Nguyen (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the cancellation of a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 572, held by the applicant. The dispute arose because the applicant had ceased enrolment in a registered course of study. The applicant had given birth to a child and wished to resume her studies, but the Department of Home Affairs had cancelled her visa on the grounds that she was not enrolled in a registered course, thus breaching condition 8202 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had breached condition 8202 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically by failing to be enrolled in a registered course of study. If a breach was found, the Tribunal then had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa, taking into account the applicant's circumstances and relevant government policy.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed breached condition 8202(2)(a) as she had not been enrolled in a registered course for a period exceeding 11 months. In considering the discretion to cancel the visa, the Tribunal noted the applicant's explanation that her pregnancy and the birth of her child in October 2017 had prevented her from attending to her studies. She expressed a desire to complete her Diploma of Business in Australia, stating that conditions were better there and Australian qualifications were well-regarded. However, the Tribunal also noted that the applicant had no family support in Australia, her child was registered as a citizen of Vietnam, and she provided no evidence to support her claim that the child's father was an Australian citizen and uninvolved in their lives. The Tribunal concluded that there were no demonstrated educational or career advantages for completing her studies in Australia, and that remaining in Australia would involve the separation of her child from any potential family support in Vietnam.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa. The Tribunal stated it had no jurisdiction with respect to any other applicant.