SING (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant, a citizen of China, against the cancellation of his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Subclass 572 visa. The applicant had been enrolled in vocational education and training courses in Australia. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had complied with the conditions of his visa, specifically condition 8202(2), which requires a student visa holder to be enrolled in a registered course and to maintain full-time study.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had failed to comply with condition 8202(2) of his visa by not being enrolled in a registered course and not studying full-time, and if so, whether the Tribunal should exercise its discretion to cancel the visa. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's stated reasons for wishing to remain in Australia, including his passion for the fitness and nutrition industries and the hardship he would suffer if his visa were cancelled.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not complied with condition 8202(2). The evidence presented by the applicant regarding his enrolment in a registered course and his full-time study was vague and unsubstantiated. He provided minimal documentary evidence and struggled to recall basic details about his arrival and previous studies. The Tribunal noted that his stated course of study, a Certificate IV in Fitness, was not a registered CRICOS course, and he provided no evidence of other studies. The Tribunal considered the applicant's personal circumstances, including his desire to study in Australia and his Buddhist faith, but concluded that these did not outweigh the breach of his visa conditions. The Tribunal applied the ordinary and natural meaning of "compelling need" as discussed in *Project Blue Sky Inc v Australian Broadcasting Authority*.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel the applicant's visa.