PONGSAMRAN (Migration)

[2020] AATA 75

PONGSAMRAN (Migration) [2020] AATA 75 (9 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Miss SASIYAPORN PONGSAMRAN
Mr SUPAKIAT PANGOSOL

CASE NUMBER:  1805853

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/4837156

MEMBER:Peter Haag

DATE:9 January 2020

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

Statement made on 09 January 2020 at 3:06pm

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 – not enrolled in a course of study at time of decision – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 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 Home Affairs on 23 February 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 18 December 2017. 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.

3. 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) because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

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

5. On 15 October 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information in writing about the Student visa and in particular sufficient information to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant is enrolled in a registered course of study; and that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. 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 29 October 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 she might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

6. The applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested. In these circumstances, s.359C of the Act applies and pursuant to s.360(3) of the Act 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 because the applicant’s failure to respond to the Tribunal’s invitation to provide the information indicates the applicant is content for the review to be decided on the basis of the information currently before the Tribunal.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. 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 course of study.

   Enrolment (cl.500.211)

9. 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.

10. ‘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.

11. The Tribunal has considered the contents of the Department file and the Tribunal file. There is no evidence in the Department file that establishes the applicant is currently enrolled in a course of study. Additionally, the Tribunal has considered the contents of the Tribunal file; it contains no evidence such as a Confirmation of Enrolment document, or other documentation that establishes the applicant is currently enrolled in a course of study. Therefore, on the basis of the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, 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.

12. 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.

13. Because the applicant Sasiyaporn PONGSAMRAN was found not to meet cl.500.211, the dependent applicant Supakiat PANGOSOL does not satisfy cl. 500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations; accordingly, no further assessment in respect of the dependent applicant has been undertaken because the finding in respect of the applicant is a sufficient reason for reaching the decision concerning the dependent applicant.

    DECISION

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

    Peter Haag
    Member