Singh (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2236

Singh (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2236 (30 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
ApplicantsMr Parminder Singh
Mrs Bandana Cambow
Ms Greesha Rupra
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2402982

Tribunal:Senior Member G Cullen
Place:Sydney
Date: 30 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the first named applicant’s Class TU visa.
The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.

Statement made on 30 September 2025 at 4:16pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Vocational Education and Training Sector visa – Subclass 572 – Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal – best interests of child – non-compliance of visa conditions – change of study path – poor course progression – lack of enrolment – no work experience in area of study – inconsistent evidence – blamed agent – sought time off from study to care for child – supported by family in home country – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 48, 116, 140, 348, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), rr 2.12, 2.43A; Schedule 4, Public Interest Criterion 4.013; Schedule 8
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 14 March 2017 made by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the first named applicant’s Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa under s.116(1)(b) on the basis that the first named applicant (the applicant) did not comply with condition 8202 which requires the visa holder (hereinafter referred to as the applicant) to be enrolled in a full-time 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.
The applicants lodged an application for review of the delegate’s decision with the former Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 20 March 2017.
For the purposes of the Tribunal’s jurisdiction under s 348 of the Act, the only decision that is before the Tribunal is the decision with respect to the applicant. The other applicants’ visas were automatically cancelled as a consequence of that cancellation, not by a decision but by force of the operation of s 140(1) of the Act. As no decision was involved in the visa cancellation under s 140(1), the Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants. This was raised with the applicants at the recent hearing.
The applicant appeared before the AAT[1] in person on 30 November 2018. On 31 Janaury 2019 the AAT affirmed the delegate’s decision.
[1] Differently constituted.
On 14 December 2023 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the AAT failed to make a finding as to the best interests of the third named applicant as she is a child and failed to consider those interests as a primary consideration.
On 14 October 2024, the AAT became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal via video on 14 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The second named applciant also provided evidence. She was assisted with an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
The applicant was sent a s 359A letter on 20 August 2025. He responded on 3 September 2025.
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
Under s 116(1)(b) of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that a visa holder has not complied with a condition of the visa. However, the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) may prescribe circumstances in which a visa is not to, or must, be cancelled: s 116(2) and (3). Further, the Regulations may prescribe matters to which the Minister must, must not, or may, have regard in determining whether a ground for cancellation is made out under s 116(1), (1AA), (1AB) or (1AC), and the weight to be given to such a matter: s 116(1A).
There are currently no prescribed circumstances under s 116(2) requiring the visa not be cancelled, or under s 116(3) requiring the visa to be cancelled, that apply.
The applicant was granted a subclass 572 Student visa onshore on 31 October 2015 valid to 15 March 2017. That visa was subject to condition 8202.
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 the Regulations. If satisfied the applicant has breached condition 8202, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled under s 116(1)(b). In determining whether the visa should be cancelled, the decision-maker must have regard to all relevant circumstances, which may include matters prescribed under s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A, and other matters of government policy.
Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?
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)
·maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
·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).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course.
The applicant was notified of the intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) of his visa on 2 March 2017. The Tribunal is satisfied that the NOICC was validly issued.
The NOICC raised with the applicant that he had not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 2 June 2016. The applicant did not respond to the NOICC. He later claimed this was due to the poor performance of his representative at the time.
The delegate found the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course of study from 2 June 2016 to the date of its decision on 14 March 2017. His visa was cancelled following consideration of the discretionary criteria.
The applicant confirmed in oral evidence at both the AAT and recent hearings that he was not enrolled in a course of study from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017. The applicant did not dispute that he had not complied with condition 8202(2) of his visa in this period. The requirement is for the applicant to meet the conditions of the Student visa following its grant.
Therefore, on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in and did not have a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017 while the holder of a Subclass 572 Student (Class TU) Vocation Education and Training visa . Failing to maintain enrolment means that the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2).
Accordingly, the Tribunal finds applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2). The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the grounds for cancellation in s.116(1)(b) exist.
Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa
Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised. For temporary visas other than criminal justice and enforcement visas, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker must have regard in determining whether they are satisfied as mentioned in s 116(1)(b): s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A of the Regulations. The prescribed matters are set out in the attachment to this decision.
Background
The applicant is a thirty-six-year-old male citizen of India. He is married to the second named applciant who is also a citizen of India. They were married in 2012 and she first arrived in Australia as a member of his family unit on 3 October 2015. The third named applicant is the child of the first and second named applicants and she was born in Australia on 16 December 2015.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 23 January 2009 holding a Subclass 572 Student visa for vocational education valid to 15 March 2011. He was granted Subclass 572 Student visas for vocational education to 1 September 2012 and again to 31 October 2014. As noted above, he was granted a subclass 572 Student visa onshore on 31 October 2015 valid to 15 March 2017.
At the recent hearing the Tribunal discussed with him his enrolment and study history, reasons that led to his non-enrolment, why he was not enrolled in the relevant period and the discretionary criteria. It asked him whether there was any other relevant matter the Tribunal should consider or whether he had anything to add. It raised a number of concerns. It also raised with him via the process outlined in s 359A the adverse information contained in his Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record[2]. Where relevant his evidence, that of the second named applicant and the responses to the concerns raised are considered below.
Consideration of prescribed matters
[2] It is recorded that PRISMS is a computer system developed for the purpose of receiving and storing information about overseas students under the ESOS Act. PRISMS provides a secure system for providers of registered educational institutions to comply with legislative requirements by issuing confirmations of enrolments as ‘evidence of enrolment’ in a registered full-time course as required by the Department of Home Affairs and reporting changes in course enrolment, particularly where study ceases, or the duration of the study changes. It is therefore apparent that PRISMS is a business record of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and is used by the Department of Home Affairs as evidence of enrolment for the purposes of assessing the grant of student visas. While it is possible providers may not update PRISMS as required, the Tribunal accepts that PRISMS is a reliable record of enrolments unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in relation to a particular case.
For temporary visas other than criminal justice and enforcement visas, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker must have regard in determining whether they are satisfied as mentioned in s 116(1)(b): s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A of the Regulations.
Any written certificate issued by a certifying government entity in relation to the visa holder in respect of a workplace exploitation matter which sets out the matters agreed to by Immigration and the entity
There is no evidence of a written certificate issued by a certifying government entity in relation to the applicant in respect of a workplace exploitation matter.
Any written certificate issued by a certifying non-government entity that states there is prima facie evidence the visa holder has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter, time has not expired for a proceeding to be instituted or a complaint made, and there is a connection between the breach and the workplace exploitation matter
There is no evidence of a written certificate issued by a certifying non-government entity that states there is prima facie evidence the applicant has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter.
Whether there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach and the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate relates
There is no evidence of a certificate relating to a workplace exploitation matter or other evidence of any workplace exploitation matter relating to the applicant.
Whether the visa holder has committed, in writing, to take timely action to resolve the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate relates and to comply with visa conditions in the future or has failed to comply with a similar previous commitment.
There is no evidence of a certificate relating to a workplace exploitation matter or other evidence of any workplace exploitation matter relating to the applicant.
Whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa.
The evidence indicates that the applicant was not complying with the purpose of the visa when he was not enrolled and studying from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017, a period of over nine months, while the holder of a Student visa. He has given reasons as to why he did not comply with the purpose of the visa. The Tribunal has considered the reasons for his lack of enrolment and study below and has rejected he was in Australia for the purpose of the visa in this period of non-study while the holder of a Student visa. The requirement to be enrolled in a course of study as required by condition 8202(2) goes to this core purpose of the visa. The Tribunal places weight on the duration of the applicant’s non-compliance with this condition. The Tribunal gives this factor considerable weight in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.
The Tribunal acknowledges that if the cancellation is set aside as the validity of the relevant Student visa ended in 2017, he would be given 28 days to apply for a new Student visa. As to whether he is seeking to comply with the purpose of a Student visa, at the recent hearing and in written evidence the applicant referred to wanting to study a Certificate IV in Automotive[3]. Only after the hearing, at which the Tribunal raised as of concern why he now wants to study at a lower level to that achieved previously, did he add that he would “love” to complete a Diploma of Automotive which would develop his skills to improve his employment in the industry. However, he said the Certificate IV Automotive would significantly assist him to grow his skills as a motor mechanic. To the AAT he submitted via a Statutory Declaration and said at the AAT hearing that he wants to complete a degree qualification, such as a Bachelor of Business to return to develop the family property business. He claimed to the AAT that it would be very shameful for him to return without higher qualifications. However, he now indicates that he no longer wishes to study to return to assist the family property development business as that no longer exists but rather wants to open a car mechanic business on return.
[3] This is the course name he referred to.
The Tribunal has concerns he is genuine in his claim he wishes to enrol and study for the reasons he claims and therefore is genuine in his claim he seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa. When asked at the recent hearing why he wishes to study further, he said he is in his mid-30s and it will be very hard for him to obtain an entry level job and if he can complete the Certificate IV in Automobile he would have a trade. He said he can then start a mechanics business and he would have some sort of education to start this business. He said he had never worked in the area but when he finished the Certificate III in Automotive Technology more than ten eyars ago he tried to obtain employment and he could not. When asked whether he had ever had any other involvement in the mechanical automobile industry, he said he had cars.
The Tribunal has considered that the applicant has maintained action for a review of the cancellation decision for many years by applying to the Court for review. However, as outlined below the Tribunal has serious credibility concerns as to the applicant’s claim that his purpose of being in Australia while holding a Student visa was to study in the past. These concerns combined with his lack of work experience in the mechanical area seriously questions whether he is genuine in his claim he is seeking to study the Certificate IV in Automobile for the reasons he claims and therefore that he is seeking to comply with purpose of the visa.
The applicant’s representative submitted in writing after the hearing that this mandatory consideration should be given less weight. He submitted that as the applicant’s only option for remaining in Australia will be to apply for a further Student visa if the Tribunal sets aside the Department decision to cancel the visa, the Department will have to assess whether he is a genuine temporary entrant as part of that application. The representative submitted that Regulation 2.43A’s purpose is to ensure temporary vis holders comply with the purpose of the visa is more relevant where the visa in question has not expired and this will be safeguarded as he will have to apply for a further Student visa. The Tribunal has considered this submission; however, notwithstanding for the reasons outlined above does not accept that the applicant is seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa or a future Student visa, if granted.
It gives this consideration some weight in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.
Other matters
Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s policy guidelines ‘General visa cancellation powers (s 109, s 116, s 128, s 134B and s 140)’, which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.
The purpose of the applicant’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the applicant has a compelling need to travel or remain in Australia
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 23 January 2009 holding a Subclass 572 Student visa for vocational education valid to 15 March 2011. He was granted a Subclass 572 Student visa for vocational education to 1 September 2012 and again to 31 October 2014. As noted above, he was granted a subclass 572 Student visa onshore on 31 October 2015 valid to 15 March 2017. This visa was cancelled by the Department on 14 March 2017.
The evidence indicates the purpose of his initial travel and stay in Australia following his arrival on 23 June 2009 was to study. On the basis of his evidence and the PRISMS record, which was raised with him via the process outlined in s 359A at the recent hearing, he was initially enrolled in a Certificate III in Automotive Medical Technology from Janaury 2009 to December 2009. The applicant claims he successfully completed this course; however, the PRISMS record indicates enrolment was cancelled on 4 December 2009 for unsatisfactory course progress. When raised with him he said he did complete the course. No certificate of completion has been provided. As the course provider closed in 2012 and the Tribunal cannot therefore contact the education provider to clarify his progress in this course, as he has been consistent in his oral evidence to the AAT and the Tribunal that he completed the course; the Tribunal is prepared to accept that he successfully completed the course. He then successfully completed a Diploma of Management studied from 25 Janaury 2010 to 23 Janaury 2011 at Ashmark Institute. The Tribunal therefore accepts the purpose of his initial travel to Australia and study to 23 Janaury 2011 was to enrol, study and achieve course progression consistent with the purpose of the visa.

From 24 January 2011 until his visa was cancelled on 14 March 2017, a period of over six years, his study and course completion record was limited despite him claiming to be in Australia to study. At the recent hearing it raised with him via the process outlined in s 359A his study record in this period, as outlined in detail below. It raised with him that the relevance of the information is whether his purpose of being in Australia was and is to study. It raised with him that of concern is his poor course progression, lack of enrolment and that he only studied at the vocational level in a range of courses. It questioned whether he was and is a genuine student and whether he was using the Student visa process to maintain migration rather than for its intended purpose.
Specifically, he said and confirmed at the recent hearing that he was not studying any course from 24 Janaury 2011 to 2 August 2012. He said he was trying to figure out what to do and had some pending assignments to complete. While the evidence from the PRISMS record indicates he was enrolled in the Diploma of Automotive Management for some of this period, his enrolment in this course was ultimately cancelled for non-commencement of studies. The Tribunal accepts his evidence at the recent hearing that he did not study in this period. A submission to the AAT referred to Ashmark Institute closing down. However, the notice the applicant submitted to the AAT referred to it closing down on 30 October 2012, after his enrolment in the Diploma of Automotive Management would have ceased on 2 August 2012. The Tribunal views his lack of enrolment and study as indicating his purpose of being in Australia was not to study in this period.
The Tribunal accepts he then successfully completed a Certificate IV in Business from 27 August 2012 to 24 March 2013. While indicative of a genuine student, it is of concern he was studying at a lower level to that previously achieved as he had already completed a Diploma of Management. Notwithstanding, as he successfully completed this course it accepts his purpose of being in Australia was to study as he was enrolled, studying and achieving course progress.
He then enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Management from 13 May 2013 to 5 October 2014. At the recent hearing, after affirming to tell the truth, he said he did not complete the course and that he only completed 50% of the course. He had previously said he was studying this course to run the family property development business and confirmed this at the recent hearing. When asked at the recent hearing why he did not complete the course, he said that he wanted to change to something else as the course did not seem relevant. The Tribunal questioned this evidence and whether he was studying for any value to his future, as it appears the Advanced Diploma of Management would have been relevant to his previously stated future career aim, stated to the AAT, of running the family property development business. He then referred at the recent hearing to his child being born and requesting a deferral. The Tribunal noted that enrolment in the Advanced Diploma of Management ceased in October 2014 which was before his daughter was born in December 2015. He then said that was correct, that he did not have a child then. He then said halfway through the course he realised this was not the right course for the business and he realised he should study another course which would help the family business to grow. The Tribunal questioned whether his purpose of being in Australia was to study in this period.
After the recent hearing, in contrast to his evidence at the hearing, in a Statutory Declaration dated 24 July 2025, he declared that he completed the Advanced Diploma of Management. He declared that he can confirm he did complete the Advanced Diploma of Management. He said in the Statutory Declaration that in his previous Statutory Declaration dated 8 July 2025 he wrongly stated that he did not complete the Advanced Diploma course and that was because he was confused and was muddled between the Advanced Diploma of Management and Diploma of Marketing. He claimed he had been trying to obtain the academic record for the Advanced Diploma of Management from the education provider, Della, but their management has changed and it is difficult to obtain this after six years. He said he has studied many courses over a long period of time and has spoken with many migration agents and lawyers and has become confused about the timeline.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s response and is of the view he is concocting evidence to achieve an immigrating outcome. To the AAT in 2018 the applicant provided a certificate from Della International College dated 12 May 2014 which noted he is enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Management and has successfully completed 50% of his studies. No certificate of completion was submitted, unlike other courses he successfully completed when he provided course completion documents to the AAT just before his hearing in 2018. He also confirmed at the AAT hearing, towards the end of the hearing, that he only completed 50% of the Advanced Diploma of Management.
Further, after the recent hearing, the Tribunal sought the academic record from Della International College which was promptly provided and indicates the applicant only completed four units towards this course, all completed in 2014. The Tribunal raised the adverse information to him in a s 359A letter sent after the recent hearing. It also raised as relevant the credibility of his evidence. In response the applicant’s representative provided a response, as follows after seeking instructions from the applicant.
The PRISMS record suggested that he ‘Finished’ the Advanced Diploma of Management on 5 October 2014. The letter from Della International College stating that Parminder had completed with 50% of his studies was sent in May 2014, and this supported the possibility that he had gone on to complete the other 50% of the course in the second half of 2014.
This documentary evidence, in conjunction with Parminder’s best recollection, led him to conclude that he had completed the Advanced Diploma of Management. We are instructed that based on the Tribunal’s findings, Parminder is now prepared to concede that he might have become muddled about his completion of the Advanced Diploma of Management, particularly in light of the PRISMS record, and the Diploma of Marketing.
While we appreciate that Parminder ought not to have put those statements in his statutory declaration unless absolutely certain of their truth, it is understandable that Parminder might have become confused, noting that he has a long and varied study history and that he enrolled in these courses over ten years ago. Parminder maintains that he attended classes during the semesters which he previously claimed he had completed but acknowledges that he may not have completed the subjects based on failure to pay fees or non-completion of assignments.
In light of the above, we respectfully submit that the Tribunal not give determinative weight to this consideration, particularly given the compelling nature of the evidence before you regarding the hardship facing his family unit members if visa cancellation is not set aside.
The Tribunal does not accept the applicant was confused as claimed in his post hearing Statutory Declaration or the response to the s 359A letter, following concerns being raised by the Tribunal at the recent hearing or in the manner outlined above. It finds he only completed four units towards the Advanced Diploma of Management. It is of the view an applicant whose purpose of being in Australia was to study would be able to remember whether they completed a course or only part of it. It does not accept his excuse he was overwhelmed by the information put before him or confused by the information, in the manner outlined above. It is of the view he is concocting evidence to achieve an immigration outcome.
He then enrolled in a Diploma of Marketing to be followed by an Advanced Diploma of Marketing to be studied from 24 November 2014 to 15 January 2017. The Tribunal accepts he did not study when he returned to India from January 2015 to July 2015. His enrolment in the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Marketing was cancelled for non-payment of fees on 2 June 2016. At the recent hearing he initially said he did not complete any units in the Diploma of Marketing. Later at the hearing he said he completed a few units. He said and confirmed at the recent hearing that he was not attending the course and that is why he wanted a deferral around March or April 2016. In his Statutory Declaration received after the hearing he said that he completed one semester of this course in 2015 and then another in early 2016. He claimed he missed some classes in early 2016 following the birth of his daughter but returned to complete the semester. At the recent hearing the Tribunal raised with him that there was no documentary evidence provided to the AAT previously or the Tribunal indicating that he completed any units in this course. It raised with him its view that if he did complete some units, he would be able to provide documentary evidence confirming this. He was given time to provide evidence but no such evidence was provided. Further, after the hearing the Tribunal sought his academic record from Della International College who advised the applicant did not complete any unit towards the Diploma of Marketing. This was raised with him in a s 359A letter after the hearing. The Tribunal finds based on the academic record obtained from the education provider that he did not complete any units while being enrolled in the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Marketing. The Tribunal also finds he has not told the truth in his recent Statutory Declaration as to completing two semesters in this course. It places more weight on the academic advice from the education provider. It does not accept his purpose was to study and achieve course progress while enrolled in the Diploma of Marketing to June 2016 and after returning from India in midmid-2015.
He was then not enrolled in any course of study from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017. He has provided a number of reasons why he was not studying in this period and that despite not being enrolled his purpose of being in Australia was to study. He has also indicated these reasons were beyond his control. He has repeatedly claimed Mr Nakra did not properly follow his instructions to ensure he was not in breach of any condition. He has referred to Mr Nakra telling him all was fine repeatedly, that he trusted him but Mr Nakra did not follow his instructions. He has claimed he thought all was in place, and that he would not be in breach of condition 8202 as Mr Nakra had taken care of that. He has claimed he placed too much trust in Mr Nakra. He has claimed Mr Nakra was negligent and unreliable as reason for his lack of enrolment and breach of condition 8202. He submitted information to the AAT indicating Mr Nakra was suspended in 2018 as evidence of Mr Nakra’s negligence.
However, he has provided inconsistent evidence as to the specifics of his interactions with Mr Nakra and when and why he stopped studying the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Marketing, and why he was not enrolled in the relevant period. The inconsistencies in his evidence were raised with him at hearing and are as follows.
·In the pre-hearing submission to the AAT, he provided an email dated 7 February 2016 from Della International College to Mr Nakra, his migration agent at that time, advising that the applicant has not been seen in the College and that he needs to be present and do all his work. The submission noted that a few months after starting the Diploma of Marketing course the applicant realised it was not the right academic pathway and in early 2016 he sought advice from Mr Nakra to change his course. He claimed he was told by Mr Nakra not to worry as he was in the process of changing the applicant’s course and to wait as he had a valid visa until 2017. The applicant claimed he stopped attending as he was under the impression Mr Nakra had made arrangements for a course changeover. On receiving the NOICC he contacted Mr Nakra but Mr Nakra showed no sense of urgency on the matter and he told the applicant not to worry as everything will be taken care of. His visa was then cancelled.
·At the AAT hearing he said that around the middle of 2016 he went back to the agent, Mr Nakra, as he was looking to change from the Diploma of Marketing to a course which would be more relevant. He said he paid the agent $1,500 to enrol him in another course but nothing happened for seven months. He said the agent told him not to worry as he had a valid Student visa. He claims he relied on the agent despite knowing of condition 8202 and the need to maintain enrolment.
·In his Statutory Declaration received prior to the recent hearing he said he sought deferral around the time of the birth of his daughter, being in December 2015 and he paid the migration agent money to do it. He said he later learnt Mr Nakra was emailed by Della International on 7 February 2016 regarding his non-attendance. This email was provided to the AAT. He said this email was never shown to him and he thought Mr Nakra had arranged the deferral. He said he followed up with Mr Nakra a few times and Mr Nakra told him it was fine and to stop attending classes. The applicant never contacted the College again. He claimed that he trusted Mr Nakra to take care of it. He said he wanted to return to study but was content with the deferral as he had recently had a child.
He said that he received the NOICC on 2 March 2017 and he was shocked and it gave him 5 days to respond. Mr Nakra told him he would look after it and he followed him up a few times. Mr Nakra told him to wait and everything was fine. He said he received the email from the Department cancelling his visa. He said he was shocked as he thought Mr Nakra was taking care of it for him.
·At the recent hearing he said he stopped attending the Diploma of Marketing due to the birth of his daughter in December 2015. He talked to his agent, Mr Nakra and requested he seek a deferral of the course in or around March or April 2016. He said he was not studying or attending the course and never followed up with agent. As to why he wanted to defer, he referred to the birth of his daughter in December 2015, that there were only the two of them to look after his daughter and he thought he wanted to assist his wife for say three or four months and then he could return to Della Institute again.
He said he was under the impression the Diploma of Marketing had been deferred as the education provider never contacted him and he thought his migration agent had sorted it out. He said as they had no parents with them in Australia and he wanted to defer so he could help look after the child. He said he was seeking deferment for six months.
He said he never knew his enrolment was cancelled in June 2016 . He confirmed after requesting the deferral he never followed up with the agent because he thought the agent was sorting it out.
·In a Statutory Declaration declared on 24 July 2025, the applicant stated that after completing the semester in mid-2016 he hoped he could balance looking after his daughter with earning money to support his family to apply for a subclass 485 visa but as his parents were not coming to Australia as he hoped; he needed some time off. He said he decided to defer from the Diploma of Marketing in June 2016 and asked Mr Nakra, his former migration agent, to organise it but he did not hear anything from Mr Nakra or Della International College until he received the NOICC. He claimed he was under the impression his deferral was approved as he had not heard from the Department in nearly 9 months.
He said he received the NOICC on 2 March 2017 and he was advised by Mr Nakra that he had 28 days to respond, when it was 5 working days. He was advised to apply for a subclass 485 visa before his visa expired on 15 March 2017. When he went to Mr Nakra’s office on 14 March 2017, they logged onto his ImmiAccount and saw his visa was cancelled. He claimed he was hours away from applying for a new visa.
The applicant provided reasoning for the above inconsistent evidence when raised with him. In the Statutory Declaration submitted prior to the recent hearing he said he was advised by his previous lawyer, Ms Gurpreet Dhawan, to say he sought assistance from Mr Nakra to change his course rather than a deferral. He said he deeply regrets following this advice and he realises he should have been upfront with the Tribunal. He said it was his intention to defer his studies because of the birth of his child. At the recent hearing when the Tribunal questioned the inconsistencies and why he had not previously said, particularly at the previous AAT hearing, that he wanted to defer in early 2016 to assist his wife to look after their daughter as they had no family in Australia; he responded that he may have missed some things. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant that he had previously said he wanted to defer to change his course; he blamed his agent who assisted him before the AAT. He said the evidence he had given about changing to another course was not true.
The Tribunal views the numerous inconsistencies in his evidence to be significant and does not accept the reason for the inconsistencies were due to his agent’s advice or Mr Nakra’s negligence or any of the reasons he claims. It views as of concern that while he affirmed to tell the truth at the AAT hearing he is now saying he did not. Even his post-hearing clarification of the inconsistencies contain further inconsistencies from the recent hearing as outlined above.
It also views as of concern, although not solely determinative, that he never checked with the provider that his enrolment had been deferred despite having no contact. This is particularly so as he said he was aware of the requirement to be enrolled. The Tribunal is of the view if his purpose of being in Australia was to study, he would have checked with the provider.
The Tribunal therefore does not accept his reasons as to why he was not studying from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017 and the reasons that led to his non-enrolment. The Tribunal finds his purpose was not to enrol, study or achieve course completion while the holder of the Student visa from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017.
In making this assessment it has considered all the correspondence provided with his former migration agent, including that he had used him in a previous matter before the AAT and for his spouse’s visa grant, and with regard to his non-attendance while studying the Diploma of Marketing. It has considered that Mr Nakra was subsequently suspended but does not accept the claim that Mr Nakra’s negligence or mismanagement or poor immigration advice resulted in the applicant not studying or being enrolled while holding a Student visa as it is of the view his purpose of being in Australia was not to study. It has also considered the IELTS test he submitted when making the above findings but does not accept that this evidence of meeting the English requirement or taking the test overcomes its concerns outlined above.
The Tribunal finds that from when he was granted the Student visa on 31 October 2015 valid to 15 March 2017 until it was cancelled on 14 March 2017, he did not complete any unit of any course of study and was not enrolled in the period outlined above. It does not accept his reasons for not being enrolled were beyond his control and his claim his purpose of being in Australia was to study. The Tribunal finds his purpose of being in Australia was not to study while holding this Student visa, which was ultimately cancelled on 14 March 2017. The Tribunal places significant weight on this consideration in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.

As to whether there is a compelling need for him to stay in Australia, at the recent hearing he referred to wishing to stay to complete a Certificate IV in Automobile and added after the hearing that he would love to complete a similar course at the Diploma level. Based on his lack of study in the past as outlined above, his lack of credibility and as he has never worked in the mechanical area and has limited experience with cars and not studied in this area for over ten years, the Tribunal has significant concerns he is genuine in his claim as to wishing to complete the Certificate IV in Automobile for any of the reasons he claims, including the need to return to India with a trade.
Notwithstanding, the Tribunal as raised with him notes he can return to India and complete an automobile course. While it accepts that the teaching is not as good as in India as in Australia, a completed course from India is not as well recognised as one completed in Australia and his job prospects will not be as good compared with obtaining these courses in Australia, it does not find this represents a compelling need to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal accepts he has been unable to study since 2018 when a no study condition was placed on his visa. Prior to the AAT hearing he referred in a Statutory Declaration to wanting to study a Bachelor of Business and that it will be very stressful and shameful for him if he has to return without any higher qualifications. He also noted that this shameful situation could also lead to his marriage falling apart. He now claims that as the family business no longer exists, he does not need to study this course. He did not refer to his marriage falling apart in evidence to the Tribunal, which the Tribunal would expect if this still was the case.
It notes his claim that there will be shame and disappointment returning to India, however he has already achieved a higher qualification being the Diploma of Management, than that or equal to which he proposes to study. It does not view the shame and disappointment as a compelling reason to remain in Australia.
The second named applicant also referred to wishing to study childcare in Australia if the Student visa is not cancelled. As she can study this course in India, and while not as good a course as in Australia or regarded as well as completing the course in Australia, it does not accept the second named applicant’s inability to study childcare in Australia reflects a compelling need to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal has also considered the submission that the second named applicant’s medical and emotional issues represent a compelling need to remain in Australia. With regard to her thyroid issues and the required prescription medicine, the country information indicates these are available in India. While the Indian medical system may not be as good as in Australia; medication and medical assistance is available.
The second named applicant also submitted that she was anxious about the shame of returning after a long time without anything meaningful to show for it. She referred to her poor mental health when considering that they will have to return which would worsen if it happened. She referred to people judging them for returning without employment and that they did not make the best of their opportunities. The Tribunal has considered the shame and disappointment, as well as the emotional issues both applicants claim they will face but does not accept this represents a compelling need to remain in Australia. Also referred to was that they would struggle to support themselves as the applicant has not gained qualifications, they have nowhere to live and employment would be hard to find. The Tribunal notes however, the applicant has gained a Diploma of Management, higher to or equal to the course he is proposing to study. He also provided evidence that his family In India have supported the applicants for years while in Australia. The Tribunal views it as difficult to accept they would not continue to be supported if they returned to India by the family, as they have been in Australia.
Also submitted was the compelling need for the applicant’s daughter to remain in Australia for her best interests including the hardships she would face having to change schools and environments particularly as she only speaks limited Punjabi. The second named applicant also referred to the effects on her education and career prospects. The evidence and submissions have been outlined below in detail. While the Tribunal accepts the third named applicant would face adjustment difficulties if she returns to India, including disruption to her education, a language barrier, social adjustment, lifestyle adjustment and emotional stress, the Tribunal considers that the third named applicant at 9 years of age is quite young, and with the support of the applicant and second named applicant, as well as her grandparents who live in India and have been financially supporting them all in Australia, she would overcome these difficulties albeit following a short period of adjustment. It does not accept that this represents a compelling need to remain in Australia.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant’s evidence was that he was not enrolled and studying any course from 24 Janaury 2011 to 26 August 2012 while the holder of a Student visa. The evidence from the PRISMS record, as raised with him via s 359A, refers to the Diploma of Automotive Management being cancelled for non-commencement of studies on 4 February 2011 and then non-payment of fees on 3 August 2011. While the Tribunal notes his lack of enrolment as possibly a breach of condition 8202, as this was not raised as of concern by the Department and therefore the applicant was not given an opportunity to comment, and considering this was over 14 years ago, the Tribunal does not place any weight on this in assessing his compliance with visa conditions.
There is no other evidence the applicant did not comply with any other conditions on his Student visa.
The Tribunal gives this factor neutral weight.
Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
At hearing the applicant referred to the difficulties his daughter, the third named applicant, will face returning to India as she was born in Australia and has lived in Australia for over nine and a half years. He referred to her good teachers, that she is doing well in her studies and friends and the positive Australian environment. The applicant provided her positive school reports. He said she speaks limited Punjabi. Both the first and second applicant gave evidence of the hardship for their daughter and how she will have to leave her friends and school. They submitted that as her Punjabi is limited, she will be placed in the bottom of the class and this could affect her future and her life. They spoke of the better environment in Australia and that it focuses more on wellbeing. They spoke of the dangers for girls in India. The Tribunal accepts there will be hardship for the third named applicant in having to return to India. It notes that the first and second named applicant will even if the cancellation is set aside, only be granted Student visas, if they meet the criteria. It is of the view that the applicant’s daughter will have to return to India and make the necessary adjustment in the future. It has considered the submission by the representative that giving the third named more applicant time to adjust would make it easier for her to return.
The applciant also referred to the difficulty finding an entry level job, returning to the society when he has not achieved anything. He said the society will ask questions while he does odd jobs. He referred to the shame and disappointment. He referred to the money they have spent and the time they have spent in Australia to only return with limited qualifications. He referred to the social shame. He said his parents have been supporting them in Australia. The second named applicant referred to the emotional and mental health difficulties.
The applicant referred to wanting to complete a Certificate IV in Automobile to be able to give him the qualifications to set up his own business and the hardship he will face in not being able to obtain this qualification. After the hearing eh referred to wanting to complete a Diploma of Automobile which would develop his skills to improve his employment in the industry. It accepts if the visa is cancelled, he will not be able to study these courses in Australia. Notwithstanding, if the visa is cancelled, he will be able to study a similar course in India. It accepts the course may not be as well taught in India as in Australia and as well recognised as a course completed in Australia which may affect his employment proposes. It has considered that he has already completed a Diploma of Management which is higher than the Certificate IV course he wishes to study. It has also considered its concerns above as to whether he is seeking to study the automotive courses for any value to his future, and as outlined above has serious concerns that he will study these courses, but rather is of the view it is his aim to use the Student visa process to maintain migration rather than for its intended purpose.
The second named applicant referred to wanting to study childcare. Similar to the above, it accepts if the visa is cancelled, she will not be able to study childcare in Australia but can study such courses in India. It has considered that a course completed in India will not be as well recognised as one completed in Australia and her employment prospects would not be as good if she completed a course in India than in Australia.
It has also accepted that the second named applicant has been prescribed medication for a thyroid condition. She said the health system in Australia is better than in India and the treatment for her condition would be better in Australia. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case but is of the view she will be able to obtain the relevant medication and medical assistance in India.
The Tribunal gives this consideration weight against cancelling the visa.
Circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose
The ground for cancellation arose as a result of the applicant’s breach of condition 8202, as he was not enrolled in a course of study from 2 June 2016 to 14 March 2017.
The applicant claims the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose, being his lack of enrolment, were beyond his control. He has consistently claimed it was the fault of his former migration agent, Mr Nakra and it was therefore unintentional and beyond his control. The applicant has referred to trusting Mr Nakra who did not properly follow his instructions to ensure he was not in breach of any condition. He has referred to Mr Nakra telling him all was fine repeatedly and that he trusted him. He has claimed he thought all was in place, and he would not be in breach of condition 8202 as Mr Nakra had taken care of it and that he placed too much trust in Mr Nakra. He has claimed Mr Nakra was negligent and unreliable as reason for his lack of enrolment and breach of condition 8202. He submitted information to the AAT indicating Mr Nakra was suspended in 2018 as evidence of Mr Nakra’s negligence.
However, the Tribunal does not accept this claim for the reasons that follow.
Firstly, the Tribunal is of the view that he did not study in this period as his purpose of being in Australia in this period and leading up to it was not to study. It has outlined its reasoning above.
Secondly, his claim of it being unintentional and the fault of Mr Nakra who was negligent is inconsistent with his claim that he knew of the requirements to be enrolled and studying under condition 8202.
Thirdly, he has provided inconsistent evidence as to what led to the lack of enrolment as outlined above.
The Tribunal therefore does not accept he did not study due to Mr Nakra’s negligence or as Mr Nakra did not follow his instructions or for any of the reasons he claims. It follows that it does not accept that the circumstances that led to the ground of cancellation arising were beyond his control.
Therefore, the Tribunal gives this weight in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder toward the Department
The evidence indicates that the applicant did not respond to the NOICC. He has blamed Mr Nakra, his former migration agent, for misleading him. He has claimed he was told he had 28 days to respond where in fact it was only 5 days. He has claimed he was told it was all being taken care of. While the Tribunal does not accept his reasons, it does not view not responding to the NOICC as negative behaviour towards the Department.
The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there would be any consequential cancellations under s 140
The applicant’s spouse and child’s visas would remain cancelled if the applicant’s visa were cancelled. The first and second named applicant referred to the hardships that would be faced by them if their visas are cancelled as outlined above and what is in her best interests as outlined below.
The Tribunal gives this factor some weight against cancelling the 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
There are mandatory consequences in the case of the cancellation of the visa, including detention and removal from Australia, as well as difficulties in obtaining any further visas.
If the visa remains cancelled the applicants would hold Bridging visas for a short period of time, usually 35 days, to allow them to finalise their affairs before returning to India. If the applicants remained in Australia without valid visas, they would be residing unlawfully and liable to detention and removal. The applicant, however, provided oral evidence to the Tribunal that they intend to comply with any lawful direction to depart Australia, and therefore the likelihood of the applicants being detained is remote.
Under s 48, the cancellation may also restrict the applicants’ future ability to make a valid application for any visa other than those prescribed in reg 2.12 while onshore. Under public interest criterion (PIC) 4013 he also may in some cases not be granted a further visa for three years from the date of cancellation of the delegate’s decision.
There is no restriction on the visa they can apply for once he leaves Australia.
The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Whether Australia’s international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation
When asked by the Tribunal whether he had any fear of returning to; he said they do not have any fears from society but are concerned the difficulties they will face reintegrating back into India. While these circumstances do not appear to breach the non-refoulement requirement or similar provisions, the Tribunal is of the view that any of their claims can be fully considered via a protection visa application if he or any one of them fears the relevant harm on return. The Tribunal is of the view that this is the appropriate mechanism for assessing his claims if any of them fear return to India.
On 14 December 2023 the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia remitted the matter back to the Tribunal for reconsideration on the basis that the AAT failed to make a finding as to the best interests of the third named applicant as she is a child and failed to consider those interests as a primary consideration. On 5 June 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicants asking for submissions as to this aspect.
The child whose interest would be affected is the third named applicant who is the daughter of the first and second named applicants. She has resided in Australia since her birth in Australia on 16 December 2015. If the applicant’s visa remains cancelled so would that of the third named applicant.
The Tribunal has had regard to the evidence as to the hardship that she would experience if she is required to return to India. The Tribunal accepts she is settled and comfortable at school. It accepts from the school reports provided indicate that she has strong attendance and is excelling at school both academically and socially. The first and second named applicants have referred to the third named applicant’s limited Punjabi which would impact her further in successfully integrating into Indian society and schooling. The applicant referred to the harshness of Indian schools and that due to her lack of Punjabi she would be at the bottom of the class which could impact her educational and mental development for the rest of her life. The second named applicant submitted that in Australia there is a focus on a child’s wellbeing which does not happen in India and that without Punjabi this would be exacerbated. The first and second named applicants worry as to how this would affect her long-term study and career prospects. They also submitted that India is a far more dangerous place for young girls.
Their representative argued that migrating to India, a country she has never visited and where she does not speak the language would cause significant hardship and that she will struggle to adapt. Their representative acknowledged that even if the applicant’s visa is set aside the third named applicant may be required to migrate to India following the expiry of any future Student visa granted to her parents. He argued nonetheless it would be in her interest to have a further certain period for the family to plan for that eventuality, so her father can upskill as a motor mechanic and raise funds to support the transition.
The Tribunal is of the view that the best interests of the third named applicant are for her to remain living and being cared for by her parents, her primary caregivers. From the evidence provided, the Tribunal is of the view that the third named applicant is well cared for by her parents and they are deeply committed to her wellbeing. The evidence is she would continue to live with her parents, wherever they live. It finds living with her parents whether in Australia or India is in her best interests.
As submitted by the applicant’s representative, even if the visa is not cancelled, her parents will only apply for Student visas, and it is their intention to return to India. The Tribunal finds the third name applicant will return to India at some stage with her parents, even if the visa cancellation is set aside. Being with her parents is in her best interests.

100. Notwithstanding, the Tribunal accepts the third named applicant will face some adjustment difficulties if she returns to India, including disruption to her education, a local language barrier, social adjustment, lifestyle adjustment and emotional stress. While she will encounter some hardship due to the adjustment, the Tribunal considers that the third named applicant at nine years of age is quite young, and with the support of the applicant and second named applicant, as well as her grandparents who live in India and have been financially supporting them all in Australia, she would overcome these reintegration difficulties albeit following a period of adjustment. It notes that English is widely spoken throughout India. It is of the view as a young child she would adjust fairly quickly and learn the language. It does not accept her long term development would be affected. It is of the view she would beneficially be surrounded by her extended family, who have been supporting her.

101. It was submitted that when considering what decision would or would not be in the best interest of the third named applicant, that her best interests, would be best served if the applicant’s visa is not cancelled as this would give the third named applicant more time to prepare to return to India including to learn the language for the move to India. The Tribunal is of the view even if the visa is cancelled the family would be given a short period of usually 35 days on a Bridging visa to prepare for their departure. It is also of the view that attending school in India would best prepare her to learn the language rather than remaining in Australia to prepare.
102. Considering what decision would be in the best interest of the applicant’s daughter, the Tribunal accepts on the totality of the evidence that there would be some adjustment difficulties for her in the short term but that as both her parents would travel with her it would be reduced. It is of the view that continuing to live with her parents is in her best interest.
103. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration low weight against cancelling the visa. It has considered this as a primary consideration below.
Any other relevant matter
104. The applicant presented statements attesting to his good character and that he is law abiding. He also submitted a VicRoads summary There is no evidence of any serious traffic violations or any road offences or that he has been charged with and convicted of any criminal offences. This may indicate that the applicant is a person of good character. However, in the manner outlined above and as outlined in the post-hearing s 359A letter the Tribunal is of the view the applicant has not been truthful to the Tribunal and has concocted evidence in a Statutory Declaration to achieve an immigration outcome. The Tribunal places significant weight on this factor in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.
105. The Tribunal has considered all the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are some aspects that weigh against cancelling the visa. It has placed some weight on the hardships that would be faced by the applicants if the visa remains cancelled. It finds that it is in the third named applicant’s best interest to remain with her parents but accepts there would be some adjustment difficulties. It has given this low weight against cancelling the visa and has considered her best interests as a primary consideration.
106. However, there are numerous and significant factors that weigh considerably together in favour of the Tribunal exercising its discretion to cancel the visa. Specifically, the applicant’s purpose of being in Australia while holding the Student visa from 2015 to 2017 was not to study. He has also provided false and changing evidence to the Tribunal and AAT. The Tribunal has found the circumstances that led to the cancellation were not beyond his control and does not accept he is genuinely seeking to comply with the purpose of a Student visa.
107. Australia’s visa system relies on the integrity of visa holders and the Tribunal is of the view the applicant has been using the Student visa system to maintain migration and not for its intended purpose.
108. Overall, the Tribunal considers that there are more factors in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa even where the best interest of the child is a primary consideration. The breach of condition 8202(2) is significant as that condition goes to the core purpose of the grant of a student visa, namely to study in Australia.
109. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.
DECISION
110. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the first named applicant’s Class TU visa.
111. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction with respect to the other applicants.
Date(s) of hearing: 14 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Ms Catherine Jane Farrell

ATTACHMENT – Extract from Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
…

Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder (other than the holder of a Subclass 560 (Student) visa who is a Foreign Affairs student or the holder of a Subclass 576 (Foreign Affairs 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.

ATTACHMENT – Extract from reg 2.43A to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
2.43AMinister must have regard to certain matters in considering cancellation of certain temporary visas for breach of visa condition
(1)This regulation applies in relation to a visa if:
(a) the visa is a temporary visa other than:
(i)a criminal justice visa; or
(ii)an enforcement visa; and

(b)     the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with a particular condition (the relevant condition) to which the holder’s visa is subject; and
(c)      regulation 2.43B does not apply in relation to the visa.
(2)For the purposes of paragraph 116(1A)(a) of the Act, the Minister must have regard to the following matters in determining whether the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act:
(a)     any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is a government entity if the certificate:
(i)was issued in relation to the visa holder in respect of a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)sets out the matters agreed to by Immigration and the government entity;

(b) any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is not a government entity and that states that the entity considers that:
(i)there is prima facie evidence that the visa holder has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter; and
(ii)if any law limits the time within which a proceeding may be instituted, or a complaint made, in relation to the workplace exploitation matter—that time has not expired; and
(iii)there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter by which the visa holder has been affected;

(c)      whether there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(d)     whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa;
(e)      whether the visa holder has committed, in writing, to do both of the following:
(i)to take action, in a timely manner, to resolve the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;
(ii)to comply in future with the visa conditions to which the holder’s visa is subject;

(f)      whether the visa holder has failed to comply with a commitment of a kind mentioned in paragraph (e) of this subregulation, or paragraph 2.43B(2)(d), (3)(d) or (4)(d), that the visa holder has previously given in relation to the visa.
(3)Subregulation (2) does not limit, or otherwise affect, a power or duty of the Minister to cancel the visa under:
(a)     paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance with a condition (other than the relevant condition) to which the visa holder’s visa is subject; or
(b)     a provision other than paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act.

Note:For example, see subregulation 2.43(2) for the circumstances in which the Minister must cancel a visa.