SINGH (Migration)

[2019] AATA 1066

SINGH (Migration) [2019] AATA 1066 (11 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr ARVIND SINGH

CASE NUMBER:  1700536

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/3743993

MEMBER:Mr S Norman

DATE:11 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 11 March 2019 at 4:00pm 

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 – health issues – significant breach – no longer a genuine student – decision under review affirmed

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 4 January 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 Department delegate’s decision was not lodged with the Tribunal.

3. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant was determined to have breached condition 8202(2) – enrolment. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 6 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. At hearing, the Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter. The applicant was also 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 affirmed.

   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.

9. At hearing, it proved difficult for the Tribunal to understand some of the applicant’s claims. For instance, the applicant commonly did not directly respond to the question asked of him. However, there did not appear to be any material confusion between the applicant and the interpreter at hearing. Further, when the Tribunal persisted with its question, the applicant was eventually able to respond to material questions put to him in what the Tribunal understood to be a meaningful way. That being said, and after considering all the evidence, the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant was given a real opportunity to put evidence and submissions in support of his case.

10. Next, at hearing the Tribunal put to the applicant that subject to his comments, the following  information may be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. The Tribunal also advised the applicant he may request further time to lodge a response to the following - but the applicant, who was accompanied by his migration agent at hearing, made no request for further time within which to respond.  

11. The Tribunal then said the applicant was granted a Student (Temporary) (class TU) Higher Education Sector (subclass 573) visa on 17 January 2014 (expiry date 15 March 2017). By Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOIOC) of that visa dated 12 December 2016, the applicant was advised that information on the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicated he had not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 30 March 2016 (being some 8 ½ months prior to the NOICC). The Tribunal had also put to the applicant that it understood that since his arrival in Australia on 24 January 2014, he had only undertaken studies at the higher education level from 20 April 2015 to 28 August 2015. It therefore appeared the applicant had breached condition 8202(2)(a); and that his visa may be cancelled under s.116(1)(b) of the Act.

12. In the response to the NOICC, the applicant had said he did not agree there were grounds to cancel his Student visa. However, it was then acknowledged the applicant understood the conditions attached to his visa; that he understood he was not enrolled in a registered course in Australia; that he had attended the Queensland TAFE South Bank for a full semester and then enrolled in the Queensland International Business Academy for a course in English for Academic Study for the period 16 March 2015 to 24 April 2015. The applicant also enrolled in a Bachelor of Business at Elite Education Institute starting 20 April 2015 (though same was not completed). Next it was claimed the applicant had had a ‘very tough time since July last year’ (2015), and he was trying to cope with his circumstances and keep up with his studies. However given the gap in his education and the IELTS test score of 5.5, he was unable to get admission at a Bachelors level. The applicant now wishes to pursue a Diploma of Business and then seek admission at the Bachelors level. He was said to then be feeling stable and wishes to continue his education (this is discussed below).

13. When discussed at hearing, the applicant referred to evidence that impacted the Tribunal’s consideration of its discretion to cancel the visa (and the Tribunal has also discussed this below).

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

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

15. 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’.

16. Regarding the purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia, and in submissions dated 5 March 2019,[1] it was claimed the applicant travelled to Australia to study a package consisting of a Diploma of Business and then a Bachelor of Business. The applicant had arrived in Australia on 17 January 2014 and commenced to study in a College in Brisbane; however, due to a range of reasons (discussed below), the applicant ceased that study and then travelled to Sydney in mid-2014. From that time, the applicant had undertaken some study but had failed to maintain enrolment in a registered course of study for lengthy periods of time (including after receiving his NOICC).

    [1] Tribunal – from folio 49 (reverse side).

17. As noted above the applicant failed to maintain enrolment in a registered course of study for the period 30 March 2016 to 12 December 2016. In response to the NOICC the applicant said he completed an English Language Course at Queensland International Business Academy on 24 April 2015[2] (after arriving in Sydney). He had then commenced to study a Bachelor of Business at the Elite Education Institute and had attended classes for 4 - 5 months prior to ceasing to study (which the Tribunal understands was around the time his grandmother had been unwell). It was also claimed the applicant had most recently enrolled in a Bachelor of Business from 1 March 2019.[3] Though the Tribunal understands the applicant studied at the Diploma level in 2015/2016 and 2017, he was not enrolled in a registered course of study for many months after the NOICC was issued. The Tribunal believes the applicant’s breach of condition 8202(2)(a) has been significant.  After then considering all the accepted evidence herein, the Tribunal is also not satisfied the applicant’s present intention is to remain in Australia in order to study.

    [2] Tribunal – folio 45.

    [3] Tribunal – folio 39.

18. Regarding the degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant or his family if his visa is cancelled, at hearing the applicant claimed his parents would be disappointed in him for returning to India without a degree and that he would be ashamed of himself. However, the Tribunal noted he could study in India which he agreed, but he (and his agent), believed that qualifications in Australia were more highly regarded than in India. The country information stated:

    India’s higher education system stands third in size in the world after the US and China with nearly 26 million students in over 45,000 institutions in the country. In the last decade the country has witnessed a particularly high growth rate in student enrolment at a CAGR of 10.8% and institutions at 9%. …   

    Indian higher education has been progressing at a fast pace adding over 20,000 colleges and about 8 million students between the ten year period 2001 - 2011. As of 2011, Indian higher education system is spread over 42 central universities, 275 state universities, 130 deemed universities and 90 private universities. … [4]

    [4] ‘HIGHER EDUCATION IN INDIA - Access, Equity, Quality’,  Obadya Ray Shaguri - EAN World Congress Scholar 2013, accessed 27 February 2019.

19. Based on the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant could pursue tertiary studies in India. He said his father was engaged in property dealings (in Haryana State) and had (at least in part) funded his travel to and study in Australia; and therefore the Tribunal understands the applicant may more economically pursue tertiary education in India, and with the guidance of his parents.  Be that as it may, the Tribunal accepts the applicant would feel (at least initially) ashamed of himself for not completing a degree in Australia; and that his parents would be disappointed in him for not obtaining the ‘more prestigious’ education available to him in Australia.

20. When then asked what work he would do in India, he said he would not be able to find any or at least good work. However, and as noted at hearing, India has one of the fastest growing economies in the world.[5] The Tribunal put to the applicant he may be able to work with his father (engaging in ‘property dealing’). The agent said the property market in India had deteriorated in recent years but the father was none-the-less still able to partially fund the applicant in Australia (ie, in the three months immediately prior to the Tribunal hearing at which time the applicant was not working, he said he was supported by his parents and his Student visa holder partner). That being said, nothing stated satisfied the Tribunal the applicant could not obtain work commensurate with his skills in India (and as stated at hearing, even if he had to relocate to find such work[6]).  

    [5] See DFAT COUNTRY INFORMATION REPORT INDIA, 17 October 2018, ‘Economic Overview’, p.8.

    [6] DFAT COUNTRY INFORMATION REPORT INDIA, 17 October 2018, “Education”, p.27.  

21. That being said, the applicant had claimed he would be ashamed of himself (which the Tribunal accepts – but for which any necessary medical treatment may be more readily obtained from or via his family doctor – and with whom the applicant had already spoken – discussed below); that the applicant’s family would be disappointed in him (which the Tribunal accepts); and that he may miss the better education or particularly the more prestigious education available to him in Australia (which the Tribunal also accepts). However, and though the Tribunal notes the above findings weigh in the applicant’s favour, I also note that none of the above had provided any real or material motivation to the applicant to remedy his circumstances.

22. Regarding the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose, in submissions dated 5 March 2019,[7] it was claimed the applicant had resided in a small village in India; that he studied six months of his diploma course (in Australia); that he attempted to maintain a work-life balance; that this was the first time he had moved to a new country where he was living without his parents and extended family; that he felt out of place and lonely; that he found it difficult to adjust; there was no support for overseas students; and he was not able to successfully complete the required subjects of the Diploma.[8] At hearing, the Tribunal sought to confirm the applicant was not saying his loneliness and or being away from his parents, caused him to cease his enrolment. Though difficult to obtain a clear response, the Tribunal understands this was conceded; except to the extent that this contributed to his claimed ‘mental condition’ (considered below).

    [7] Tribunal – from folio 49 (reverse side).

    [8] Tribunal – folio 44.

23. In the submissions dated 5 March 2019,[9] the applicant also said he was a good student in India and his parents had sent him to Australia to study. His inability to complete his diploma had left him “quite shocked”. He believes his failure was not the result of him being a bad student but not being able to cope with the new system. He was in Brisbane at the time and understood there was a large Indian diaspora in Sydney so moved to Sydney in mid-2014 (after arriving in Australia in January 2014). He made some friends in Sydney and felt better and he was helped by friends. The applicant knew he had to improve his English language skills and had then enrolled in a English for Academic study at the Queensland International Business Academy, and he successfully completed this course (he also said he had competed one year of English language studies in India, prior to travelling to Australia).

    [9] Tribunal – from folio 49 (reverse side).

24. Next, the applicant was then meant to commence the Bachelor of Business; but his grandmother was ill and had subsequently passed away. The applicant said he was close to his grandmother and wished to return to India but his parents forbade him to do so. They wanted him to complete his studies. His parents did not understand his “psychological state of mind”. The applicant was then emotionally low and felt guilty for a long time. He then lost his focus on his studies.

25. The applicant had also said his education had been “severely disrupted because of a medical condition”. That medical condition related to the fact the then 22/23 year old applicant was said to be “emotionally attached to his grandmother who had passed away on 5 July 2015”.[10] His grandmother had apparently been bedridden for around 12 months prior to her passing (at hearing, he said his grandmother suffered a lengthy illness). The applicant wished to visit his grandmother but his father preferred that he concentrate on his studies in Australia as the family in India was able to take care of her. The applicant was “very upset and distressed and lost focus”. He was “shattered by her death”. The applicant’s father suggested he consult a family doctor in India (at hearing the applicant said this occurred in September 2015) and the applicant had spoken to the doctor (in India) “a few times” by phone. The doctor suggested he see a psychologist in Australia, and obtain medication however the applicant refused to do so and tried to “focus on his studies”.

    [10] Tribunal – folio 40.

26. In later submissions, the applicant said he had spoken with his parents about his ‘psychological state’ (around September 2015) and his father suggested he seek medical assistance however, the applicant did not attend a local doctor or psychologist (in Australia) due to the costs involved. He spoke to a named doctor in his hometown in India “a couple of times”, and he had suggested the applicant see a psychologist in Australia who may also provide the applicant with a prescription to assist his “mental stability”. However, due to the stigma of seeing a psychologist for mental issues and the costs involved the applicant did not visit any psychologist in Australia. In the submissions dated 5 March 2019,[11] and at hearing, it was also said the applicant did not attend a psychologist in Australia due to cost and due to stigma.

    [11] Tribunal – from folio 49 (reverse side).

27. Next, it had also been claimed the applicant had been involved in a car accident in October 2015.[12] His car had been badly damaged and he had suffered a head injury. The applicant was emotionally shaken as this was his first car accident. He then also could not recover from the thoughts that his ‘grandmother was no more’ and this may have contributed to the trauma he suffered from the accident.  In the submissions dated 5 March 2019,[13] the applicant referred to his serious car accident in October 2015, at which time he was “struggling with his poor psychological state”. He had suffered a “serious injury to his forehead” and was unable to study or work for a couple of months.  

    [12] Tribunal – photos from folio 42.

    [13] Tribunal – from folio 49 (reverse side).

28. At hearing, the applicant eventually confirmed that he had been able to work consistently (20 hours per week) from January to December 2015 (casually for Domino’s Pizza); then consistently (20 hours per week) from January 2016 to December 2018 (as a courier). The only break in his work in this period was between October 2015 and December 2015 (which he said was two months).

29. Next, and though not claimed prior to the written submissions dated 5 March 2019 (the day before the hearing), it was said that in August 2016 a friend borrowed the applicant’s car and whilst travelling over the speed limit in his car they were detected by a speed camera. Since the car was registered to the applicant, the applicant’s license was suspended (for one year).[14] The applicant was not aware that he could shift liability to his friend. This incident again disrupted his studies. The Tribunal accepts this is correct; however, it did not prevent him from continuing to work without disruption.  

    [14] Tribunal – folio 46.

30. Next, and though not claimed in the submissions dated 5 March 2019, it had previously been claimed the applicant’s father had been in a road accident in June 2016 and the applicant was “very upset” and this may have also contributed to the applicant’s mental condition. However, when asked about the father’s health at hearing, it was said he suffered from diabetes. When asked, the applicant eventually conceded the father was still able to work and he was successfully being treated for diabetes in India. The Tribunal accepts this is correct; however, it did not prevent him from continuing to work without disruption.  

31. It had also been claimed that as the applicant’s health was affected by his circumstances, he decided the study load for a Bachelors Degree was too much for him and he had enrolled in a “lighter course load”. Next, it was also said that the applicant received the NOICC in January 2017. It was claimed he was “getting on top of his studies” at this time but this “shocked him and disrupted his psychological balance”.

32. When discussed at hearing, the applicant said he successfully completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management (the award was dated 29 April 2016[15]). He said this course lasted some six months and the applicant completed the course in early 2016. Second, the applicant also said he successfully completed a Diploma of Business in January 2018 (having commenced in January 2017). At the date of the 5 March 2019 submission, it was said the applicant had “successfully completed eight units of the course”.  The evidence presented about this did not indicate completion of this Diploma.[16]  However, and for the purpose of this decision, the Tribunal proposes to accept the applicant successfully completed the Diploma of Business course. At hearing, the Tribunal initially said it would allow time after the hearing to lodge proof of completion, but the Tribunal subsequently said it proposed to accept the applicant successfully completed the Diploma of Business and would not allow further time. Though then discussed with the applicant and his agent, no request for further time to lodged any submissions was made.

    [15] Tribunal – folio 43.

    [16] Tribunal – folio 44.

1. However, this means that for most of 2016 and for virtually all of 2018, the applicant was not undertaking any study in Australia. The Tribunal believes this breach to be significant.

2. Next it was also claimed the applicant had enrolled in a Bachelor of Business from March 2019.[17] It was said that due to his visa status and the gaps in his study pattern it had been difficult for him to gain admission to a degree course. However, after explaining his “special circumstances” admission had been granted. It was also explained (including at hearing) that the applicant had attempted to gain admission to a Bachelor’s degree in 2018, but without success. However, when the applicant sought a COE with the Universal Business School Sydney in February 2019[18] (as explained at hearing), he gained admission to a Bachelor of Business from March 2019.

   [17] Tribunal – folio 39.

   [18] Tribunal – folio 39.

3. At hearing, the Tribunal noted the most recent enrolment in a Bachelor’s degree (from March 2019), may not satisfy it the applicant was a genuine student or genuinely motivated to study in Australia. Further, that even if he did attempt to gain enrolment in a Bachelor’s degree in 2018 (which he had claimed), he did not appear to have tried very hard (no corroborating evidence of the attempts were lodged). The Tribunal also put to him it may find his English language competency, his apparent lack of maintaining enrolment, and the lengthy gaps in his study, may also satisfy the Tribunal he was not a genuine student. The applicant said he now wished to complete a Bachelors degree in Australia, but based on the accepted evidence, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant is a genuine student.

4. Next, in the 5 March 2009 submission, it was claimed the applicant had met a “girlfriend in mid-2017”. She had been supportive of him in assisting him and guiding him to meet study requirements. He is now “better able to manage his life in Australia”. At hearing, the applicant said he had now regained his confidence and he had lived with his girlfriend since mid-2017, and she was providing him guidance and support. However, the applicant none-the-less did not study in 2018 and the Tribunal does not accept the girlfriend has been able to substantially ‘guide’ the applicant as he had claimed.  

5. With respect to the girlfriend, she also held a Student visa in Australia (independent of the applicant), and she was studying a Bachelor of Accounting. Further, the Indian citizen girlfriend, who was in Australia on a temporary Student visa, had previously resided about one hour away (by bus) from the applicant in India. Therefore, the Tribunal understands their relationship may continue should she return to India at the end of her studies. The applicant also said he had now ‘adjusted to life in Australia’ but as noted at hearing, he had only ever held a temporary visa. Be that as it may, given inter alia the substantial gaps in the applicant’s study, and the other adverse findings herein, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is now a genuine student.

6. Next, and importantly, regarding the applicant’s claimed mental health issues, the Tribunal understands he is not claiming to have any systemic mental health problems (he said he was ‘very stressed’) but that mental health issues none-the-less carry a stigma in India.[19] This might be considered to explain why the applicant did not seek help in Australia. However, he was apparently sufficiently comfortable to speak with his family doctor in India (by phone) and the applicant may be able to receive adequate care in India. As noted at hearing, the applicant did not even claim it was suggested he seek alternate (or cheaper) therapeutic assistance in Australia.

   [19] DFAT COUNTRY INFORMATION REPORT INDIA, 17 October 2018, “Mental Health”, p.8.  

7. With respect to the claimed cost of attending a medical service provider in Australia, the applicant also did not even contact counsellors in any of the Colleges he attended in 2016 or 2017. It was suggested he may not have known about this assistance but the Tribunal noted that in its experience, such services are made available and are widely known to non-citizen students studying in Colleges in Sydney. It was then said the applicant may have known about such services but he could not locate them. However, the Tribunal is satisfied he could have readily found out about same if he was in any real need (he apparently understood how to apply for Diploma courses, and he was able to work consistently, and the Tribunal does not accept it plausible he could not have asked a staff member at a College how to locate a counsellor).

8. The applicant’s claimed mental health condition did not prevent him from consistently working throughout the entire period when his mental health condition had allegedly ‘distracted’ him from his studies (with the exception of two months off work after his October 2015 motor vehicle accident).

9. After considering all the evidence, and while the Tribunal accepts that loneliness, the death of a grandmother, the car accident involving the applicant, the car accident involving the applicant’s father (all of which the Tribunal proposes to accept) may have ‘distracted’ the applicant, the fact that he was able to change employment (in 2016), relocate to Sydney in mid-2014 (where he did not claim to know anyone), work consistently (including during the period he could not study), then taken together, the Tribunal is not satisfied the series of events to which the applicant has referred, genuinely explain his failure to maintain enrolment in a registered course of study. More importantly, I am not satisfied this accepted evidence should prevent the Tribunal from exercising its discretion to cancel the visa in this case.

10. At hearing, the agent also said the applicant was having difficulty with computers and lodgement of his work by computer in Colleges in Australia (though this did not prevent him from undertaking studies at the Diploma level or successfully completing an English language course). Furthermore, and as noted at hearing, the applicant did not seek to defer his studies in Australia (in order to resolve his claimed circumstances); and there is no evidence he contacted the Department to remedy his circumstances (something he did not dispute at hearing).

11. It was also claimed the applicant had “inadvertently not maintained his enrolment” in courses previously and that is why he breached condition 8202(2)(a). However, it was also claimed the applicant understood he failed to maintain enrolment and the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant was not aware of the criteria to maintain enrolment in a registered course of study (at hearing, the Tribunal noted this advice is commonly provided at the time of visa grant – and this was not disputed).

12. Next, the Tribunal has no evidence the applicant has been uncooperative with either the Department or the Tribunal. The Tribunal has no evidence that any other person’s visa would or may be cancelled if the applicant’s visa is cancelled. The Tribunal has no evidence that Australia’s international obligations would or may be breached if the applicant’s visa is cancelled.

13. Next, if the applicant’s visa is cancelled he would become an unlawful noncitizen and liable for detention under s.189 and removal under s.198 of the Act. However, based on the evidence before the Tribunal I am not satisfied he would be subject to indefinite detention. Further, I am satisfied he could temporarily retain his Bridging visa in order to remain in the community to finalise his affairs prior to departing Australia.

14. The Tribunal also notes that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled he would be subject to s.48 of the Act and he would have limited options to apply for further visas in Australia.  He would also be subject to PIC 4013; meaning he might not be granted a temporary visa for three years from the date of cancellation. 

15. The Tribunal notes the applicant had failed to maintain enrolment for some 8 ½ months prior to the NOICC being issued. After then considering the gaps in the applicant’s enrolment in a registered course of study (including after the NOICC was issued), and all the accepted evidence herein, and notwithstanding the applicant’s claims to now wish to complete a Bachelors degree in Australia, I am not satisfied the applicant is a genuine student at the Higher Education level in Australia.  Furthermore, I do not accept the findings in favour of the applicant, outweigh the discretion to cancel the Student visa in this case.

16. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.  

    DECISION

17. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

    Mr S Norman
    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.