Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Singh against the cancellation of his Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 500. The dispute arose because the Department of Home Affairs formed the view that Mr Singh had breached condition 8202 of the Migration Regulations 1994 by failing to maintain enrolment in a registered course at the same or a higher AQF level than the course for which his visa was originally granted. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Singh had indeed breached condition 8202 and, if so, whether the cancellation of his visa should be affirmed.

The Tribunal considered whether Mr Singh had complied with condition 8202(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates that a student visa holder must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, upon completion, will provide a qualification at the same or a higher Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) level than the course for which the visa was granted. The evidence showed that Mr Singh's visa was granted for a Bachelor of Information Technology (AQF level 7). His enrolment in this course was cancelled on 30 August 2017. Subsequently, he enrolled in a Bachelor of Information Systems, which was cancelled on 26 April 2018 due to cessation of studies. He then enrolled in a diploma of automotive technology package, with the highest AQF level being 5. After receiving a notice of intention to cancel his visa, he enrolled in a Bachelor of Business. The Tribunal found that from 30 August 2017 to 7 September 2017, and again from 26 April 2018 until his enrolment in the Bachelor of Business, Mr Singh was not enrolled in a full-time registered course at the same or a higher AQF level than his original course.

Having found a breach of condition 8202(2)(b), the Tribunal then considered its discretion to cancel the visa. It noted that there were no specific matters mandated by the Act or Regulations to be considered in exercising this discretion. The Tribunal had regard to the circumstances of the case, including the applicant's purpose for travel, his compliance with visa conditions, and the potential hardship. The Tribunal found that Mr Singh had not provided evidence of a compelling need to remain in Australia and that his non-compliance with condition 8202 was affirmed by him. Considering all relevant factors, the Tribunal concluded that the visa should be cancelled.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to cancel Mr Singh's Class TU visa.