Nguyen (Migration)

[2019] AATA 4408

Nguyen (Migration) [2019] AATA 4408 (24 September 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Van Khien Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  1822566

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2018/1314836

MEMBER:Genevieve Cleary

DATE:24 September 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 24 September 2019 at 11:08pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) – Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector – not enrolled in registered course – changed courses – ill relative – financial assistance by parents – failure to re-enrol – inconsistent evidence – use of visa to establish residence – not a genuine student – decision under review affirmed   

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8 Condition 8202

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 27 July 2018 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa under s.116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2.      The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had not been enrolled in a course of study since 29 September 2017. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3.      The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 10 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.

4.      The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

5.      The applicant agreed in the hearing that other than the Decision Record, he had not sent any supporting documentation to the Tribunal. During the hearing, the representative sent to the Tribunal:

·An offer of enrolment from Group Colleges Australia dated 7 June 2019 for a Bachelor of Business (Management), unsigned by the applicant. 

6.      At the end of the hearing, the applicant was requested to send anything further that he could to substantiate his claims.  On 24 June 2019 the Tribunal received:

·A medical report for Vu Thi Tuyen, the applicant’s says mother, showing a diagnosis of a thyroid tumour dated 15 June 2016;

·A medical report for Vu Thi Thuc, the applicant’s grandmother showing a diagnosis of “internal haemorrhoids” and “Pre-pyloric ulcers/Inflammations of cardiac antrum, pre-pyloric” dated 26 March 2017.

·Birth certificates of the applicant and his father.

7.      The Tribunal has also had regard to the Department file.

8.      For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s.116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.

Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?

10.       Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:

·be enrolled in a registered course, or in limited cases, a full time course of study or training: 8202(2)

·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(3)(a), and

·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(3)(b).

11.       In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course.

12.       When the applicant came to Australia he was enrolled in a General English course, which he commenced on 7 September 2015 and finished on 24 June 2016.  He was also enrolled in a Master of Engineering, however that enrolment  was cancelled due to his non-commencement of studies.  The applicant agreed at the hearing before the Tribunal that he did not commence that course.  The applicant was then enrolled in a suite of hospitality courses, commencing with a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery to commence on 10 October 2016, however it appears he changed provider, and he was then enrolled in another Certificate III in Commercial Cookery to commence on 18 April 2017, with a following number of associated courses to take him through to October 2019.  On 29 September 2017 the Certificate III enrolment was cancelled and consequently the remainder of enrolments in the hospitality courses connected with that enrolment were also cancelled.  The applicant agreed that he has not been enrolled in any courses since then.

13.       On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2).

Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

14.       Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers.’

The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

15.       The applicant came to Australia on a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa which was granted on 29 July 2015.  He was to complete an English course and then study at Murdoch University, attempting a Masters in Engineering. He had studied electrical engineering in Vietnam, taking him 4 years, from which he graduated with a Bachelor Degree in Engineering.

16.       The applicant told the Tribunal at the hearing that he came to Australia because he wanted to improve his English.  He felt that would result in better opportunities for employment, with higher pay, in Vietnam.  

17.       He told the Tribunal that he did not commence the engineering masters because his English was still limited.  He passed the English course, however one teacher told him that if he was to commence the Masters of Engineering he would need to continue learning English. He changed courses. 

18.       He did not consider doing another English course because he thought his English was at an appropriate level to complete a skills-based course.  As he only had the 3 years until the visa he entered Australia on expired, he wanted to at least finish something.  He had been working in a restaurant, he said, and therefore decided to have a change in career to cookery and hospitality.

19.       2 months after deciding not to do the engineering course he enrolled in the cookery course at Stanley College.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he started the course however it was cancelled in about September 2017. The applicant could not recall how many subjects, if any, he had completed in the certificate III course.  The Tribunal has not been provided with any documents that show that he completed any subjects. 

20.       He has worked while in Australia.  He could not recall when he started, but it was about 1 year after he came to Australia.  He came to Australia on 7 August 2015.  He did not work in 2015, but commenced at a restaurant in 2016.  He finished working there in January 2018 and changed to another restaurant, at which he worked until July 2018.  He stopped working there because his visa was cancelled. Other than first coming to Australia, and when his visa was cancelled, he has always worked.  It was because he was working in a restaurant that he decided he should embark on a cookery and hospitality course.

21.       The delegate’s Decision Record says that the applicant applied for a Training Visa (GF-407) visa sponsored by Tao Group Pty Ltd on 26 July 2018. This was also connected to his work at a restaurant.

22.       While there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant’s original intention for his travel to Australia was not for the purpose of study, the failure to commence the Masters course, the refusal to study a further English course to ensure he could attempt the Masters In Engineering and the change to Commercial Cookery suggest that the applicant was not genuine in their intention to study at the higher education level. 

23.       By July 2018 the applicant had not completed any courses, skilled or higher education, other than an English course.  The fact that the applicant applied for the Training visa suggests that, by July 2018, his purpose was even further removed from any study. This results in the Tribunal being able to give only limited weight in his favour to the fact that his purpose in coming to Australia was to study.

24.       The applicant initially told the Tribunal that if allowed to continue to study in Australia, he will study cookery, and return to Vietnam and open a restaurant. The Tribunal asked him what sort of restaurant and he said “serving food.”  He was asked what sort of food, and he answered “Vietnamese and Asian food” and it would be in the town he is from, near Hanoi.  The money to start the restaurant will come from his parents.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant had, or still has, any real plans to open a restaurant; his plans were vague and inconsistent with his study, past qualifications and intended study.  The Tribunal gives these plans no weight in his favour.

25.       The Tribunal also pointed out that he had produced at the hearing an enrolment letter for a Bachelor of Business (Management) course.  He then said that the restaurant was his plan before he enrolled in the business course, but that he has changed his plans now. 

26.       The applicant provided the letter to show the Tribunal that he was intent on study.  The offer is from Universal Business School of Sydney.  This course will take 3 years.  The applicant said that he is doing this course rather than another cookery course because it will be easier to complete, and will give him more opportunities to get a job.  He said he will go back to Vietnam to look for a job.  His uncle sells electronics, and he has asked for a job with him. His uncle told him he needs a bachelors degree to work with him. 

27.       The applicant reiterated that he changed his mind about what he wanted to study because he thought this course will be easier to do with more opportunities.  He also said that he changed his mind when he found out he was not going to be granted the Training visa.  He was disappointed when he heard that it was not going to be granted, however he said that it made him think he did not want a career in cooking. 

28.       The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a compelling need to stay in Australia, despite the letter of offer of enrolment.  If he commences a business course, this will be the third change in direction he has had since arriving in Australia. While the Tribunal accepts that his evidence was that he was prepared to move to Sydney to commence the course, he is not working and he appears to have no ties in Perth, so any move   would not be a significant upheaval of his life such that it suggests he is doing whatever he can to maintain his studies. 

29.       On the contrary, from the changes in courses and the limited weight that can be given to the reasons for those changes, the application for the Training visa and the gaps in study and the vague plans for his future, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is attempting to prolong his residence in Australia such that that now appears to be his purpose.  Significant weight is given to this factor against him having a student visa.

The extent of compliance with visa conditions and past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

30.       The applicant told the Tribunal that he has not applied for any other visas either in Australia or for entry elsewhere, other than his Training visa.  Other than as discussed below, there is no other information before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has breached other conditions of his visa, or any other visa. 

31.       The applicant told the Tribunal that he has worked in restaurants while in Australia from about 2016 until his visa was cancelled. He has worked 20 hours per week; there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise. This weighs in his favour.  However, after not commencing the Masters in Engineering, he was enrolled in a commercial cookery course, which was to commence in October 2016.  Not only did he fail to maintain his course, but his enrolment in the cookery courses, when he came to Australia on a higher education sector visa, was a breach in itself of the original visa conditions. 

32.       The applicant did not commence this course, but commenced another commercial cookery course in April 2017. It is that course that he failed to complete. Therefore, even at that early stage, the applicant was not studying for 6 months. He did not contact the Department when he was not studying, and neither did he contact the Department when his enrolment was cancelled.  Nevertheless he continued to work in Australia until he was contacted by the Department in July 2018 regarding the visa cancelation.  The change in level of course and the gaps in studying before his visa was cancelled add weight to the breach, and the Tribunal is satisfied that the breach was significant.

33.       There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate any adverse conduct by the applicant to the Department and as such the Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the applicant’s visa.  However, the applicant did not reply to the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancelation (NOICC) sent to him on 4 July 2018.  He was shown the Notice in the hearing, and he agreed he received it.  He said that he applied for theTraining visa in June 2018 and a few days later he received a letter saying he did not need the student visa so it was going to be cancelled. He did not know whether this was the same letter as the NOICC.  He said that he was under the impression that if he was granted the Training visa he could still study, so he did not reply to the letter.   He did this not because he wanted to work, but because he believed that the restaurant that agreed to sponsor him would have an obligation to train him, and that would mean, in effect, to him, he was still studying, and he came to Australia to study. 

34.       However, the sequence of events given by the applicant cannot be correct.  The applicant applied for the Training visa on 26 July 2018 and the NOICC came before he made the application, and one day before the Student visa was cancelled.  Therefore the applicant could not have been mistaken that the NOICC said that as he had applied for the Training visa his student visa was going to be cancelled, and therefore he did not have to respond to the NOICC.  He had not applied for the Training visa when he got the NOICC.  Later in the hearing, the applicant said that he did not respond to the NOICC because at the time the Department were asking him for his address and what subjects he was studying.  He asked his lawyer what he should do, and he told the Tribunal it was his lawyer who told him not to reply, but to apply for a Training visa instead.  He was shown the paragraph saying he could write and tell them why the visa should not be cancelled.  He was asked in the hearing whether he agreed that it was the Training visa that he wanted, and not a Student visa, and he replied that that was correct – he had assumed that his Student visa would be cancelled, and he thought that to stay he would need a Training visa.

35.       The applicant said that he did not tell the Department that he had stopped studying in 2017 because he did not know he had to.  He agreed that he knew that he was here on a study visa, and if he was not studying, there would be a problem with his visa. He maintained however that he was not clear that he did have to tell them he had stopped studying. 

36.       The breach is significant and weighs heavily on the Tribunal’s discretion to cancel. Further, the evidence the applicant gave suggested that he was resigned to having the Student visa cancelled, so tried another way to stay in Australia.  While he is entitled to apply for visas, this resignation and willingness to try other visas suggests that he is using the Australian visa system to maintain ongoing residence in Australia, and is not a genuine student. The breach and the finding that he is using the visa system outweigh the other factors which are in his favour.

Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose. The guidelines indicate that as a general rule, a visa should not be cancelled where the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose were beyond the visa holder’s control

37.       In addressing the reasons for the cancelation of the visa the applicant spoke about the cancelation of his enrolment in the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery. At first the applicant said that the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery was cancelled because he applied for a Training visa. He told the Tribunal that he applied for a Training visa because he thought that he would look for a job after the cookery course was completed.

38.       The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that the delegate’s decision showed that he applied for the training visa in July 2018, almost a year after he stopped studying, and he then agreed he did not make the application for the Training visa while he was doing the cookery course.  The applicant then said that the enrolment cancelation occurred because his family in Vietnam started to have problems.

39.       His grandmother was admitted to hospital because of a liver problem or bowel problem.  She was 75.  She was in hospital for 2 months.  The applicant could not recall when this was, but guessed that it was about 2 years after he arrived here. He did not go to visit her, because he was studying, although there was a 6 month gap in 2017 and 2018. The illness affected him because when he was young he was used to having his grandmother with him, and he was worried about her. The applicant provided to the Tribunal after the hearing a medical document relating to his grandmother. It is a letter from an ‘esophagus-stomach-duodenum specialized clinic’ dated 26 March 2017.  The report shows that his grandmother had a “pre-pyloric ulcer/inflammation of cardiac antrum.”  However, there is nothing else before the Tribunal that assists me to determine what the condition is that his grandmother had, the prognosis, or how ill she actually was.

40.       While the Tribunal accepts that being told a family member, particularly one to whom you are close, would be distressing, the Tribunal can place little weight on the evidence before it, as the full impact of the medical condition is not discernible from the material provided to the Tribunal by the applicant.

41.       In addition to his grandmother’s illness, the applicant said that his brother did not have any work.  He lives in Vietnam, is 24 and is the only other sibling.  He said it concerned the applicant because his parents had to support him here, and then his brother there.  The applicant said he found out his brother’s plight in August 2017.  This effected him because sometimes he had to send money back to his brother. 

42.       Further, his parents’ business was not doing well.  They are farmers, growing and selling vegetables, watermelons, carrots and bananas.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he found out that his parents were struggling in October 2017. This effected him because they needed money – they were supporting him here, and if they did not have money he could not study. He did not go home; he thought about it but he had promised his parents that he would finish his course here.  The Tribunal notes that, on the applicant’s evidence, he found out about his parents after his enrolment had been cancelled.  However, the Tribunal accepts that he may have made an error with the date of hearing this news, or that his parents’ misfortune may have been mentioned as a reason why he did not start studying again for 6 months after his enrolment in commercial cookery was cancelled.   as is discussed below, however, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that reason, together with the other reasons given, can be given much weight.

43.       When the applicant said that his parents had been in financial hardship the Tribunal queried how it was that they were going to fund his restaurant when he has the idea to start one.  The applicant said they had now recovered, but if they could not afford it, he would look for a job in Vietnam to fund it himself.

44.       The Tribunal was also told by the applicant that his mother had been ill too.  Sent to the Tribunal after the hearing was a second medical report. It appears that on 15 June 2016 the applicant’s mother was diagnosed with a thyroid tumour.  Similar to the applicant’s grandmother’s position, the Tribunal has no information before it to assess the prognosis of the applicant’s mother, the severity of her condition or any other factor attached to her condition such that it can assess the effect on the applicant.  The Tribunal accepts that he may have been worried about her, however with such limited information, the Tribunal cannot place much weight on his evidence that he was so worried that, in combination with the other factors he referred to, it stopped him studying. 

45.       When the Tribunal asked the applicant why he stopped studying he at first said that he did not finish at Stanley College because of his family problems.  He said that he gave up, having no motivation.  He thinks this was in September 2017.  That was with only 1 month to go, but he said he just stopped going.  He did not speak to anyone at the college or Department about what he was going through, only friends.   He could not explain to the Tribunal why he did not speak to the college.

46.       However, he then told the Tribunal that he had wanted to quit, so he did. When the Tribunal asked him why he wanted to quit he said he did not feel like studying at the college any longer.  Asked why he did not feel like it he said that he really wanted to learn how to cook Vietnamese food, and the college only cooked Indian, and he did not like the course.  This is a different reason to what he said earlier about his family problems. In relation to his family problems, the only effect the applicant spoke about was that he was worried about them, and that he had to send money home, the lack of their finances possibly having a bearing on his ability to afford to study.  While the applicant said that he lost motivation, it was unclear whether this was because of the family problems or because he did not like the course.  Even if it was because of the family problems, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that goes to any depression, anxiety or other illness which would lead him to be unable to study at all.

47.       After leaving Stanley College the applicant said he sat for the cookery exam, but he could not recall where. He sat the exam by making a video and sending it and his resume to a friend, who sent it to a college in Sydney, and the school then sent him a certificate. It was not Stanley College.  He did not enrol anywhere after Stanley College. After that, he said, he did not know which way to go or what subjects to take; he lost direction, so he did not enrol elsewhere.

48.       The applicant appears not to have sought counselling or other assistance in relation to any illness or worries over his family.  Further, the Tribunal is not satisfied that he did lose all motivation – his evidence was that he was in contact with another college, or at least a friend who was in contact with them on his behalf, and he prepared a video so that he could get a qualification from them.  He also continued to work.

49.       Therefore, the Tribunal can place even less weight on the applicant’s evidence that he was so worried about his family that he had to stop studying.  It appears that that may be, at best, only part of the reason that he stopped studying.  The Tribunal does not have any difficulty with a person changing courses if they are genuinely unhappy in a course.  That, however, is not what appears to have occurred here.  The applicant came to Australia to complete a Masters degree, however did not commence that course.  Instead, he changed to a far lower level course, but did not complete it.  He says that he has gained a qualification by sending a video and his resume to a college in Sydney, however that was a Certificate IV qualification in Commercial Cookery, and still at a far lower level of study than the masters.  The Tribunal does not have any evidence of this qualification. He has not studied since he got part way through the Certificate III course, he says because he lost direction, and because he thought that he would be granted a Training visa, which he thought meant he would still effectively be studying. 

50.       The evidence provided to the Tribunal does not satisfy it that the applicant stopped studying because he was worried about his family.  It appears that he simply wanted to stop studying, and he did.  Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that for the most part, the applicant was in control of the reasons for his cancelled enrolment, and for his failure to maintain an enrolment after that. The Tribunal gives the applicant a small amount of weight for the matters he has raised in relation to his family, however they are significantly outweighed by the other reasons he has given for failing to maintain an enrolment, all of which were in his control.

51.       The Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record shows that the first enrolment for the Commercial Cookery course was cancelled for ‘disciplinary reasons.’ The applicant did not know what that meant, and said that as far as he was concerned he did not do anything that would attract a sanction from the college.  Given the applicant could not explain what that term meant, and there is no other evidence before it as to whether he was ‘disciplined,’ the Tribunal has not put any weight  on those words appearing in relation to the cancelation in September 2017.  As has been discussed above, the Tribunal is already satisfied that the reasons given, as a whole, for the cancelation of the enrolment and the failure to re-enrol carry a large amount of weight against the applicant having a student visa.

52.       The PRISMS record also shows that the applicant had a number of enrolments, all cancelled at the same time as or before the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery enrolment was cancelled. The applicant said that he was not sure why they all appeared on his PRISMS record.  The Tribunal places no weight on these enrolments and cancelations.

Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

53.       The applicant said that his family would be disappointed and sad if he returned without a qualification. His brother still does not have work.  When the applicant was working he sent money home, however he no longer does so because he is not working.  Since his visa was cancelled his parents have been sending money.  He said they are back to normal now because the price of the food they sell has increased.  He also said that it will be hard for him to find a job if he does not return with a certificate. 

54.       The Tribunal accepts that the cancellation of a visa is disappointing and that a significant amount of money is invested in a person in order to set them up in a country to live independently in order to study. The Tribunal gives this consideration a little weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such that whether cancelation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

55.       The applicant’s application for a Training visa was refused.  He told the Tribunal he has not sought review of that refusal. If the current visa is cancelled, this will result in the following:

a.The applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention under section 189 and removal under section 198 of the Act;

b.The applicant will have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia;

c.The applicant will fall within the criteria whereby a penalty for the breach of condition may be imposed. The applicant could therefore be subject to a three (3) year exclusion period where he will not be eligible to have any temporary visa application approved if he applies for a visa that requires Public Interest Requirement 4013 to be met.

56.       I give little weight to this consideration in favour of the applicant because:

·These are the intended consequences of the legislation when a visa is cancelled under these grounds;

·It reflects the seriousness with which the Department takes this type of cancelation ground;

·The applicant will be eligible to apply for a bridging visa while he makes arrangements to depart Australia and therefore the likelihood of detention is only in the event that he does not co-operate in applying for a bridging visa.

Whether there would be consequential cancelations under s.140

57.       This factor is not relevant and I give it no weight.

Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancelation

58.       The applicant said he had come here to study, and he would like to complete the Bachelor course before he returns to his family in Vietnam.  The applicant did not indicate any reason or fear of return to Vietnam.  I find there is no information to support that any international obligation would be breached and give this factor no weight.

If it’s a permanent visa, whether the former visa holder has a strong family, business or other ties in Australia.

59.       This is not relevant and I give it no weight.

Any other relevant matters.

60.       There are no other relevant matters to consider.

61.       Considering the circumstances as a whole, and particularly the reasons for the cancelation of enrolment and failure to re-enrol, the application for the Training visa and his change in purpose for being here and the failure to engage with the Department, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

DECISION

62.       The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Genevieve Cleary
Member

ATTACHMENT

Migration Regulations 1994

…

Schedule 8

8202(1)  The holder (other than the holder of a Subclass 560 (Student) visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa) must meet the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3).

(2)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a)the holder is enrolled in a registered course; or

(b)in the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 or 571 (Schools Sector) visa who is a secondary exchange student — the holder is enrolled in a full time course of study or training.

(3)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if neither of the following applies:

(a)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for:

(i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

(ii)standard 10 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007;

(b)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for:

(i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

(ii)standard 11 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007

(4)In the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa — the holder is enrolled in a full-time course of study or training.