Ram (Migration)

Ram (Migration) [2024] AATA 2190 (17 June 2024)
ECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Sunyal Dharwadkar Ram
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr JUJHAR BAJWA (MARN: 0742209)
CASE NUMBER:  2211771
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2022/2176839
MEMBER:Rachel Westaway
DATE:17 June 2024
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 17 June 2024 at 3:19pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – enrolment in a registered course – applicant ceased enrolment – closure of business – multiple course cancellations – dispute with college – separation from wife – financial hardship – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, s 19
Migration Act 1958, ss 116, 140, 189, 198
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 8, Condition 8202
CASES
Wan v MIMA (2001) 107 FCR 133
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 9 August 2022 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that on the basis that the applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course of study. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 August 2023 at 1:00pm to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Fijian and English languages.
The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
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
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 (Cth) (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s 116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.
Background
The applicant is a 38-year-old male from Fiji.
The applicant was granted a TU-500 visa on 23 April 2020.
Tribunal Application
The applicant lodged their application for review on 13 August 2022. They provided the Department of Home Affairs decision record and notification letter, Fijian Passport along with their application for review.
On 8 August the applicant submitted an email which entailed a written document addressing the cancelation of his visa.
Department of Home Affairs Application
On 13 July 2022 the Department of Home Affairs sent a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) letter to the applicant.
On 25 July 2022, the visa holder’s migration agent provided a response via email. This response contained the following documents:
·A copy of the applicant’s passport.
·A written submission dated 25 July 2022, from the applicant.
The written submission contained the following images:
·images of a ‘Working with Children’ blue card in the applicant’s name.
·A marriage invitation to Anil Kumar Ram and Prakash Wati Ram inviting them to the wedding of the applicant and Sonam Shivani Chand.
·A marriage certificate issued by the Suva Registry for the marriage of the applicant and Sonam Shivani Chand on 24 September 2012.
·A copy of an Application for Dissolution of the marriage between the applicant and Sonam Shivani Chand, lodged by Sonam Shivani Chand at Nausori Family Court on 21 October 2021.
·A certificate of business registration for the business “Sunrize Officeworks” registered on 07 April 2010.
·Email correspondence, including an Authority to Act form and a statutory declaration with regards to the sale of the applicant’s business (Sunrize Officeworks) from Joshika Prasad on 11 February 2021.
·An email to the applicant from Pacific Training Group on 19 May 2021 requesting that the visa holder obtain release from his previous enrolment.
·A student agreement from the Pacific Training Group with what appears to be the applicant’s electronic signature on 12 May 2021.
·A receipt from Pacific Training Group showing a payment of AUD1,000 on 11 May 2021.
·Emails between the visa holder and a staff member (Mel Mao) from Frontier Education (email address [email protected]) on 04 December 2020 regarding access to academic systems and assignment submission.
On 9 August 2022 the Department notified the applicant that his visa was being cancelled.
The Department found that according to PRISMS, the applicant had not been enrolled in a full-time registered course of study since 03 May 2021. The applicant did not provide any evidence to show that he was enrolled in any other full time registered course of study in Australia. Furthermore, the applicant stated in his response that he had not complied with the conditions of his student visa.
The applicant therefore did not maintain his enrolment in a full-time registered course of study as required by visa condition 8202 attached to his visa.
The delegate therefore found that there was ground for cancellation under s116(1)(b) of the Act, as the applicant had failed to comply with a condition of his Student visa.
Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?
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 full-time registered course: 8202(2)(a)
·maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course.
On 9 August 2023, post hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a submission. It outlined that the applicant never misled the Department and his intentions have always been to study.
In summary his submission stated that he has always abided by his visa conditions and left the country on two occasions whilst he was on a tourist visa
·     He never engaged in any criminal activities and never had a criminal record and obeyed the laws of Fiji as well. He is of good character.
·     The applicant claims to hold a Blue Card whilst in Australia and assisted his uncle who runs a Trade College (ATAC) in Jimboomba QLD for 3 months.
·     His parents are Permanent Residents in New Zealand and his father works in the banking industry for more than 30 years in Fiji and he is a financial consultant in New Zealand and his mother is a pre-school teacher and he comes from a well-respected family.
·     He was granted a student visa on 23 April 2020 and enrolled in Certificate IV in Business studies (part of a package course) at Frontier Education located in Brisbane City and that due to personal problems between his ex-wife including the family members he remained enrolled and submitted a few assessments out of time.
·     He claims his ex-wife had an extra marital affair in Fiji whilst he was studying in Australia.
·     The boyfriend of his ex-wife threatened to kill him if he returned to Fiji which he confirmed he did not report.
·     He sold his business in Fiji due to it incurring losses and staff not opening the business on time which was costing him money. The new owner still has not paid the full amount. He only made payments around $3,000 from a $25,000 sale.
·     He claims it will be hard to start from scratch.
·     The college he attended was not organized nor did it cater for student’s needs.
·     There was a delay in the start date due to COVID 19 which was at its full peak and classes were moved to online instead of face to face and at times the campus would be shutdown.
·     He claims that the college sent incorrect warning letters for payments which were already made and the college admits it made a mistake in sending wrong warning letters as well as a threatening email to report him to the Department of Immigration.
·     That the college changed to the new online delivery system namely Moodle which was not properly set up and had no due dates showing for assessments.
·     That the college failed in so many ways in following due proper procedures.
·     That the college failed to adhere to Standard 8 of the National Code 2018 “whereby it states that Providers must identify if a student is at risk or presenting unsatisfactory course progress or attendance, BEFORE either situation occurs”
·     That he always attended my class whereby I can clearly recall I missed just 1 day of class since I was sick and had issues with the internet which I had informed the tutor
·     That I was not allowed to move to the Diploma of Business since the college said I did not complete 80% of my coursework.
·     He provided a table which he claims is from his tutor but is not an official document. He claims that it shows he had completed “way more than 80% or more than 50% (Students are expected to achieve a minimum of 50% pass rate in every term) Source: Frontier Education Student Handbook but the coursework was not graded whereby whenever you submit an assessment the tutor is notified that the student has submitted their assessment and ready to be graded”
·     He states that the table shows “my course progress from my tutor whereby answers were submitted but not graded by the tutor”
·     That the college did not follow their internal procedures and lack of support from college staff and that I intended to move to Gold Coast and had requested a release letter from the college as per email below but did not get a response from them. I even called them a few times to grant me a release letter and was advised that the college is not obliged to give a release letter despite showing them the new offer letter from the new provider. The college also failed to adhere to the Procedure for Assessing Transfer Applications from Students Wishing to Transfer OUT of Frontier Education (page 61 of Frontier College Student Handbook)
·     That my COE (Certificate of Enrolment) was cancelled on 3rd May 2021 whereby I had to obtain a new COE within 28 days in order not to breach my visa condition
·     That I applied for admission at Pacific Training Institute which is situated in Gold Coast and I had signed an offer letter and had already paid part of my fees but they required release from my current provider which they refused to acknowledge or provide reasons in writing.
·     That I had within 28 days of the cancellation of my COE applied to another provider as above but did not get the release letter from my current provider and hence the enrolment could not proceed
·     That due to so many failures of the college as stated above and not granting me a release letter and also no support from my agent I had no options available
·     That I still wish to pursue my studies in the field of Cyber Security and that I am a genuine student
According to PRISMS records detailed in the decision provided by the applicant to the Tribunal the applicant last completed a Certificate IV in Business on 24 January 2021 and the COE finished.
He was then enrolled in a Diploma of Business three times from 25 January 2021 – 23 January 2022, 1 March 2021 – 27 February 2022 and 19 April 2021 – 17 April 2022 respectively but these COEs were cancelled due to non-commencement of studies.
He was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Business from 24 January 2022 with a proposed end date of 22 January 2023 but this was cancelled on 23 February 2021. He was also enrolled in another Advanced Diploma of Business with a proposed start date of 28 February 2022 and a proposed end date of 26 February 2023 but this was cancelled on 26 March 2021 due to a change of COE/student details.
The applicant in his submission and at hearing confirmed he was not enrolled in a full-time registered course with his last COE cancelled on 3 May 2021 due to non-commencement of studies.
Whilst the applicant has provided the Tribunal for reasons why he was unable to maintain his ongoing studies and COE, it is undisputable that on the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was not enrolled in a full-time registered course. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(a).
Evidence at hearing
The applicant stated he has come to Australia twice. He stated that he came on visitor visas and left within 3 months on his first visit and on his second visit he saw a package course he was interested in studying and applied for a student visa.
He is 38 years old and had previously studied an honours diploma in IT at the National Institute of Technology and Bachelor of IT at the Institute of Technology of Australia.
He stated that he had previously run an internet shop café for 8 years and employed 2 full time staff and friends and cousins also assisted him however staff came and went and he confirmed he has now sold the business.
The applicant stated that he wanted to study a business course to grow his business as he had limited academic business knowledge.
He explained that he sold it because his ex-wife came to Australia and then left. He explained that the intention was that she was to look after the business but she had no interest and the shop would not be opened and he lost customers and it went down hill and family he stayed with gave misinformation to his in-laws and wife and blocked him from all communication. He claims that his wife requested a divorce when she returned to Fiji and she left after before he commenced his studies.
The applicant claims that he completed the Certificate 4 units but not the actual course because he was confronted by numerous issues such as the new IT system at school called Moodle which listed dates incorrectly which affected his enrolment.
He said that the curse provider would not let him enrol in the Diploma of Business and move to the next course. He claims that some of his assessments were not marked and he received no support.
When asked about any attempts to contact the Department or course provider and report this he stated he did not. He claims that his Migration Agent also provided no support.
The applicant claims he wanted to move to the Gold Course and requested a release letter from the course provider however it was never acknowledged and his COE was cancelled he had 28 days to provide a new CEO and apply to a new institution.
The Tribunal asked the applicant why he did not return to Fiji, and he claimed he had sold his business and there were ongoing marital issues with his wife.
The Tribunal expressed its concern pertaining to the timing of as to why the applicant’s former wife’s boyfriend would try and contact him. The applicant stated that he thought his wife was having an affair and had a sim card registered in Fiji. He used the sim and call records over 3-4 months to ascertain a number that was called regularly. He claims he originally told his mother-in-law what he believed to be an affair and she denied it and he then called the number and spoke to the new boyfriend which was when the threat was made.
The Tribunal provided the applicant with an opportunity to address its concerns. It explained that one reason provided by the applicant was the communication between him and the boyfriend of his former however the timing did not make sense because the relationship was over when the claimed threat occurred. The Tribunal highlighted that the divorce letter was dated 13 September 2021 and as such the marriage would have been over at the time the claimed threat and calls were made. The applicant agreed that they had separated on 13 January 2020 and provided no further explanation.
The applicant stated he has not breached any other conditions on his visa and confirmed he has no children. He claims he has an uncle and aunt who live in Sydney, and he lives in Queensland and rents.
He stated he lives off his savings and his parents assist him if he needs money. He also claimed to work as an Uber eats driver and for three months worked for his uncle assisting at a Trade College.
He was driving Uber eats and assisting his uncle for three months in a trade college. He claims that the last time he spoke to his wife was on 29 May 2022 and her boyfriend was in 2021. He stated that he considers the relationship to be over however he wants to remain in Australia as he has an interest in Cyber Security and he has paid $1000 fees and it is a $7,000 package course with Pacific Training Group.
The applicant stated that his uncle lives on the Gold Coast, so he intends to live with him.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if the course could be undertaken online, and he explained that he was not sure.
He confirmed that he has provided all information available to him. He accepted that the course provider stated he had not reached 80% of course work and that he did not appeal this decision with the course provider because he was confused and didn’t know what to do at that time. He claims he tried to defer but his COE status changed, and he tried to complete the required assessments but had no support from his tutor.
The applicant stated that he referred to his student handbook for due dates on assessments but there were issues with the College’s answers in the official handbook and the due date for assessments which was not on Moodle. He claims he would pay $100 to open the unit but despite his work he never received a final transcript.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed he completed assessments however he also confirmed he never formally asked for an academic transcript.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if he believes he had completed his units and he stated he was not certain although he claims he had paid for them. He claims he tried to complete the course work to make up 80% and he stated that he believed the college should have helped him which the Tribunal noted that did by giving him extra time to complete his work. He stated that these assessments were not marked and he was left in limbo.
Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa
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 Procedural Instruction ‘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
The applicant was granted a student visa to study in Australia. The applicant was not enrolled in a registered course since 3 May 2021. At the time the NOICC was issued the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course for fourteen months. He was granted a student visa on 23 April 2020 and enrolled in Certificate IV in Business studies (part of a package course) at Frontier Education located in Brisbane City and that due to personal problems between his ex-wife including the family members he remained enrolled and submitted a few assessments out of time but did not go on to complete his diploma of Business.

The Tribunal finds the applicant’s breach of condition 8202 to be significant because he was not engaging in the study for which his visa was granted and was not fulfilling the purpose of his travel to and stay in Australia since 3 May 2021.
The applicant attended the hearing and provided a written submission and a response to the NOICC. He outlined the reasons why he struggled with his studies. It stated that he had issues with family members and his relationship with his wife had dissolved and he felt threatened by her new partner and the business he had established in Fiji that he was selling had caused him financial distress and led to his inability to pay his course fees. He also stated that the course provider was unhelpful and did not provide clear and up to date information pertaining to his units and due dates for assessments and he lacked support from his migration agent and wanted to transfer to the Gold Coast.
The applicant spent some time telling the Tribunal about his fears of his ex-wife’s boyfriend and why he is afraid to return to Fiji. Whilst this is noted, protection from a person is not the purpose of a student visa and the applicant may wish to seek further advice pertaining to this.
Whilst the Tribunal has considered the issues raised by the applicant which outlined the difficulties he faced in Australia and with his course provider as well as his broken marriage and the fear of returning to Fiji, the applicant’s non-engagement in the study for which his visa was granted, and the absence of any request to defer his studies weighs in favour of visa cancellation.
the extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant has not complied with condition 8202 of his student visa because he has failed to maintain enrolment in a full-time registered course of study for fourteen months until his visa was cancelled. The applicant’s non-compliance for such a significant period weighs in favour of visa cancellation.
degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
The applicant stated that he comes from a respectable family and his parents are Permanent Residents in New Zealand. He stated his father works in the banking and finance industry and his mother is a pre-school teacher. The Tribunal accepts that a visa cancellation would cause the applicant and his family disappointment.
The applicant outlined the significant cost of his studies and the Tribunal acknowledges this investment.
The applicant also stated he would like to undertake a cyber security course. There is nothing preventing the applicant from undertaking such a course online in Fiji.
The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has resided in Australia now since arriving in 2020 and may have established social ties and the cancellation of his visa may cause him some emotional hardship.
The Tribunal noted the applicant’s concerns that there was nothing left for him in Fiji, and he would not be able to work. The Tribunal does not accept that claims noting the applicant has spent the majority of his life in Fiji and has experience in setting up his own business.
The Tribunal accepts that the cancellation of the applicant’s visa may cause emotional and financial hardship. It also accepts that returning to Fiji would initially be difficult as he has sold his business and would need to re-establish himself however, he would have had to have done this after his studies were complete. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancellation.
circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose
The applicant stated that his relationship had broken down and he was facing financial hardship which impacted on his ability to pay his tuition. He claims that the course provider’s systems of informing students of course material and due dates were lacking and that the policies of the course provider regarding notice of cancellation of the COE were not adhered to. He claims he wanted to transfer to another provider and his emails were not responded to. He stated his migration agent was unhelpful. He claims that his former wife’s new partner had threatened to kill him.
The Tribunal acknowledges the reasons provided by him as to why his COE was cancelled and he was not enrolled in a registered course. However, the applicant had the ability to defer his studies if his financial and personal issues were affecting his ability to continue.
The Tribunal accepts based on the evidence before it that the relationship with his wife had broken down. It has no evidence of the claimed threats made by the new boyfriend and note that the dates given by the applicant were well after the COE was cancelled and the relationship had ended.
Further, the Tribunal notes the applicant’s concerns about the course provider and confusion pertaining to information provided to students as well as the lack of responses to emails or adhering to their own policies pertaining to warnings. The applicant claims he submitted course work which was not marked and had emailed the course provider to be released from his studies and another email to the course provider requesting access to the providers online systems. However, when asked, the applicant stated in hearing he did not request a transcript of his studies as evidence of his work and the reason why his COE should not have been cancelled. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that there is correspondence between the applicant and his course provider and a request to have access to online systems, this in itself does not support the applicant’s claims that he continued to have no access to tutorials or lecturers. Further there is no evidence he did submit assignments as claimed. Whilst the applicant claims that the policy of the course provider is to provide warnings in advance to students this is an internal policy of the course provider and not something that the Tribunal would give weight to in regards to not cancelling the visa and the key issue which is the applicant’s lack of enrolment in a registered full time course. Given the limited evidence before the Tribunal it gives minimal weight to these factors in favour of the applicant and not cancelling the visa.
Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant had sold his business and his marriage was ending, these issues in themselves are not sufficient to explain his non-enrolment or why he simply did not defer his studies. The Tribunal notes he claims at hearing he did move to the Gold Coast and worked for a short period for his uncle and also drove Ubers. This indicates to the Tribunal that the applicant was able to function but simply stopped his studies despite not receiving the release approval.
The applicant claims his Migration Agent did not support him; however, he had every opportunity to contact the Department, make a complaint about the course provider or the Migration Agent and he did not. He could have also hired another migration agent and he did not. A such the Tribunal gives these factors no weight.
Considering the factors raised by the applicant separately and combined pertaining to the circumstances relating to why the visa was cancelled, the Tribunal gives a little weight in favour of the applicant and not cancelling the visa.
past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department
The delegate noted that the applicant has been co-operative and prompt in his dealings with the Department in relation to the NOICC. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancellation.
whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140
There is no one attached to the applicant’s visa and as such the Tribunal gives this factor no weight in its considerations.
whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and if so, for how long, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention
The Tribunal has considered the mandatory legal consequences of a cancellation decision. The Tribunal notes that the applicant will become an unlawful non-citizen if his visa is cancelled and may be liable for detention under s189 and removal under s198 of the Migration Act if he does not voluntarily depart Australia. He will also be subject to an s 48 bar which will limit his options in applying for further visas in Australia. Depending on the visa applied, the Tribunal notes that the applicant will be subject to Public Interest Criterion 4013 as a result of the cancellation and may not be granted a temporary visa for three years from this date except in certain circumstances. The Tribunal sees these consequences as intended consequences of a cancellation.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal weighs this factor neither in favour nor against cancelling the visa.
whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement, family unity and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation (NOTE: It has been said that the question is what decision is in the best interests of the child, not what the children might do if their parent were required to cease living in Australia: Wan v MIMA (2001) 107 FCR 133, at [27]-[28].)
The circumstances of the applicant would not engage Australia’s international obligations. There is nothing to suggest and the applicant has not claimed that Australia’s international obligations would be breached as a result of the cancellation. There is nothing to suggest that the applicant has any children in Australia whose interests would be affected if the visa was cancelled. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this factor no weight in its considerations.
any other relevant matters.
The Tribunal is not aware of any other relevant matters which will impact whether the visa ought to be cancelled.
The Tribunal has considered the totality of the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has found that the applicant has breached condition 8202 of his visa. The Tribunal considers the breach to be significant because the Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant is not fulfilling the purpose of his travel to and stay in Australia as he is not undertaking the study for which his visa was granted. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the ground of cancellation arose due to circumstances beyond the applicant’s control in this case. The Tribunal is satisfied that the cancellation will not affect any other person’s visa. It will not be in breach of Australia’s international obligations. The Tribunal is prepared to accept that some hardship may be caused by the cancellation and that there is nothing adverse known about the applicant’s past and present conduct towards the Department.
The Tribunal recognises that the cancellation of the visa is a significant matter. However, on balance, and considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.
Rachel Westaway
Senior Member

ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
…
Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a)a Defence student; or
(b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c)      a secondary exchange student.
(2) A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a)      must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and
(b)      subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
(c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:
(i) the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;
(ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.
(3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.

[2024] AATA 2190

17 June 2024

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Natural Justice

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction