Singh (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2560

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2560 (10 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Karandeep Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1706328

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/4316538

MEMBER:Frank Russo

DATE:10 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa.

Statement made on 10 July 2019 at 6:15pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 573 (Higher Education Sector) – ground for cancellation – enrolment – not enrolled in a registered course – consideration of discretion – compelling reason for remaining in Australia – complete studies in Bachelor degree – circumstances in which non-compliance occurred – victim of alleged fraud – relative youth – vulnerable position – decision under review set aside

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8, Condition 8202

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 24 March 2017 made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa under s.116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not meet the requirements of his Student visa as he was not enrolled in a registered course. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 June 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.

4. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be set aside.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s.116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.

   Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?

7. Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:

   ·be enrolled in a registered course, or in limited cases, a full time course of study or training: 8202(2)

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(3)(a), and

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(3)(b).

8. In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision with his application for review.

9. The applicant is a 23-year-old Indian national. In addition to the information provided with his application for review, the applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of the following documents:

   a.A submission made on the applicant’s behalf by his migration agent, dated 3 June 2019; and

   b.Copy of document filed by the applicant’s parents in court proceedings against Ms Saloni Saluja in the Illaqa Magistrates Court, Ludhiana, India, certified on 11 December 2017 by the Court.

10. The applicant provided additional documents on 12 and 14 June 2019 following the hearing:

    a.A submission made on the applicant’s behalf by his migration agent, dated 12 June 2019;

    b.Copies of Confirmations of Enrolment with Academies Australasia Polytechnic (AAPoly);

    c.Copy of email from the Assistant Manager – Administration and Student Services, AAPoly to the applicant, dated 27 July 2018;

    d.Copies of International Student Offer and Acceptance Agreement from AAPoly dated 28 January 2016, 21 September 2016 and 14 March 2017;

    e.Copy of Transcript issued by the University of Wollongong for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality, dated 28 July 2016; and

    f.Copies of documents filed in the Illaqa Magistrates Court, Ludhiana, India, certified on 6 June 2019.

11. The Tribunal has had regard to these documents in making its decision. The Tribunal also has a copy of the Department’s file and has had regard to the documents on that file.

12. The applicant gave evidence at hearing that he arrived in Australia on 31 March 2015 for the purpose of studying a Bachelor of Business at the University of Wollongong. He initially completed an ELICOS English course and prior to commencing the Bachelor of Business he contacted student administration at the university to change his enrolment to a Bachelor of Arts. He told the Tribunal that he has a passion for photography and studied this for a semester as part of his studies towards the Bachelor of Arts.

13. The applicant gave evidence that he enjoyed his studies at the University of Wollongong and did well in these studies, however at the time he was living in the Sydney suburb of Ryde, with a friend of his father’s, and therefore travelled over four hours return each day to attend his classes. This included evening classes which were held from 8-10pm, which resulted in lengthier travel times due to less frequent public transport in the evenings. He often returned home from lectures in the early hours of the morning.

14. The applicant told the Tribunal that he finished studying at the University of Wollongong at the end of his first semester, in November 2015. He stated that in early 2016 he contacted his education agent based in India, with the request that she organise a course of study for him at a more convenient location.

15. The applicant told the Tribunal that his education agent, Ms Saloni Saluja, informed him that she had organised a Confirmation of Enrolment for him at AAPoly, which is a college located in Sydney’s CBD.

16. The applicant also told the Tribunal on the morning that he was due to first attend AAPoly, he received a call from Ms Saluja, informing him not to attend the college. The applicant stated that Ms Saluja had told him that the Department had started to deport international students from India who had changed their studies from a university to a college and he risked a similar fate if he attended. She informed him that she would advise him when it was safe to attend the college.

17. The applicant gave evidence that following this Ms Saluja produced further Confirmations of Enrolment for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at AAPoly, which he later found out were fake.

18. The applicant said that on 30 January 2017 he attended AAPoly’s campus at Kent Street, but was informed that he had to see the college’s Dean at their George Street campus. The applicant told the Tribunal that he showed the Dean the offer letters he had received from Ms Saluja, but the Dean informed the applicant that he was not registered with the college.

19. The applicant gave evidence that subsequent to these events he was able to secure a genuine offer and Confirmation of Enrolment from AAPoly in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management, which he commenced in March 2017. He completed three semesters of this course, however in July 2018 AAPoly informed him that he was unable to enrol further due to his Student visa having been cancelled. The applicant told the Tribunal that he ceased studying at AAPoly in November 2018.

20. Adopting the procedure in section 359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had on file a copy of his enrolment records from the Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of his PRISMS enrolment records. The Tribunal explained to the applicant what the PRISMS database is and the relevance of the records to the review before the Tribunal. The Tribunal explained to the applicant the consequences of relying upon the information. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant understood the relevance and consequences of the information being relied on. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any comments in relation to his PRISMS enrolment records and advised that he may be granted time to comment on or respond to the information if needed.

21. The applicant chose to respond to the PRISMS enrolment record at the hearing and indicated that it was an accurate reflection of his enrolment history. He told the Tribunal that he now wishes to re-enrol in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management. The Tribunal notes that according to his PRISMS enrolment record, the applicant’s enrolment in the Bachelor of Arts was cancelled on 8 April 2016 and he was enrolled in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management from 20 March 2017.

22. At the hearing the applicant confirmed that he was not enrolled in a registered course of study from 8 April 2016 to 19 March 2017 and had failed to maintain his enrolment in accordance with condition 8202. The applicant confirmed that he accepts that there are therefore grounds for cancellation of the visa.

23. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2).

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

24. Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the visa should be cancelled. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

    The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

25. The applicant told the Tribunal that the sole purpose for his travel and stay in Australia is for the purpose of studying to obtain a tertiary qualification. He stated that he completed high school in India, after which he did a short computing course and an English course, but has not completed any tertiary studies in India.

26. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to why he had chosen to study Tourism and Hospitality. He stated that the course at AAPoly was originally suggested to him by Ms Saluja. When he had contacted her about transferring to a course with a more convenient location, he had requested that he be enrolled in another Photography course, however Ms Saluja suggested the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality. He told the Tribunal that he was not given any other options. He also told the Tribunal that since commencing the course he has found that he enjoys the subject matter. He has completed three semesters of this course and has a further three semesters to complete. The applicant stated that he wishes to re-enrol in this course and then plans to enrol in a Masters course.

27. The applicant told the Tribunal that following the completion of his studies for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality, he intends to find work in the hotel industry. He gave evidence that he is not working and there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise. He informed the Tribunal that a condition of his Bridging visa is he is not allowed to work, and therefore his parents cover his expenses. He stated that he lives with a family friend, which has also assisted in reducing his costs.

28. The applicant gave evidence that he did well in his studies at the University of Wollongong, obtaining more than 65% for all of the subjects in the semester that he was enrolled at the university. He stated that while studying the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality at AAPoly he obtained distinction and high distinction grades. Following the hearing the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of his Transcript from the University of Wollongong, which indicated he had completed requirements, although the transcript does not specify the course or subjects completed, as well as a print-out of results for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality, which shows the applicant had obtained three distinctions, three high distinctions, one credit and one pass.

29. The Tribunal notes that the Department’s decision to cancel the applicant’s visa was made on 24 March 2017. The applicant obtained his enrolment in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management on 17 March 2017, following the issue by the Department of a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation on 4 March 2017. Whilst this suggests that the applicant had obtained enrolment in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management merely for the purpose of avoiding cancellation of his Student visa, the Tribunal notes the efforts which the applicant made to obtain enrolment in a course after leaving the University of Wollongong, which are covered further in these reasons in the consideration of the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose.

30. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant continued his studies in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management until he was notified by AAPoly in July 2018 that he was unable to continue with his enrolments as he did not have a Student visa. The Tribunal refers to the email from AAPoly’s Assistant Manager – Administration and Student Services to the applicant, dated 27 July 2018, which advises as follows:

    We have been notified that there is an issue with your visa and that your student visa was cancelled, therefore you are unable to study in Semester 2, 2018,

    …

    As your results are strong, we suggest that you take Leave from Studies from this semester (Semester 2, 2018) with AAPoly, which will hopefully … We are happy to give you this option for this semester. However, if there is no movement with your appeal after this semester, come November, we will need to reassess what to do with your studies.

31. The Tribunal notes that according to the applicant’s PRISMS enrolment record, his enrolment in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management was cancelled, although a date and reasons for the cancellation are not provided. The information in the email from AAPoly is however consistent with the evidence which the applicant gave at hearing, where he indicated that he was enrolled in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management until November 2018. This evidence suggests that the applicant retains a genuine desire to complete his studies in Australia.

32. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has a compelling reason for remaining in Australia, namely undertaking his studies in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management. The Tribunal is satisfied, based on the applicant’s evidence, that there are no other significant reasons for him remaining in Australia other than for the purpose of study. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.

    The extent of compliance with visa conditions

33. The applicant conceded at hearing that he did not comply with condition 8202 of his Student visa by not maintaining enrolment in a registered course of study from 8 April 2016 to 19 March 2017. As noted elsewhere in these reasons for decision, the applicant told the Tribunal that after finishing his studies at the University of Wollongong he contacted Ms Saluja to transfer to another course of study. He received copies of International Student Offer and Acceptance Agreements and Confirmations of Enrolment, leading him to believe that from early 2016 he was enrolled in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at AAPoly. He stated that he therefore did not realise that he was not complying with this condition until he attended AAPoly on 30 January 2017.

34. Following the hearing the applicant provided copies of what purport to be International Student Offer and Acceptance Agreements from AAPoly dated 28 January and 21 September 2016, as well as undated Confirmations of Enrolment with start dates for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at AAPoly on 27 April, 23 May, 27 July and 29 November 2016. As discussed later in these reasons for decision, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was provided with false Confirmations of Enrolment and was not aware that he had not complied with condition 8202 for most of the period between 8 April 2016 and 19 March 2017.

35. The applicant told the Tribunal that condition 8202 is the only condition of his Student visa which he did not comply with. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of other breaches by the applicant of his visa conditions. Accordingly, I give this some weight against cancelling the visa.

    Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

36. When asked about the degree of hardship that may be caused as a result of the cancellation of his visa, the applicant stated that the purpose of his travel to Australia is to study. He indicated that he had already suffered considerably as a result of the decision to cancel his visa. He has experienced financial problems as a result of his inability to work while on a Bridging visa. He told the Tribunal that he continues to ask his parents to send him money for his living expenses. His parents have suffered health problems, in particular his father has suffered three heart attacks. He indicated that he has also suffered hardship as a result of his inability to travel following the cancellation of his visa. During this period he lost his grandfather. He indicated that he already has a gap in his studies and has wasted time through not being able to continue with his studies. He also indicated the main hardship to his future would be if he is unable to complete his studies, which is the purpose for which he arrived in Australia.

37. The submissions made by the applicant’s representative indicate that the hardship the applicant has suffered include disruption to his studies, which have affected his career, his wellbeing and his social life. He has wasted time, money and energy and is unable to complete his studies. In addition there is the disruption to his parents’ lives, including the legal action they are taking against Ms Saluja.

38. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant would experience some hardship as a result of the cancellation of the visa, including a further delay in his ability to obtain a tertiary qualification in Australia, which is the purpose for his travel and for him remaining in Australia. I give this some weight against cancelling the visa.

    Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose

39. As noted above, the applicant commenced studies towards the Bachelor of Arts in July 2015, but ceased these studies after one semester as a result of the lengthy travel which he had to undertake to attend classes, particularly because his classes were scheduled in the evening. The applicant explained that this was the first time that he had been away from his family and therefore his family considered it best for him to live with friends of the family in Ryde.

40. The applicant gave evidence that his parents contacted Ms Saluja, who was his education agent in India, to request that she assist him to enrol in a course of study closer to where he was staying. The applicant told the Tribunal that Ms Saluja is his ‘cousin sister’, and therefore he and his family trusted her. He stated that his parents deposited money into her company’s bank account. They were subsequently told that a letter of offer had been received from AAPoly and were told to deposit further amounts of money into the company’s bank account in order to confirm enrolment. He received what was purported to be a Confirmation of Enrolment from Ms Saluja for the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at AAPoly, however on the morning when he was due to attend the college, he received a call from Ms Saluja instructing him not to attend the college. He gave evidence that Ms Saluja told him the Department had commenced deporting international students who were enrolled at the college.

1. The applicant stated that Ms Saluja then provided him with a further fake Confirmation of Enrolment. Again she told him not to attend the college as he may get into trouble with the Department as a result of transferring his enrolment from a university to a private college. The applicant gave evidence that he was told by Ms Saluja not to attend the college on three occasions and that she would advise him when it was safe to attend. This is consistent with information contained in the documents filed by the applicant’s parents in their action against Ms Saluja.

2. The applicant stated that it was not until January 2017 that the applicant’s parents told him to go to AAPoly. The applicant accordingly attended AAPoly on 30 January 2017, but was asked to meet with the Dean, who advised him that he was not registered with the college, that no money had been deposited with the college by Ms Saluja’s company and that the offers of enrolment and Confirmations of Enrolment provided by Ms Saluja had been fabricated.

3. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has been the victim of fraud committed by his education agent. He stated that he was aware of five or so other students who were also the victims of similar fraudulent behaviour committed by his education agent. He alleges that in each case Ms Saluja had faked enrolments for students in order to obtain payments. The submissions from the applicant’s representative state that Ms Saluja’s migration licence has been cancelled and she no longer operates the branch of the company which she operated at the time.

4. The applicant told the Tribunal that his parents have filed two cases against Ms Saluja. On the day of the hearing the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of pleadings made by his parents in a civil law action against Ms Saluja in relation to the dishonouring of a cheque. The applicant stated that the case was filed in 2017 and is ongoing. He stated that a further proceeding is being brought against Ms Saluja for misleading and defrauding him.

5. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he possesses any evidence of the progress of these court proceedings against Ms Saluja. Following the hearing the applicant provided further documents filed in Illaqa Magistrates Court in the proceedings against Ms Saluja. These include copies of orders of the Court made in 2018 and 2019.

6. The Tribunal found the applicant to be a credible witness, whose evidence was consistent and was corroborated by the provision to the Tribunal of a number of documents following the hearing. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that his parents had contacted Ms Saluja in January 2019 to obtain enrolment in another course closer to his home in Ryde. Following the hearing the applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of what purport to be offer letters from AAPoly to the applicant to commence studies in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management. The dates for these offers correspond with the evidence provided by the applicant. The applicant also provided the Tribunal with copies of Confirmations of Enrolment for this course, with start dates of 27 April, 23 May, 27 July and 29 November 2016. The Tribunal notes that none of these documents contains a creation date, which is a standard feature at the bottom of Confirmation of Enrolment documents. The Tribunal also notes that the documents contain non-standard formatting, including different font used for the details of the applicant’s family name and given name and non-justified formatting, both of which do not conform with the standard format of a Confirmation of Enrolment, suggesting that the documents have been doctored. This is consistent with the evidence given by the applicant.

7. The Tribunal finds that some of the circumstances which resulted in the cancellation of the applicant’s visa may have been prevented had the applicant continued with his studies at the University of Wollongong, however the Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s evidence of the hardship that he experienced in travelling over four hours per evening to travel to a from his studies and his reasons for seeking assistance from an education agent to transfer to a more conveniently located education provider. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant had placed his trust in his education agent, who at that time was a registered agent and a franchisee of a recognised education services company in India.

8. Whilst it is the responsibility of a visa applicant to ensure that they comply with the conditions of their visa, in this case to ensure that he remained enrolled in a registered course, the Tribunal considers that there are extenuating circumstances which were beyond the applicant’s control, including the trust which he placed in his education provider, the provision of false offer letters and Confirmations of Enrolment by the education agent and the education agent’s threats to the applicant that there could be consequences for him if he attended college without her go-ahead. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant believed that his enrolment requirements were being addressed by his education provider. The applicant gave evidence that from March 2016 he ceased receiving correspondence from the University of Wollongong and therefore believed that his enrolments had been attended to by his agent. In considering these circumstances, the Tribunal has also had regard to the applicant’s relative youth, noting that at the time he requested his education agent to arrange a course transfer, he was 20 years old. He had at that time been residing in Australia for approximately six months and was away from his family for the first time. The applicant was thus in a somewhat vulnerable position, one where it was reasonable for him to place his trust in the advice provided by a seemingly experienced education provider. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.

   Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department

9. The Delegate noted in the Department’s decision that the applicant has been cooperative with the Department and provided information when requested. In this regard the Tribunal notes the statement the applicant provided to the Department prior to his visa being cancelled. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.

   Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s.140

10. The applicant confirmed at hearing that there are no persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s.140. On the evidence before it the Tribunal weighs this factor neither in favour nor against cancelling the applicant’s visa.

    Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

11. The Tribunal is mindful that a cancellation could lead to the applicant becoming an unlawful non-citizen who could be detained and removed from Australia pursuant to s.189. The applicant would need to seek advice regarding his immigration status.

12. The Tribunal is also mindful that a visa cancellation could mean that the applicant might face difficulties in being granted further visas in Australia and that he could also be subject to a three-year exclusion period unless he meets the relevant Public Interest Criterion. The applicant may therefore be unable to complete his studies towards the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management. As noted above, the applicant stated that the sole purpose for him remaining in Australia is to obtain a tertiary qualification. The applicant gave evidence that following his becoming aware that he was not properly enrolled with AAPoly, he took steps to properly enrol in the Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management at this college. He commenced these studies on 20 March 2017 and completed three semesters of this course despite holding a Bridging visa. He was eventually informed by this college in July 2019 that he was unable to enrol further in the absence of holding a Student visa.

13. The applicant provided a copy of an email from the AAPoly which confirms that he had achieved strong results in the time he had been enrolled and suggesting that the applicant consider a semester of leave from his studies. He gave evidence of the time and cost he has invested in these studies. Given the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal considers it would be unfair for the applicant to be precluded for three years from applying for a further Student visa to complete his studies. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.

    Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

14. Not applicable.

    Any other relevant matters

15. The Tribunal finds that there are no other relevant matters and weighs this consideration neither in favour nor against cancelling the visa.

16. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has provided a number of additional documents which were not available to the Department at the time of the delegate’s decision, including copies of the doctored Confirmations of Enrolment and offer letters provided to him by his education agent, as well as documents relating to the legal action taken by his parents against his education agent. These documents support his claims that he was misinformed by his education agent. The Tribunal has also had the benefit of hearing evidence from the applicant at hearing, where he was able to explain his circumstances in full. In considering the matters that should be taken into account in the exercise of the discretion, the Tribunal has given some weight to a number of these matters against cancelling the visa.

17. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

    DECISION

18. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 573 Higher Education Sector visa.

    Frank Russo
    Member

    
    

    ATTACHMENT

    Migration Regulations 1994

    …

    Schedule 8

    8202(1)  The holder (other than the holder of a Subclass 560 (Student) visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa) must meet the requirements of subclauses (2) and (3).

    (2)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if:

    (a)the holder is enrolled in a registered course; or

    (b)in the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 or 571 (Schools Sector) visa who is a secondary exchange student — the holder is enrolled in a full time course of study or training.

    (3)A holder meets the requirements of this subclause if neither of the following applies:

    (a)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for:

    (i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

    (ii)standard 10 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007;

    (b)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for:

    (i)section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000; and

    (ii)standard 11 of the National Code of Practice for Registration Authorities and Providers of Education and Training to Overseas Students 2007

    (4)In the case of the holder of a Subclass 560 visa who is an AusAID student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector) visa — the holder is enrolled in a full-time course of study or training.