Shah Nawaz (Migration)

[2018] AATA 5962

Shah Nawaz (Migration) [2018] AATA 5962 (3 September 2018)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Shah Nawaz

CASE NUMBER:  1619316

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           bcc2016/2877748

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:3 September 2018

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 03 September 2018 at 1:48pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary stay – academic progress and course completion – enrolment after Tribunal’s s 359A letter – medical diagnosis and treatment – misleading evidence regarding employment – value of study to employment objectives – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65, 359A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 4 November 2016 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 30 August 2016. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). 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.

   Background

3. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan and is currently 30 years old. He came to Australia on 12 August 2014 as the holder of a Subclass 573 Student Visa. Since then the applicant has enrolled three times to undertake a Bachelor degree but has not made academic progress or completed any courses. In March 2017 the applicant was diagnosed with Hodgkin’s lymphoma for which he received treatment and continues to be monitored.

4. At the time of application for the visa which is the subject of this review, the applicant had been enrolled to study a Bachelor of Commerce at University of Canberra having changed from a Bachelor of Business Administration. When he appeared at a Tribunal hearing in January 2018, the applicant was not enrolled in a course but subsequently obtained enrolment to study a Bachelor of Accounting at Universal Business School, Sydney. Prior to a decision being made in this case, the applicant’s enrolment in the Bachelor of Accounting was cancelled for non-payment of fees. The applicant was invited to comment on the adverse information and to attend a second hearing. He again obtained enrolment at Universal Business School to study a Bachelor of Accounting.

5. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa 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 it was determined the genuine temporary entrant criteria were not met.

6. The applicant has provided the following documentary evidence:

   ·     Written submissions in support of the application;

   ·     Commonwealth Bank statements;

   ·     University of Canberra academic transcript;

   ·     Letter from NSW Health Pathology dated 16 January 2018;

   ·     Offer letter from Group Colleges Australia dated 6 February 2018;

   ·     Pakistan Marriage Certificate in the name of the applicant dated 28 December 2017;

   ·     Medical documentation in the name of the applicant in relation to his diagnosis and treatment of Hodgkin lymphoma;

   ·     COE and payment receipts for a Bachelor of Accounting in the name of the applicant for a course commencing on 27 August 2018 to 13 August 2021;

   ·     Billing details and procedure form for a PET scan dated 6 June 2018;

   ·     Letter from NSW Health Pathology dated 1 August 2018 to Group Colleges Australia advising the applicant’s fitness to study;

   ·     Medical Certificate and related documents indicating the applicant received medical treatment from 29 May to 4 June 2018.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 30 January and 31 July 2018 to give evidence and present arguments.

8. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

   Hearing - 30 January 2018

9. The applicant said he came to Australia to study a Bachelor of Business Administration at the University of Canberra. He was granted credits for subjects he completed at university in Islamabad and in the first semester he passed three subjects out of four but then felt he was struggling. The applicant explained he felt weak and was falling behind in his studies. The applicant referred to some subjects that he had to take several times having received F grades even though he was attending the course. He said he was unable to perform in exams and it was suggested he change to a Bachelor of Commerce.

10. The applicant declared he then became ill in 2017 with Hodgkin’s lymphoma and he was told it had likely affected his health for two years prior to diagnosis. The applicant said he was last enrolled to study from 2015 to 2016 and was given a year’s leave, and then found out about the cancer. The applicant said he had an operation followed by chemotherapy over six months from March 2017.

11. The applicant advised he had also been treated for a problem with his lungs but a PET scan revealed he has the all clear. He said he had been told he is healthy and able to study. Regarding his plans from now, the applicant referred to his brothers and their qualifications as well as his father’s desire for him to complete his studies. According to the applicant he has ‘72 credits’ and believes he has only six more units to do to complete a Bachelor degree. The Tribunal asked if he was saying he had completed most of the course and he claimed he had. The Tribunal referred to the academic transcript provided in which it appeared he had been given 36 credit points and had passed 3 units. The applicant said he needs three semesters to complete his studies. He declared he recently married and plans to return to Pakistan.

12. Regarding career plans, the applicant said he is an entrepreneur and has started a business with a cousin in Pakistan. He declared he is supported financially through funds from overseas as well as a brother in Australia who is an importer. The applicant said he has worked with his brother in the past importing goods from overseas. According to the applicant, before coming to Australia he had been studying a Bachelor of Business Administration in Islamabad but his brother in Australia convinced their father to send him here because he is innovative in business and so he can have a better level of education.

13. The applicant said that along with his mother who had been in Australia for six months, he recently travelled back to Pakistan to visit family. He said since being ill, his priority is his family and he has felt separated from his community. In this regard, he said if his mother had not been granted a visa to come to Australia he would have returned to Pakistan. The applicant said his father has invested in him and he wants to complete his degree for that reason. The applicant said there are no issues preventing him from returning to Pakistan. Regarding his ongoing health matters, the applicant said he has to see a haematologist every three months and a lung specialist every six months.

    359A letter

14. After the hearing, but prior to a decision being made in the case, on 27 June 2018 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant inviting him to comment or respond to information as follows:

    On 30 January 2018 you attended a hearing and provided evidence in support of your application for review. At the time of the hearing you were not enrolled in a course of study but stated your intention to re-enrol following a medical assessment indicating you were fit to do so. On 11 February 2018 you submitted a letter of offer and acceptance to undertake a Bachelor of Accounting. Your representative stated the course was to commence in July, however, according to the offer letter from Group Colleges Australia, the course dates were 7 May 2018 to 23 April 2021.

    In conducting the review, the Tribunal is required by the Migration Act 1958 to invite you to comment on or respond to certain information which we consider would, subject to your comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.

    The particulars of the information now being put to you is that according to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISM) records, you are not currently enrolled in a course of study. PRISM records show that your enrolment in a Bachelor of Accounting has been cancelled for non-payment of fees. There is no evidence you have undertaken any other approved course of study since 30 January 2018.

15. The applicant was advised the information is relevant to the review because cl.500.211 of the Migration Regulations state that at the time of decision, to be eligible for the grant of a student visa an applicant must be enrolled in a full-time registered course of study. He was also told that if the Tribunal relies on this information in making a decision, it may lead to the decision under review being affirmed.

16. On 11 July 2018 the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal advising that the applicant had to stop studying on medical advice but he was now enrolling in a new course. The letter also stated the applicant was meeting with his doctor that day for more tests and the representative was expecting to receive an updated medical report. The letter asked for an extension of two weeks.

17. The Tribunal decided to invite the applicant to a further hearing to address the issues put to him in the 359A letter as well as other relevant matters. On 13 July 2018 the applicant was invited to attend a second hearing on 31 July. In the invitation, the applicant was asked to provide any additional documents that he wished to rely on to the Tribunal.

18. The applicant did not submit any further documents to the Tribunal prior to the hearing. On the day of the hearing the applicant produced a COE for a Bachelor of Accounting commencing on 27 August 2018 and ending on 13 August 2021. The applicant also provided Billing Details dated 6 June 2018 for a PET-CT Scan and a Procedure Guide.

    Hearing – 31 July 2018

19. The Tribunal explained to the applicant that he had been invited to attend a further hearing because, as had been put to him in a letter pursuant to s.359A of the Migration Act, it appeared he was not enrolled in a course of study.

20. The applicant said after the hearing in January 2018 he was enrolled and had attended orientation (in May) after giving his documents from the University of Canberra to a new college. He said after three days of attending classes he had symptoms of night sweats and back pain and his doctor told him he had to be observed in hospital for one week. The applicant said he had a blood test and PET scan for which he provided documentation to the Tribunal. (The Tribunal did not have this evidence at the time of the hearing). He said he had paid for three units at college and was expecting an exemption for a fourth which if accepted, would mean he did not need to pay for it. In the meantime he said his health condition ‘came again’ and he had to go to hospital for a week. He said he then received a letter cancelling his enrolment for non-payment of fees. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the requirement to have a PET scan meant he was unable to pay for and continue his studies and he said it was because he was taken into hospital for observation for one week.

21. The applicant said he recently gave medical documents to the college, they gave him another COE, he has now paid the fees and his classes were about to start on 27 August. The applicant said he had sent the COE to the Tribunal after receiving the invitation to the second hearing (the Tribunal had not received this at the time of the hearing). The applicant said he sent it to his representative who advised it may have been missed but would be provided post-hearing.

22. The Tribunal put it to the applicant that when he attended the first hearing in January, he provided medical evidence regarding his illness and claimed he was medically cleared to study. He agreed this was the case but said he had been ’95 percent cleared’. He told the Tribunal he had an appointment with his doctor the next day because his symptoms come and go. The Tribunal then put it to the applicant that it appeared his ill health meant he was unable to study on the basis that since his arrival in 2014, he has not completed any courses. The Tribunal reminded the applicant he had given evidence that he was diagnosed with an illness in March 2017, which the Tribunal accepted, and had been told it was likely he had suffered from it for 2 years prior to that. The Tribunal pointed out that currently (as of the second hearing on 31 July 2018), he was still suffering from it. The applicant said the disease is inside him and the Tribunal agreed that was the case, and that it appeared he was unable to study as a result. The applicant said he wanted to study and would always try his best. The Tribunal repeated that it appeared he was not able to. The Tribunal again reminded the applicant that he had said in January 2018 that he had been cleared to study but had not provided evidence to support that claim. He was told that in addition, he had not now provided evidence that he was cleared to study and the applicant said he could get it from his doctor.

23. The applicant asked the Tribunal to understand the situation was not in his hands. The Tribunal put it to him that he had been able to travel back to Pakistan and spend two months there then return to Australia rather than resume his studies. The applicant said he had travelled back to his home country because his wife is there. He declared he did not want this to happen to him and the Tribunal repeated it was accepted he had an illness, but it was preventing him from studying or maintaining enrolment. He said he believes that now he is able to study but agreed he did not have any control over his health. The Tribunal pointed out to the applicant that he had been unable to continue his studies in May 2018.

24. The applicant said he is going to begin studying on 27 August 2018, that he is now at the end of his studies and he only requires three semesters. The Tribunal disagreed that he was at the end of his studies as his previous enrolments have all been cancelled. The applicant claimed he was to receive exemptions from subjects taken at the University of Canberra. The applicant said he had re-enrolled at Universal Business School on 18 July 2018. The Tribunal noted that was a few weeks after he had been sent a 359A letter inviting him to comment or respond to information that indicated he was not enrolled. The applicant replied that he was already in the college system and had been able to obtain another COE.

25. The applicant repeated he could get evidence from his doctor that he is now fit to study. He said he was recently told to keep busy and study but he has to see the specialist every two months, as well as his GP whenever he gets symptoms. The Tribunal told the applicant it appeared likely he would cease studying in future due to the need for further medical assessment or treatment. He said if he had been told by the college his enrolment was to be cancelled he would have told them where he was. He repeated that he had paid for three subjects and was expecting exemption for a fourth but the college cancelled his enrolment for non-payment of fees.

26. The applicant said he wants to finish his studies because he has four brothers, one brother had graduated as an engineer and his parents are currently in Australia. He said the only thing he is in Australia for is to study. He said his mother is here because he cannot eat or drink outside of the home and he needs her to prepare food for him. The applicant said his mother is in Australia until March 2019. After that he said they will apply for a visa again for her and she will have to come back. 

27. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he had claimed he had to stop studying on medical advice but no evidence had been provided to support this. The applicant said he would provide the evidence of his PET scan and went on to describe how this test affected his body for 72 hours. The applicant said he has to pay for his medical treatment himself as his health insurance does not cover it, and his father is the one taking care of it. The Tribunal asked if that was the reason his enrolment had been cancelled for non-payment of fees but the applicant denied this was the case. The applicant said he has paid the fees now, his family in Pakistan is financially sound and there is no issue with fees.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

29. 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 a genuine temporary entrant for study.

30. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    (a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

    (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

    (iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    (iv)any other relevant matter; and

    (b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

    (ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

    (c)of any other relevant matter.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

31. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

32. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

33. The applicant gave evidence about his circumstances in his home country. Prior to arriving in Australia in 2014 the applicant said he had been studying a Bachelor of Business Administration in Islamabad, Pakistan but his brother in Australia convinced him to study here both in order to obtain a better education and because he is innovative in business. The applicant’s parents, one brother and the applicant’s wife, who he married in December 2017, continue to live in his home country. The applicant declared he had started a business with a cousin in Pakistan although no details or independent evidence was provided to support this claim. He also claimed in his written statement in 2016 that he has a house in Pakistan that is still in his father’s name and promised to him but did not provide evidence of this. He stated there was no military service, or civil or political issues preventing him from returning. The Tribunal gives some weight to the applicant’s parents and his wife providing ongoing personal ties to Pakistan but is not satisfied this is a significant incentive for him to return to his home country.

1. The applicant has two brothers in Australia and from his evidence; his mother has spent time here and intends to apply for another visa to continue looking after the applicant. According to the applicant’s evidence, he requires his mother to prepare food for him which she has been doing, and apparently will continue to do until March 2019, after which a further visa will be sought for her to come back to Australia. At the time of the second hearing, the applicant said both his parents are in Australia and he had returned to Pakistan for just over three months between October 2017 and January 2018 to be with his wife. The applicant said he is supported by a brother in Australia and the applicant himself established his own business here that he said provided him with an income greater than he could obtain from a job. The Tribunal considers these factors are strong incentives for him to prolong his stay in Australia and is not satisfied he is a genuine temporary entrant.

2. The applicant gave evidence at both hearings about his diagnosis and treatment for Hodgkin’s lymphoma. He claimed his doctor advised he had likely suffered from symptoms of the disease for two years prior to diagnosis in March 2017 and the applicant said this would account for his poor academic performance since arriving in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has provided independent evidence of a medical condition.

3. The applicant did not provide evidence he was fit to study in January 2018 or that his health was the reason he had to stop studying in May 2018. In a letter dated 11 July 2018 the applicant’s representative said he had to stop studying on medical advice. The applicant had told his representative he was meeting his doctor that day, was having more tests, and would be receiving an updated medical report. The Tribunal did not receive any evidence of tests undertaken in July 2018. The applicant’s representative stated in an email dated 31 July that evidence would be provided to demonstrate the applicant needed to be under observation for a week in Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. No satisfactory evidence of admittance to Royal Prince Alfred Hospital as an inpatient was provided. On 4 August 2018 the applicant’s representative submitted a document labelled ‘Medical certificate for time in hospital’, The document is a Medical Certificate from a General Practitioner, Dr S Shahnaz, of Centre Health Medical Centre Campbelltown stating the applicant was receiving medical treatment from 29 May 2018 to 4 June 2018 inclusive. It does not state he was admitted to hospital for observation and no documentation was provided from Royal Prince Alfred Hospital. The applicant supplied details of a PET scan undertaken in June 2018 but did not explain why his medical appointments meant he could not continue the course he enrolled in or why he did not seek compassionate leave from his education provider.

4. The applicant’s enrolment to re-commence study in May 2018 was cancelled for non-payment of fees which is not related to his ill-health. The applicant said he had paid for three subjects and was awaiting approval for a fourth to be exempted but his enrolment was unexpectedly cancelled. No independent evidence was provided to support the applicant’s claim of having substantially paid for his course. He claimed if he knew his enrolment would be cancelled, he would have told the college where he was, that is, in hospital for a week. According to the offer letter from Group Colleges Australia, the course the applicant enrolled in began on 7 May 2018. The applicant said he went to his college orientation then became ill after attending classes for three days. He said he suffered night sweats and back pain so his doctor told him he had to be observed in hospital for a week. As stated, the evidence provided by the applicant in support of these claims was a Medical Certificate from a General Practitioner stating the applicant was receiving medical treatment from 29 May 2018 to 4 June 2018. He also provided a NSW Health Attendance Certificate for an Outpatient appointment on 1 August 2018 and a letter of the same date addressed to Group Colleges Australia stating the applicant is fit to resume full-time studies. The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the evidence provided that the applicant was admitted to hospital for a week in May or June 2018. Since the applicant’s course began on 7 May and his medical treatment covered the period 29 May to 4 June (as well as 5 or 6 June for a PET scan), the applicant had ample time to finalise his enrolment matters and make arrangements with his college to take leave for his medical treatment. Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s enrolment was cancelled for the reasons he claimed.

5. The applicant has said he needs to attend two monthly and six monthly appointments with his doctors. Although the applicant submitted a copy of a letter from his doctor to Group Colleges Australia stating he is now fit to study, the Tribunal is concerned the applicant will not continue to study or maintain enrolment, as has occurred in the past. The Tribunal accepts the applicant suffered from a serious illness which had an impact on his health and well-being. However, after the Tribunal hearing on 30 January 2018 when he claimed he was cleared to study, the applicant enrolled again in a Bachelor’s degree but it did not commence until 7 May 2018. He then went back to Pakistan for two months from February to April 2018. When the course started, the applicant had not paid the fees and his enrolment was cancelled. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant about his cancelled enrolment on 27 June 2018 and it was only after receiving that letter that the applicant re-enrolled and provided a new COE for a course commencing on 27 August 2018. The Tribunal is not satisfied this is the behaviour of a genuine student whose only purpose in Australia is to study.

6. In the Department’s decision record of 4 November 2016, the delegate found the applicant had declared he was unemployed when in fact he was registered as a director of an Australian business, its address being the applicant’s home address. The applicant gave evidence in his written statement dated 16 November 2016 that he responded ‘no’ to a question in his application for a student visa about whether he was employed because he was not employed in ‘a normal employment situation’. He stated a business of which he is the director, Pyrmont Traders Pty Ltd, is a tobacco shop and café in Sydney from which he earns more than he would from a job while being able to work less than 20 hours a week.

7. The Tribunal notes that in his application for the student visa which is the subject of this review, the applicant gave his employment status as ‘Unemployed’ since leaving school/college/university. Under ‘Employment details’, the applicant stated “I have my complete focus on education that’s why I am not working”. The applicant only explained his directorship of a company when the Department discovered it and referred to it in the decision record. In a written statement to the Tribunal the applicant said:

   I am the director of this business. It enables me to earn more than a job would pay, while at the same time meaning my time contribution is less than 20 hours a week… By running this business I am already putting into practice the concept of being a young entrepreneur… I have already established a business in Sydney with Pyrmont Traders Pty Ltd and this is giving me practical experience that will be of great use back home.

8. The Tribunal finds the applicant was being misleading in describing himself as ‘unemployed’ when in fact, he was running his own business. In addition, his statement in the application form that he was not working because he was completely focussed on his education was not true since he was working in his own business, and consequently not completely focussed on study. The applicant claimed his business provided him with an income without having to work, it can be sold at a later date and it has given him entrepreneurial experience. While this may be the case, the Tribunal is concerned the applicant has given his time to this business while his academic endeavours suffered. As has been stated, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has been unwell in the past, and in that context, running a business would deplete his energy and personal resources such that his studies would inevitably suffer. The Department noted that at the time of application, the applicant was studying at University of Canberra while living in Minto in New South Wales which did not appear to be practical. Although the applicant claimed he still attended his University of Canberra tutorials two and three quarter hours’ drive away, the Tribunal does not accept that this arrangement, together with running  his own business, allowed the applicant to focus on his studies as he claimed. In this regard, the purpose of a student visa is to enable people who are not Australian citizens or permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. It is not intended for the purpose of operating a business to provide a person with experience and capital for when they return to their home country, which is the rationale the applicant gave in his statement in 2016 for having established a trading company in Australia.

9. The Tribunal has considered the value of the course to the applicant’s future. The applicant originally enrolled to study a Bachelor of Business Administration but said he was advised to change to a Bachelor of Commerce by the university. He has now enrolled in a Bachelor of Accounting but has not provided evidence or made submissions as to the reason for this change, or how it will improve his employment or career prospects in his home country. The applicant has said he is an entrepreneur who has established his own successful business in Australia which will benefit him future both in terms of experience and capital since the business is saleable. It appears from the evidence the applicant already has the ability to establish and run a business, therefore it is not clear why he wishes to undertake a degree majoring in Accounting. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has demonstrated how qualifications gained from this course of study will benefit him in his own country in future.

10. In conclusion, the Tribunal accepts the applicant was ill with Hodgkin’s lymphoma, that he received treatment and is required to undergo periodic monitoring and assessment through regular outpatient appointments. The Tribunal has also taken into account that the applicant has re-enrolled once more in a Bachelor degree. However, having considered all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is likely to maintain enrolment, pass the requisite course units, complete his studies and return to Pakistan. The Tribunal is also not satisfied the applicant is undertaking the course for genuine purposes and considers he is seeking to maintain residency in Australia.

11. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

12. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.

13. 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.

    DECISION

14. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    Wendy Banfield
    Member