Quadri (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5576

Quadri (Migration) [2019] AATA 5576 (11 December 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ghulam Haider Quadri

CASE NUMBER:  1724484

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2713645

MEMBER:Michael Biviano

DATE:11 December 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 December 2019 at 10:14am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) – non-enrolment in registered course – record of failing subjects – mother’s illness and surgery in home country, with complications and concurrent other illnesses – applicant’s travel to home country – no enrolment or payment of fees before travel – other family, relationship and residential issues – mental health – credibility – inconsistent and misleading evidence – discretion to cancel visa – factors for and against cancellation – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116(1)(b)

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8, condition 8202(2)(a)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 3 October 2017 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection 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 registered course of study from 20 January 2017 and he was not compliant with condition 8202 of his visa.  The delegate went on to consider the factors in favour of cancellation outweighed those against cancellation.  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 21 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. At the hearing on 21 October 2019, he provided a Statement that he had prepared for the hearing (Statement) with attachments including his mother’s medical certificate, his own medical reports and certificates and a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) Certificate at Australia Institute of Business and Technology  to undertake a Graduate Diploma of Management.

4. After the conclusion of the hearing, on 27 October 2019, the applicant provided to the Tribunal a Submission dated 27 October 2019 (Submission) and further medical certificates for his mother’s condition in February 2017.

5. 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

6. 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?

7. 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).

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

9. The decision record of the delegate of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection dated 3 October 2017, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant confirms that the Department cancelled the applicant’s Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa, which was granted on 7 March 2015 and the reasons for the cancellation of the visa (Decision Record).

10. The applicant arrived in Australia on 16 April 2015 pursuant to that student visa class TU 573 to study a suite of courses including General English and a Bachelor of Professional Accounting at Holmes Institute. The applicant gave evidence that he undertook two semesters of study in the Bachelor’s degree where he studied seven subjects and failed each subject.

11. In July 2016, he ceased studies in the Bachelor’s degree and in August 2016, he enrolled in a Diploma of Information Technology Networking with Pacific College of Technology (PCT). The applicant commenced studying the Diploma in August 2016. 

12. The applicant gave evidence that between August and September 2016 he studied two subjects in the Diploma course but due to late enrolment he struggled with his studies and failed both subjects.  He then gave evidence that in October and November 2016 he was enrolled in three subjects in that course and also failed those subjects.

13. The applicant claimed that he had a summer vacation between November 2016 and the end of January 2017 and was unable to enrol in a course of study at PCT after his vacation.  The applicant also gave evidence that at the end of January 2017, he was told by his father that his mother was required to have emergency surgery due to gallstones in her gall bladder.  The applicant decided based on what he had been told that he would return home for his mother’s surgery.  During the surgery, the applicant’s mother’s bile duct was inadvertently cut and approximately one month after the operation, his mother suffered complications from the operation including jaundice. 

14. The applicant gave evidence that on 2 February 2017 he attended college to make enquiries as to whether he could defer his studies so that he could go back home to look after his mother.  The applicant confirmed that he did not re-enrol before he left for Pakistan.  The college asked him to pay his fees so that they could secure his enrolment.  The applicant told the college that he would look at paying the fees from Pakistan but he would have to weigh up that situation.  He gave evidence that it was his intention to be in Pakistan only for a week. The Tribunal notes that on the applicant’s own evidence that he had the opportunity to enrol in February 2017, but he chose to decline taking up that opportunity.

15. On 5 February 2017, the applicant flew to Karachi and arrived back in Australia on 22 February 2017.  The applicant confirmed that whilst he was in Pakistan he extended his stay for an additional week. He said he was traumatised by events that took place from February 2017 until August 2017.  He gave evidence that he was depressed and concerned for his mother’s health during this time as she was in a life threatening situation with the complications from the surgery, which prevented him from enrolling in a course of study.

16. The applicant had tendered in support of his mental state a report of New Vision Psychology dated 26 August 2017 (Report).  The author of the Report is Johan Zaid Crouch who is an accredited mental health social worker.  The report was not prepared by a qualified psychologist or medical practitioner.  The report confirms instructions given to him by the applicant.  The report at page three states some of the instructions that had been given to Mr Crouch.  The report in part states:

    Mr Quadri does not report having a history of mental illness, nor does he recall any notable periods of significant stress other than the current period. 

    Mr Quadri reports that his current mental health presentation was triggered following a series of stressors since early 2015.

    Mr Quadri reports that in approximately February 2015, two months prior to coming to Australia, his mother had routine surgery.  However one month after the surgery it was discovered that there were significant complications, and Mr Quadri’s mother had to be re-admitted to hospital.  Mr Quadri reports that there had been some aspect of medical negligence in his mother’s treatment.

    In the year after his mother’s surgery in February 2015, Mr Quadri reports that his mother spent almost the whole year in hospital.  In May and June 2016, Mr Quadri reports that his mother was re-admitted to hospital for two months due to tuberculosis.  In February 2017, Mr Quadri’s mother was again admitted to hospital for four months due to diabetes. 

    Thus throughout his time in Australia, Mr Quadri reports that he has been consistently worried about his mother’s health.  He reports feeling extreme guilt at not being in Pakistan to support his family.  This has caused him to experience psychological distress.

17. The report from Mr Crouch confirms that the applicant told him that the operation occurred in 2015 and the matters pertaining to the applicant’s mother being in a life threatening position were inaccurate.  The applicant however was adamant that the operation occurred in 2017 and after extensive questioning he agreed that the operation did occur in 2015 in which the gall stone was removed from her gall bladder and that her bile duct was inadvertently cut by the surgeon.  He then gave evidence that in early 2017 there was another gall stone, which appeared and she was required to have another operation.  The medical certificates submitted by the applicant with the Submission after the hearing, confirmed that the applicant had kidney stones in February 2017. The Tribunal notes no medical evidence of that operation or the one that occurred in 2015 was provided to the Tribunal.  The applicant did provide a medical certificate confirming his mother’s diabetic condition in 2016.

18. The applicant gave evidence that his mother had the operation to remove the gall stone on or about 7 or 8 February 2017 but due to his mother’s diabetic condition it was a dangerous operation.  Notwithstanding those matters and her ongoing diabetes condition, the Tribunal accepted the applicant’s evidence that as at the end of February 2017 his mother’s condition was not life threatening as she had diabetes but it was being treated and under control and the issues relating to the gall stone and her bile duct had been remedied.  He gave evidence that in the operation on 7 or 8 February 2017 the surgeons both removed the gall stone and fixed her bile duct.  Based on that evidence it is unclear as to why the applicant would have been depressed on his return back to Australia in February 2017. 

19. The applicant gave evidence that he returned to Australia on 22 February 2017 and claims he was depressed due to his home sickness and being separated from his mother and family who he was very close to.  However in light of the applicant’s misleading evidence about his mother’s condition, the Tribunal finds his evidence as to the reasons he was not enrolled as not being credible.

20. On the applicant’s return to Australia in February 2017 he did not enrol in a course of study. 

21. The applicant gave evidence that in or about April 2017 he received notification by email from PCT that his COE was cancelled.  He claims that he had a meeting with PCT’s management and he took issue with them as to why they cancelled his enrolment in circumstances where they had never given him a warning that unless he re-enrolled, his COE would be cancelled in the course.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant was somewhat misguided on this issue.  The applicant confirmed that he had not enrolled in a course of study before he left for Pakistan and he had not paid tuition fees in February 2017. He gave evidence that as at April 2017, those circumstances had not changed and he had not re-enrolled.  In those circumstances the applicant could have reasonably expected that his certificate of enrolment would have been cancelled. 

22. Further the Tribunal notes that the applicant gave evidence that the college had given notification of the cancellation of the course and he could have re-enrolled once notified of the cancellation, but he did not do so.

23. On 4 September 2017 the applicant received a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) of his visa.  On 16 September 2017, the applicant provided a submission to the Department.

24. The applicant conceded in evidence that he was not enrolled for the period from 20 January 2017 until 31 August 2017 being a period of seven months and eleven days, which is a substantial period of time to not be enrolled.  By reason of the non-enrolment he does not meet condition 8202(2)(a) of his visa.

25. On the evidence before the Tribunal the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course between 20 January 2017 until 31 August 2017. Accordingly the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2) of his visa. As this was a condition that was attached to his visa, the applicant therefore breached a condition of his visa and the visa is liable to cancellation under s.116(1)(b) of the Act.

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

26. 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 or to remain in Australia

27. The applicant gave evidence that he came to Australia to study and undertake the courses as discussed above.  The applicant initially studied a Bachelor of Business Professional Accounting at Holmes Institute but he decided to change his course to a Diploma of Information Technology at PCT in August 2016 after failing the first two semesters.

28. The applicant studied for two semesters in the Diploma of Information Technology at PCT late 2016 and he failed all the subjects that he has studied in that course.

29. The applicant also enrolled in the Bachelor of Business on 1 September 2017 at Group Colleges Australia, in which he undertook studies and failed all subjects in that semester and his enrolment ceased.

30. The applicant has been in Australia since April 2015, more than four and a half years, and he has not passed any subjects.  The applicant has through the Statement, the Response and evidence at the hearing claimed that his non-enrolment on 23 May 2017 arose by reason of:

    (i)the issues with his mother and her operation in February 2017, which left her in a life threatening position; and

    (ii)his depression over his mother’s health, the death of his grandfather, the break-up of his relationship with his fiancée, his homesickness,  and his living arrangements.

31. The applicant has given evidence that if possible he intends to remain in Australia to study a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) at Australian Institute of Business and Technology, which is expected to commence on 4 November 2019 and conclude on 30 October 2020.

32. Having regard to the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have travelled to Australia intending to study, that he does intend studying in the future but given he was not enrolled in a registered course as set out above and his failure to pass any subjects in courses since April 2015, the Tribunal gives these matters only marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    The extent of compliance with visa conditions

33. The applicant gave evidence that he was not enrolled in a course of study from 20 January 2017 until 31 August 2017 being a period of seven months and eleven days, which is a substantial period of time.  Therefore the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2) for a substantial period of time.  The non-compliance with condition 8202(2) for such a substantial period of time may weigh towards cancelling the visa unless the Tribunal accepts his reasons for non-enrolment or finds he was not responsible for the reason of non-enrolment. 

34. The response the applicant provided to the Department to the NOICC included the Report dated 26 August 2017, a COE for the Bachelor of Business created 1 September 2017 at Group Colleges Australia, a submission to the Department dated 4 September 2017 and a medical certificate from Dr Syeda Saima Askari for the applicant’s mother dated 1 June 2017.

35. The applicant on the day of the hearing on 21 October 2019 also submitted further documentation in support of his application including a submission filed with the Tribunal, a certificate from Advanced Medical Centre dated 12 July 2018 regarding the applicant’s sinusitis and ear infection rendering him unfit for normal studies from 12 July 2018 to 13 July 2018, COE for the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) at Brighton Pacific Pty Ltd trading as Australian Institute of Business & Technology created 15 October 2019, letter from Dr Syeda Saima Askari undated, medical certificate from Excelsior Medical Centre dated 19 September 2019, letter from Dr John O’Rourke dated 18 October 2019, and the report of New Vision Psychology which had been previously provided to the Department.

36. The applicant gave evidence that his ability to enrol was affected by:

    (a)his depression;

    (b)the difficult circumstances in living with housemates who he could trust.  He claims that he had been a victim of some housemates treating him poorly including stealing money and clothes from him and not informing him that he was living in a short-term leasing arrangement.

37. The applicant claimed that on occasions he had lived in his car and in hotel rooms however when questioned about those matters the applicant confirmed such stays were temporary and only whilst he was trying to find accommodation where he was between houses.  The applicant claims that two to three weeks before he received the NOICC  he sought to enrol in a Bachelor of Business and the COE for that course was provided and on 1 September 2017 he was enrolled in that course.  The applicant claims he was able to enrol because he was getting better, he had stable living arrangements and he knew the people who were around him.  He claims he was getting back on his feet.  However the applicant undertook the study in the Bachelor of Business in September through to November 2017, but failed the exams for that course.  When questioned about whether he could have enrolled from April 2017 the applicant admitted that there was nothing actually preventing him from re-enrolling.

38. The applicant raised other issues that he says affected his ability to enrol including the breakdown of his relationship with his fiancée who he says he loves, which he said occurred because he had not completed his studies as at February 2019.  The Tribunal notes those events occurred after the period for which he was not enrolled and are not a relevant consideration as to why he was not enrolled.

39. The applicant claims that he received sharp pains in his right hip and legs, which impacted on his ability to move.  The medical reports that have been tendered to the Tribunal are dated October 2018, and post-date the events of not being enrolled in a course of study and are not a relevant consideration as to why he was not enrolled.

40. The applicant also refers to the death of his grandfather, which caused him great pain especially that he was unable to attend his grandfather’s funeral because of migration issues in Australia.  Again, that occurred after the period of his non-enrolment and is not a relevant consideration as to why he was not enrolled.

41. The Tribunal does not find those reasons compelling in circumstances where the applicant was essentially the cause of the non-enrolment by not re-enrolling in early 2017 at PCT. 

42. Whilst the Tribunal understands that the applicant may have had some psychological issues arising from his mother’s condition, the Tribunal is not satisfied that his psychological issues were so severe  as to cause him to cease being enrolled in his course of study from 20 January 2017 and prevent him from enrolling in a course until 1 September 2017.

1. The Report makes various conclusions about the applicant’s mental condition. Again, the conclusions are made by Mr Couch a social worker, who is not a qualified psychiatrist or psychologist. The Report was prepared based on one consultation with the applicant on 16 August 2017 and makes various conclusions about stressors and the applicant’s mental health. One of the conclusions of the Report is that:-

   It follows that it is my opinion that Mr Quadri’s mental health since 2015 has impacted on his ability to fully participate in his studies, and caused him to cease his enrolment in 2017.

2. The report appears to conclude that the applicant’s mental health was triggered by a series of stressors from 2015. However there is nothing to suggest why in January 2017, the applicant was unable to re-enrol in a course of study.

3. Further the findings of the Report are somewhat inconsistent with the applicant’s evidence that he was feeling better and able to enrol in the Bachelor of Business at Group Colleges Australia commencing on 1 September 2017. There was nothing in the applicant’s evidence or the Report that the applicant’s circumstances and condition had changed. In light of the above matters, the Tribunal does is unable to rely on the findings made in the Report.

4. Further, the Report does not conclude that the applicant’s condition was so severe that he could not study by reason of his medical condition or could not seek enrolment and deferment of his studies by reason of his psychological condition.

5. Ultimately, the applicant continued to study during 2015 and 2016, despite the diagnosis made in the Report about his mental condition during that time. There is no explanation in the Report as to why the applicant could not have continued studying while obtaining treatment for his condition during that period and in 2017. The applicant did not present medical evidence or details of treatment from 2015 to 2017.

6. In light of these matters, the Tribunal does not find the applicant’s psychological condition as the reason for the applicant not being enrolled for a period of seven months and eleven days.

7. Visa holders who hold a student visa are aware that one of the main conditions of the visa is that they must be enrolled in a registered course of study and that they are responsible for ensuring they are enrolled in a registered course of study.

8. The Tribunal finds that reasons for the non-enrolment, which were the responsibility of the applicant, relate to his failure to re-enrol in early 2017 before he left Australia and after his return to Australia.

9. Having regard to the substantial period of non-enrolment and the duration of the breach, and that the applicant was responsible for not being enrolled, the Tribunal gives it some weight towards the visa being cancelled.

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

10. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he or other members of his family would suffer hardship if the visa was cancelled.

11. The applicant gave evidence that the visa cancellation would cause him a substantial degree of hardship as he would not have completed his studies in Pakistan and it would be very difficult for him to study back home or get a job due to the four-year gap in Australia. He made enquiries with friends in Pakistan who told him that he would not be able to enrol in in a course of study in Pakistan due to the gap in his studies but he confirmed he had not made enquiries with any particular education intuitions. He claims in essence that his time in Australia studying would have been wasted as he would be returning without any qualifications.

12. Moreover he claims that if he returns to Pakistan he will not be able to study a Graduate Diploma in Management as the course is not offered. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is unable to obtain a management based course or qualification in Pakistan.

13. The applicant claims that he has suffered enormous hardship while being in Australia including homesickness, the breaking up with his fiancée, missing the death and burial of his grandfather and living in Australia without family support. It is important that all these matters have taken place and will not impose a degree of hardship upon him if the visa is cancelled.

14. The applicant claims that failing to get his qualifications will affect his family as he will return without qualifications and it will affect his ability to obtain a management job in Pakistan. The Tribunal notes that there is no guarantee based on the applicant’s academic record that the applicant would obtain that qualification of a Graduate Diploma in Management or that it would lead to a management role in Pakistan.

15. Further the Tribunal finds that these matters may be the consequences of the visa cancellation, but they are not matters which would constitute an overwhelming degree of hardship sufficient to weigh against cancelling the visa.

16. The Tribunal considers that the above matters give some weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose

17. 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.

18. The applicant gave evidence as to the circumstances that led to the cancellation of the visa as set out above.

19. Ultimately, the responsibility regarding enrolment rests with the student and the Tribunal is not persuaded by his reasons for non-enrolment.

20. The applicant knew and was aware that by not being enrolled in a registered course of study he would be in breach of condition 8202 and that his visa may be cancelled.

21. The primary purpose of the applicant under the visa is to undertake a registered course at a level appropriate to his visa. The applicant was not enrolled for a period of seven months and eleven days, which is a substantial period to be in breach of the visa.

22. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s explanations for why he was not enrolled for such a substantial period of time and therefore in breach of condition 8202(2). The Tribunal does not accept that circumstances were beyond his control or that such circumstances are a reasonable explanation for not being enrolled for such a lengthy period of time. The Tribunal gives this matter very substantial weight towards the visa being cancelled.

    Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

23. According to the Decision Record, the applicant responded to the NOICC. Further there was no information before the Department indicating any specific matters of relevance regarding the applicant’s behaviour towards the Department. The Tribunal gives this factor marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

24. As the cancellation of the visa does not affect the visa of any other person, this matter is not relevant in this application and the Tribunal gives this no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, 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

25. If the Tribunal decides to affirm the decision to cancel the visa on these grounds, then the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention under s.189 and removal under s.198 of the Act if he does not voluntarily depart Australia. Further, pursuant to s.48 of the Act, the applicant will have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia, so he would need to depart Australia and apply from overseas for most types of further visas.

26. Further, if the Tribunal decides to affirm the decision to cancel the TU 573 student visa on these grounds, then the cancellation will come within the identified risk factors to make the applicant meet Public Interest Criterion 4013, so if the applicant decides to apply for a new visa from overseas if he has to depart Australia, then that application may not be approved within the next three years.

27. However, these consequences are the intended consequences of the legislation when a visa is cancelled on these grounds.

28. The applicant gave evidence that if the visa remained cancelled he would return to Pakistan and therefore there is no indication that he would become unlawful or be subject to detention.

29. Accordingly the Tribunal gives this factor marginal weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    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 cancellation

30. This matter does not appear relevant in this application as the applicant gave evidence that if the visa remained cancelled he would return to Pakistan, he did not give any reasons as to why he could not return to Pakistan and he has not made any claims that relate to this consideration. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

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

31. This matter is not relevant in this application as the cancelled visa is a temporary visa and the Tribunal gives this factor no weight towards the visa not being cancelled.

    Any other relevant matters

32. The Tribunal is not aware of any other relevant matter in relation to the decision whether the visa ought to be cancelled.

    Conclusion

33. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

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

    Michael Biviano
    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.