Sachdeva (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500, made by the applicant. The primary dispute revolved around whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of financial capacity to meet the requirements of the relevant migration regulations. The decision was made by a member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had demonstrated genuine access to funds to cover her living costs, travel expenses, and outstanding course fees, as required by clause 500.214(1) and (3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, and whether the evidence provided satisfied the requirements of Migration Instrument IMMI 18/010. Additionally, the Tribunal considered concerns regarding the applicant's Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) status, noting issues with her enrolment and visa status affecting her ability to commence her course.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided evidence of her savings account, which contained approximately AUD40,022 at the end of June 2018. This included a significant deposit of $39,500 made by her mother from her overseas bank account. Based on the provided bank statements and the calculation of the applicant's total required funds, which included outstanding course fees, living costs, and travel costs, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met the financial capacity requirements under clause 500.214(3) and had genuine access to these funds, thus satisfying clause 500.214(1). However, the Tribunal also noted concerns about the applicant's GTE, observing that she appeared not to be enrolled in a course of study at the time of the hearing and had experienced issues obtaining a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) due to her visa status.

The Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the applicant meet the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, specifically clauses 500.214 and 500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The delegate was also directed to consider the GTE issue on remittal, as the original refusal was not based on GTE grounds.