Shaik Khaja (Migration)

This matter concerned a review by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal of a decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The applicant had departed Australia and had not responded to communications from their representative or the Tribunal. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant was enrolled in a full-time registered course of study at the time of the decision, as mandated by clause 500.211(a) of the relevant regulations. This clause is a primary criterion for the grant of a Subclass 500 visa. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant had provided any information or comments in response to an invitation to do so, pursuant to section 359A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).

The Tribunal reasoned that the critical piece of evidence regarding enrolment was the applicant's record on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS). PRISMS is a system maintained by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, used by the Department of Home Affairs to verify student visa applications. The Tribunal accepted PRISMS as a reliable record of enrolments, absent any specific evidence to the contrary. In this case, the PRISMS record indicated that the applicant did not hold a current Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE), suggesting they were not currently enrolled in a registered course of study. As the applicant had not responded to the invitation to provide comments or evidence to refute this, the Tribunal was not satisfied that clause 500.211(a) was met.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.