suggest eligibility for any other student visa subclass, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.