Singh (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2114

SINGH (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 2114 (22 SEPTEMBER 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Sajjan Singh
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2439860

Tribunal:General Member M Simmons
Place:Canberra
Date: 22 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 22 September 2025 at 1:04pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – enrolment in a registered course – applicant changed enrolment to vocational courses – plans for later higher level studies – maintaining residency in Australia – inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 48, 116, 140
Migration Amendment (Strengthening Reporting Protections) Regulations 2024 (Cth)
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 8, Condition 8202; r 2.43
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 21 October 2024 made by a delegate of the Minister to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant did not comply with a visa condition. 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 applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 2 September 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant's visa should affirmed.
Background
The applicant is an Indian national born 10 December 2000. He was granted a Subclass 500 Student Visa on 17 August 2022 and travelled to Australia on 21 August 2022 for the purpose of pursing a Diploma and an Advance Diploma in Information Technology.
On 21 October 2024, the delegate issue the applicant with a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC). They relevantly stated that:
It appears the visa holder has not complied with condition 8202(2)(b) because they have not maintained enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the AQF that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.
The visa holder’s Student visa was granted in relation to the following registered course(s):
DA5AF583 AQF Level 6 (Advanced Diploma) Enrolment date 22 November 2022
DA5AD360 AQF Level 5 (Diploma) Enrolment date 22 November 2022
Therefore, in order to comply with condition 8202(2)(b) the visa holder must maintain enrolment in a Level 6 (Advanced Diploma) or higher registered course.
The Department has access to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), which provides the Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) and study records of international students registered to study in Australia.
PRISMS indicates that the visa holder no longer holds enrolment in the registered course(s) they held at the time of grant of the visa.
PRISMS indicates that the visa holder is currently enrolled in the following registered course(s):
DFAFD126 Level 4 (Certificate IV) Enrolment date 28 February 2023
The NOICC notes that according to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), the applicant’s visa was granted in connection with an AQF Level 6 course, on 28 February 2023 the applicant downgraded to an AQF Level 4 Certificate IV course, which appeared to be in contravention of condition 8202(b).
On 10 October 2024 the applicant provided a response to the NOICC. In that response, the applicant conceded that he did not comply with condition 8202(b) when he downgraded his enrolment, and provided details arguing why, despite this, his visa should not be cancelled, relevantly stating:
At the time my visa was granted, I was enrolled in Diploma of Information Technology (DA5AD360) and Advanced Diploma of Information Technology (DA5AF583). However, as I began to explore my interests and career aspirations, I decided to shift to a trade-related course in the automotive industry, which requires both theoretical and practical knowledge. Given that this is a highly specialized field, I believed it was essential to begin my studies at the foundational level to ensure a thorough understanding of both the theoretical concepts and hands-on skills required.
As such, I enrolled in and completed a Certificate III in Automotive Electrical Technology on time and am currently pursuing a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis. I have recently received a Confirmation of Enrolment for a Graduate Diploma of Management, which is a higher-level course in alignment with my visa conditions.
The reason I did not proceed directly with the Diploma and Advanced Diploma in Automotive is that I wanted to build my expertise from the base level. This shift was based on sound academic and career considerations, and I was advised that starting from a foundational level would better equip me with both theoretical knowledge and practical skills which is required to build a successful career in the Automotive industry.
I understand that my enrollment in the lower AQF levels might appear as non-compliance with condition 8202(2)(b). However, my intention was always to build a strong foundation in the automotive field before advancing to higher qualifications.

Now that I have successfully progressed through the foundational levels, I am committed to continuing my studies at the appropriate AQF level, as evidenced by my enrolment in the Graduate Diploma of Management.
I kindly request that you take this context into consideration and allow me to continue my studies in Australia. I sincerely apologize for any misunderstanding regarding my course selection and compliance with visa conditions, and I assure you that I am fully committed to adhering to the requirements moving forward.
Thank you for your time and consideration. I have attached my completion letter for Cert III, enrolment proof for Cert IV along with the COE for Graduate Diploma of Management.
Provided with the NOICC response was a enrolment letter from Trinity College dated 10 October 2024, a Certificate of Completion for a Certificate III In Automotive Electrical Technology, and a Certificate of Enrolment (COE) for a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) dated 10 October 2024.
On 21 October 2024 the delegate determined to cancel the visa.
On 1 September 2025, the applicant made written submissions to the Tribunal via Mr Yadav. Those submissions include a legal submission, accountants letter related to the applicant’s mother, completion letter and transcripts for Certificate III and Certificate IV courses, a Certificate of Enrolment for a Diploma in Automotive Management issued 1 August 2025, visa grant documents and a tradesperson certificate.
Following the hearing, on 9 September 2025 the applicant provided a statutory declaration:
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 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 full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)
·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(2)(c)(i), and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted.
The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the policy for regulated qualifications in the Australian education and training system. It is monitored and maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, in consultation with the states and territories. It is made up of 10 levels as follows: 1 – Certificate I; 2 – Certificate II; 3 – Certificate III; 4 – Certificate IV; 5 – Diploma; 6 – Advanced Diploma, Associate Degree; 7 – Bachelor Degree; 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma; 9 – Masters Degree; 10 – Doctoral Degree.
During our discussion, the applicant confirmed he understands he breached condition 8202 by enrolling in a lower course. Similarly, written material provided to the Tribunal also affirms that the applicant agrees he breached condition 8202 by downgrading his enrolment.
I am satisfied, the applicant’s visa was granted for in a Diploma of Information Technology and an Advanced Diploma of Information Technology, which would have provided AQF level 5 and 6 qualifications. However, on 28 February 2023 the applicant changed to an AQF Level 4 course, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis. Accordingly, the applicant did not maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. I am satisfied the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(b).
Consideration of discretion
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.
reg 2.43A
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.
When the delegate made their decision, there were no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. However, the Migration Amendment (Strengthening Reporting Protections Regulations 2024 (Cth) introduced a new reg 2.43A, which prescribes workplace exploitation matters that must be considered when determining whether to cancel certain temporary visas including student visas. The Amending Regulation commenced on 1 July 2024, and apply in relation to a breach of a visa condition that occurred before, on or after 1 July 2024.
There is no suggestion that the applicant has been involved in a ‘workplace exploitation matter’, and he confirmed this during our discussion. As such regs 2.43(2)(a) and (b) are not relevant in this particular matter. I give this factor neutral weight in considering whether the exercise the discretion to cancel.
Reg 2.43(2)(d) Whether there is any evidence that the visa holder is not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa
A student visa is granted for the purpose of permitting a holder to engage in approved study in Australia and obtain desired qualifications. The requirement of condition 8202(2)(b) goes to this core purpose of the visa by encouraging visa holders to undertake studies at the same or higher AQF level to the course they were enrolled in when the visa was granted. The purpose of a student visa is not to enable the holder to undertake any studies the wish.
The applicant told me he has already obtained a Certificate III and IV in Automotive studies but these courses are of a low level and did not provide enough knowledge. He wants to remain in Australia is to obtain a Diploma in order to have a high education.
He told me that he will study “Automotive Management” and that “Automotive Management is a level 8 course that will meet the current study standards initially I was doing a level 6 course now I am doing level 8”.
I asked him to tell me the title of the course he plans to study if his visa is reinstated. He again stated “Automotive Management Level 8”. He told me that this is a Graduate Diploma course which he started one month ago, when he got his study rights.
I put to the applicant that according to PRISMS and the COE he has provided, he is not currently studying a ‘Graduate Diploma in Automotive Management’. He is studying a Diploma in Automotive Management. Asked to confirm the AQF Level of this course, he said “Graduate Diploma of Management Level 8”. When I reiterated that I was asking about Diploma in Automotive Management, he conceded that course is AQF level 5, not 8.
Given his visa was granted for a level 6 course, I asked if he is still in breach of condition 8202(b). The applicant told me he is enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning). I put to him that according to PRISMS he is not enrolled in that course currently. Mr Yadhav directed me to a COE provided in the pre-hearing submission for a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning), which indicates the applicant enrolled in this course on 30 August 2025 a few days before the hearing, but after the Tribunal conducted the PRISMS check.
Noting he already holds two Australian qualifications in automotive repair, I asked him why he needs further qualifications in order to pursue his desired career in India. The applicant suggested his Certificate III and IV are not worth much.
The applicant told me that he was annoyed his first migration agent “made him enrol in something he didn't really want to study” and that he has a passion for automotive work and wanted a hands on course. Given this, I expressed that I was unclear how pursuing a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) aligns with his stated of purpose of wanting a hands on course or wanting to work in the automotive industry. He replied “I need higher studies in the same field” and that “my purpose is to meet the visa condition and attain higher education”.
I suggested it may not be sufficient to enrol in a course only to meet a visa condition and that the purpose of a student visa goes to genuinely wanting to study a course to improve particular skills and further career prospects. I asked if he could tell me any of the units he is looking forward to studying if he can pursue the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning). He responded “currently studying which I want to do which I like but what I can do for the visa breach”. I asked if he was suggesting that he only enrolled in the Graduate Diploma to meet condition 8202, and he replied “yes”. Asked if he has any intention to study this course, he replied “yes”. I asked him to explain his motivation for pursuing this course. He replied “for the visa condition because from the beginning a wrong thing happened to me because I got a visa at level 6”.
Asked what he hopes to learn in the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning), the applicant told me “How to manage, how to run a company, How we can guide the team, how we can get the profit for our company, How we can work according to the safety standards”. He also told me that studying this course will help him to me his visa conditions, and will help me with management skills and for IELTS tests, also teaching how to make a profit and how to set up a business,
The applicant told me that he has read the course guide for the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) at Novus College.[1] I explained that when I read that document, it did not suggest that course taught skills such as making a profit, setting up a business or adhering to safety standard as he suggested. I expressed that I had serious doubt as to his awareness of the content of that course and his sincerity in pursuing it.
[1] BSB80120-Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) - Novus College, >
I noted that the delegate had concerns about the applicant enrolling in the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning), relevantly stating in their decision:
The visa holder has a new CoE dated 10 October 2024. The new CoE is for a Level 8 (Graduate Diploma) course. I acknowledge that the visa holder now has a CoE at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted. Given the timing of the new CoE, it appears that the new CoE was obtained in an attempt to avoid possible cancellation action rather than any genuine intention to study at the required level.
Given the delegate expressed they were concerned the applicant had only enrolled in the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) when the NOICC was issued. I reiterated that I had similar concerns that he had only enrolled in the course just before the Tribunal hearing. I expressed that I had doubts whether the applicant was attempting another enrolment of convenience for the purpose of appearing to be compliant with the condition and that he does not genuinely intend to study the Graduate Diploma and not because he wants to study that course. The applicant replied that he was misled by his first agent.
Noting his lack of awareness of the content of the Graduate Diploma course, that he only obtained this enrolment days before the Tribunal hearing, and that he suggested that this enrolment was obtained at least in part to meet his visa conditions, I do not consider the information before me supports a conclusion that the applicant is seeking to comply with the purpose of the visa by is sincerely pursuing a course in Australia at AQF level 6 or higher. I am satisfied that the AQF level 8 enrolment was not obtained because the applicant has a genuine interest in pursuing the Graduate Diploma course. On the information presented, I consider these factors weigh somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Other considerations
Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, when considering whether to exercise the discretion to cancel I have had regard to 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 applicant’s written submissions address these factors, and we also discussed them during the hearing.
The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

Asked his purpose for traveling to and seeking to stay in Australia, the applicant suggested the Certificate III and IV he holds are “lower level” and that he needs “higher education”. His evidence as to the further qualifications he hopes to pursue was confused. He told me he is currently studying “Automotive Management, This is level 8”. Later he agreed, as PRISMS confirms, that he is currently enrolled in a level 5 Diploma in Automotive Management.
As set out above, he also suggested he wants to study a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning), however the applicant provided poor insights into why he wants to study this course and what he hopes to learn from. The applicant told me that he has read the course guide for the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) at Novus College,[2] and suggested that this course covers “How to manage, how to run a company, How we can guide the team, how we can get the profit for our company, How we can work according to the safety standards”. He also told me that studying this course will help him to me his visa conditions, and will help me with management skills and for IELTS tests, also teaching how to make a profit and how to set up a business. I explained that when I read that document, it was not apparent to me that these were either subjects addressed in that course, which appears to be focussed on in house learning and development within large organisations.
[2] BSB80120-Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) - Novus College, >
Mr Yadhav suggested that as there was no advanced diploma or other relevant course the applicant could pursue, that the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) was chosen as the “next best thing” in order to comply with 8202. I explained that it would be a concern if the applicant was obtaining an enrolment only to maintain his visa and not to sincerely study that course. That could suggest the student visa was being used for a purpose other than to undertake studies, such as to maintain residency in Australia or in order to pursue employment.
The applicant asserts his purpose for coming to and seeking to stay in Australia is to undertake studies. He has submitted evidence to indicate that he has continued to study during his time in Australia. However, a student visa is not granted for the purpose of the holder undertaking any Australian qualification they wish. Asked about his need to remain in Australia, the applicant told me he needs to stay in Australia to finish his studies and obtain a higher education. I appreciate this may be his preference, however I do not consider this gives rise to a compelling need to remain which would weigh in his favour when considering the discretion to cancel. His evidence in respect of the study he plans to undertake, particularly details around why he wants to pursue a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) and what he hopes to learn from that course, was not persuasive. I do not consider he sincerely intended to undertake a course in Australia at AQF level 6 or higher, which is the AQF level of the course he was granted the visa in order to undertake.
On the information presented, I consider these factors weigh somewhat in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant told me that from October 2024 when his visa was cancelled he did not have study or work rights. The bridging visa grant notice submitted by Mr Yadhav to the Tribunal confirms that on 20 November 2024, following visa cancellation, the applicant was granted a bridging visa subject to condition 8207 no study. The applicant indicated that he obtained a bridging visa with study rights about 2 months before the Tribunal hearing. I confirmed that the Department of Home Affairs movement records indicates he was granted a bridging visa on 5 June 2025 without condition 8207.
Asked if he studied between November 2024 and June 2025, the applicant replied no.
I noted that the applicant submitted a completion letter from Trinity College which indicates he was studying his Certificate IV between April 2024 and January 2025. I again asked whether he studying when he did not have permission to do so. He then changed his evidence, stating “I breached but I was not aware about it”.
I explained that when comparing the movement records with the Trinity College letter, it would seem that from 20 November 2024 until 26 January 2025 he did study while holding a visa that did not permit him to do so. Invited to comment, the applicant changed his position again, suggesting: “When my visa got cancelled, I did not study because we already studied for a complete because my certificate 4 was already completed” and “I submitted all my assignment before my visa got cancelled and they issued me certificate late and I attended all the classes before my visa got cancelled”. I noted his visa was cancelled in October 2024 but the Trinity letter confirms he was studying until 26 January 2025.
I asked whether the applicant has any documents that set out when he finished his studies, because at the moment it's not apparent to me that he did finish in October 2024 as claimed. The applicant agreed he would talk to his education provider and provide records to the Tribunal of when he finished his actual studies after the hearing. To date, no such material has been provided.
On 9 September 2025 the applicant provided a statutory declaration in which he asserts;
I acknowledge I gave inconsistent evidence regarding my study between 22 November 2024 and 26 January 2025 while I was holding a Bridging Visa E with study rights.
The inaccurate statements were not made with an intention to mislead the Tribunal. They arose because I was under significant stress, was relying on misleading advice from my agent, and did not fully understand my obligations under the Bridging Visa E.
It was simply that I wanted to study, which was the very purpose of my coming to Australia. I asked my previous agent about condition 8202, but I was told not to worry and just continue studying.
I regret the confusion this has caused. I take full responsibility for the error and sincerely apologise to the Tribunal for not being clear and accurate in my evidence.
I do not find the applicant’s statement particularly sincere or persuasive. He made a number of what would now seem to be inaccurate statements to the Tribunal under oath. I do not accept that confusion, arising purportedly from the previous agent who assisted the applicant before Mr Yadhav, can account for the applicant knowingly providing incorrect information during the Tribunal hearing. At best, I consider he has demonstrated a serious lack of candour and that it is hard to consider that he did anything other than to seek to mislead the Tribunal in some of his responses. While he has been seemingly upfront in respect of his noncompliance with condition 8202, when his apparent breach of condition 8207 was put to him he seemed to deflect and misinform, even to the extent of agreeing to provide evidence showing he was not studying during a period in which he now concedes he was.
Even on the most favourable view, it strikes me as extremely careless that after having his visa cancelled due to breaching a visa condition, that the applicant would not take more care to ensure there were no further compliance issues.. His conduct is not suggestive of the applicant taking seriously his visa obligations. Moreover his attempts to deceive or mislead the Tribunal during the hearing reflecting quite poorly on him and diminishes the weight I am prepared to place on his evidence. I consider this factor weighs strongly in favour of exercising discretion to cancel.
The degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
It is asserted that visa cancellation would cause hardship to the applicant and his family. The applicant told me about his father passing away in 2012 and his mother raising himself and his siblings and that this was difficult for her. I clarified I wanted to understand the hardships that may arise at present and in the future.
He then suggested “If I don't do that study, then with the lower level education I will stuck in a competition for the lower level job”. “With the higher education, I can fulfill my dreams, I can fulfill my mother's dream, and I can keep her happy in my back home in India”.
I noted that the applicant already has two Australian qualifications in his desired field. He has had the benefit of studying, working and living in Australia for a number of years; experiences which would help to set him apart in his career in India. The applicant replied “Like with the higher education member, I can get a job with a good salary, and with a good salary I can fulfill my dreams”.
If the applicant’s visa remains cancelled he will not be able to complete his recently commenced Diploma or any other course he may wish to pursue. However, I do not consider that any hardships which may arise to the applicant or his family in the event he cannot continue his studies in Australia as so grave so as to weigh against exercising the discretion to cancel, noting he already holds multiple Australian qualifications in his desired field. When asked he did not explain, and it is not apparent to me, why he could not pursue intended career in India with the qualifications he already holds. I give this factor neutral weight in considering whether the exercise the discretion to cancel.
Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose
It is asserted that the applicant did not intentionally breach condition 8202 but did so as a result of incorrect advice from an education agent. He reiterated, repeatedly, that this visa condition breach was not his fault but rather the fault of the previous representative. I note, however, that no information has been provided to corroborate this contention, such as evidence of the erroneous advice the applicant claims he relied upon. Given my other serious concerns in respect of the applicant’s oral evidence arising from his inaccurate statements to the Tribunal, I am not prepared to accept this assertion in the absence of any supporting material. I give this factor neutral weight when considering whether to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
There is no information before me to indicate that the applicant has engaged in any behaviour of concern in respect of the Department. I give this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140
There are no dependent family members included with the grant of the applicant’s visa. There will not be any consequential cancellations if the applicant’s visa is to remain cancelled. I give this consideration neutral weight.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and if so, for how long, 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 legal consequences that may apply in the case of visa cancellations. A person who is present in Australia without a visa is liable to be detained and removed. There may be restrictions on obtaining a further visa, particularly s 48 of the Act would limit further visa applications while the applicant remained onshore. Further, due to the operation of Public Interest Criteria in Schedule 4 of the Regulations, the applicant may also be unable to be granted further visas to Australia offshore for three years from the date of cancellation. I consider these legal consequences are the intended and legitimate consequences of a visa cancellation as drafted into Australia’s migration law.
The applicant indicated that if he had no lawful permission to remain in Australia in the future, he would depart the country. Given this, I do not consider that a possible consequence of the cancellation remaining in effect would be his detention.
While I note that consequences which may flow from visa cancellation may limit or restrict certain future visa applications by the visa applicant, I also consider that these provisions were drafted to give effect to parliament’s intent. As such, I give this consideration neutral weight in my assessment.
Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement, family unity and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation
The applicant is a citizen of India. He suggested that he does not have any concerns about returning to India. The applicant did not maintain, and there is no evidence before me that Australia’s international obligations would be breached by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. The applicant has no children whose interests would be affected. I give this factor no weight in the consideration of the exercise of the discretion.
Conclusion
I have had regard to the circumstances of the applicant and the totality of his evidence. On balance, I consider the weight of the factors I am required to consider support a decision to exercise the discretion to cancel the visa. Notably, after breaching condition 8202 and after obtaining new representative to assist with the cancellation of his visa for breaching that condition, the applicant has breached condition 8207. Of even more concern was that the applicant seemingly sought to deceive the Tribunal in respect of this breach during our discussion. Furthermore, I do not consider this applicant sincerely intends to pursue an AQF level 6 or higher course while in Australia, noting the unpersuasive information he gave regarding the Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning). Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.
Date(s) of hearing:  2 September 2025
Representative for the Applicant:           Mr Harsh Yadav (MARN: 2117646)
ATTACHMENT – Extract from Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)
…
Schedule 8
8202(1)      The holder must be enrolled in a full time course of study or training if the holder is:
(a)     a Defence student; or
(b)     a Foreign Affairs student; or
(c)      a secondary exchange student.
(2)A holder not covered by subclause (1):
(a)     must be enrolled in a full time registered course; and
(b)     subject to subclause (3), must maintain enrolment in a registered course that, once completed, will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the registered course in relation to which the visa was granted; and
(c)      must ensure that neither of the following subparagraphs applies in respect of a registered course undertaken by the holder:
(i)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course progress for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act;
(ii)the education provider has certified the holder, for a registered course undertaken by the holder, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance for section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 and the relevant standard of the national code made by the Education Minister under section 33 of that Act.
(3)A holder is taken to satisfy the requirement set out in paragraph (2)(b) if the holder:
(a)     is enrolled in a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 10; and
(b)     changes their enrolment to a course at the Australian Qualifications Framework level 9.

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.