Raj (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant sought review of a delegate's decision to refuse the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the criteria for the grant of the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was currently enrolled in a specified course of study, as required by clause 500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that at the time of the decision, the applicant must be enrolled in a "full-time registered course," which is defined as a course provided by an institution registered to provide such courses to overseas students. The Tribunal also considered whether it could affirm the delegate's decision on grounds other than those relied upon by the delegate, specifically the enrolment criterion, even though the delegate had refused the visa based on the applicant's failure to meet the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the enrolment criteria for the Subclass 500 visa are distinct from the GTE criteria. During the hearing, the Tribunal presented the applicant with information from the Provider Registration and Information Management System (PRISMS), which indicated a lack of current enrolment. The applicant stated he was unable to enrol due to visa restrictions. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it could affirm the delegate's decision based on the failure to meet the enrolment criterion, irrespective of the GTE assessment. As the applicant did not appear to have current enrolment in a registered course, the Tribunal concluded that clause 500.211 was not met.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant did not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the visa.