Singh (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2067

Singh (Migration) [2025] ARTA 2067 (12 September 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Gurjeet Singh
Respondent: Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number: 2442090

Tribunal:General Member P Tyson
Place:Sydney
Date: 12 September 2025
Decision:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 12 September 2025 at 1:17pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine student – breached visa conditions – cancelled enrolment in registered course – changed to VET course – unaware of visa requirements – attempted to rectify – new course at lower level to which visa was granted – changed course to follow passion – financially rewarding – invested support by family – value of Australian courses – qualifications now obtained – non-specific career goals – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 109, 116, 128, 134B, 140, 359A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 2.43A; Schedule 8, Conditions 8202 and 8207
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 had breached condition 8202(2)(b), that the grounds for cancelling the visa were made out and outweighed the reasons not to cancel the visa. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.
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 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.
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 (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 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.
Background
The applicant is a 28 year old Indian national. He arrived in Australia on 14 November 2022, holding a Subclass 500 student visa granted to study a Master of Business Administration (Global).
The applicant’s study history from the PRISMS[1] record, which where relevant was discussed with him in accordance with s 359A at hearing, was as follows:
·He was enrolled in Master of Business Administration (Global) for study between 28 November 2022 and 24 November 2024. That enrolment was cancelled on 27 March 2023 as student notified cessation of studies.
·He was enrolled in and finished Certificate III in Automotive Electrical Technology between 3 April 2023 and 31 March 2024.
·He was enrolled in Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis for study between 1 April 2024 and 30 March 2025. That enrolment is recorded as cancelled.
Proceedings before the Department of Home Affairs
[1] PRISMS is a computer system developed by the Department in association with the Department of Home Affairs for the purpose of receiving and storing information about accepted overseas students that is given to the Secretary 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.
The Department sent the applicant a Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) on 30 September 2024 referring to his apparent breach of condition 8202(2)(b). The applicant sought an extension to respond which was granted.
In his response dated 14 October 2024 the applicant provided the following information:
·The applicant was unaware he breached his visa conditions until notified by the Department. The applicant was under the impression that the term ‘meet course requirements’ meant that he must meet the entry requirements for the course and academically progress. The term is vague and it was difficult for him to understand that it meant that a Masters degree student cannot study any other course. As an overseas student with little knowledge about immigration law and English as a second language, it was impossible for him to understand that the term involved so many complexities.
·The applicant was granted his visa to undertake an AQF level 9 Masters degree in Australia. However after studying the first semester, he enrolled in AQF level 3 and 4 courses - a Certificate III and Certificate IV.
·The applicant chose to change his course to pursue something which aligned more with his passion. He always had a passion for motor vehicles but did not decide to study in that field due to his young age back in India. As he matured he felt that he should pursue what excites him so decided to follow his passion and dream. He also learned that the field of automotives is financially rewarding in India.
·The applicant has less than 20% remaining of his Certificate IV course and wishes to complete it. The applicant apologises for his mistake and promises not to repeat it. He promises that he will not apply for a further student visa after completing his Certificate IV.
·The applicant refers to many people changing careers even late in life, which gave him the inspiration to do so. He refers to the restrictions on changing courses as being based on nationality and not consistent with Australia’s reputation for letting people live their dream.
·The applicant genuinely wants to build a future through the power of education. This is evident from the fact that he successfully completed the Certificate III on time and is now expecting to have his Certificate IV completed on time by 30 March 2025.
·The applicant has not breached any other visa conditions and has no intention to breach any other visa conditions.
·There are many international students who breach many visa conditions and still get away with it. He sees many staying in Australia for years after breaching visa conditions without repercussions. He is not saying that justifies his mistake but should be taken into account in forgiving him.
·The applicant has invested a lot of his family’s money along with his time in building a sustainable future for himself in India. His family’s reputation and social acceptance lies in his academic achievements. The applicant’s future depends upon his education. His entire family including himself will have to give up their life if his visa was cancelled. That would cause severe financial detriment and a massive social embarrassment. They cannot tolerate this as a normal middle-class family in India.
·The applicant inadvertently made a mistake. He did not do so with any bad intention, which is evident from the fact that he has been academically progressing in his studies. He has tried to rectify the mistake by applying for a new student visa to complete his studies.
·The applicant requests that discretion be exercised in his favour based on the above.
Proceedings before the Tribunal
The applicant’s submissions indicates that the applicant lodged a further application for a student visa on 14 October 2024, for the purpose of studying the Certificate III and IV. This was refused on 11 June 2025.
On 23 July 2025 the applicant was sent a notice of a hearing scheduled for 1 September 2025. On 13 August 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant to request that he provide, by 27 August 2025, evidence of all registered courses successfully completed in Australia, and transcripts of any courses commenced but not completed. On 25 August 2025 the applicant was sent an SMS reminder about the hearing.
On 27 August 2025 a Tribunal officer spoke to the applicant after the applicant failed to join a scheduled pre-connection test call in advance of the hearing. The applicant advised that he had not received Tribunal correspondence relating to that test call, and had a different email address to that previously given to the Tribunal. On 28 August 2025 the Tribunal wrote to the new email address to advise of the scheduled hearing. The Tribunal forwarded copies of the 13 August request to provide evidence and the 23 July notice of hearing.
On 29 August 2025 the Tribunal received a completed response to hearing indicating that the applicant would attend the hearing on 1 September, and would provide written submissions prior to the hearing. He indicated in that form that he did not require an interpreter.
On the evening of 31 August 2025 and morning of 1 September 2025, the Tribunal received a series of correspondence from the applicant. The applicant appears to have used both the email address that he originally provided to the Tribunal, and the address that he later said was his current address.
The documents lodged by the applicant include a written submission, which is discussed in further detail below, passport, copies of his Certificate III from Trinity Institute dated 21 August 2024 and statement of results. He also provides copies of correspondence to and from the Department relating to the cancellation of his visa, which is already before me.
The applicant first emailed the Tribunal on the evening of 31 August to advise that he did in fact need an interpreter in the Punjabi language. He said he had forgotten to inform the Tribunal earlier and was making mistakes because of being in mental depression, distress and nervous now his visa had been cancelled. Several hours later, he emailed again and requested that the hearing be deferred for a month. He argued he was not in the right state of mind, being mentally depressed and extremely nervous. He referred to having forgotten to request an interpreter, which he required. He argued that proceeding with the hearing would lead to a miscarriage of justice because of procedural unfairness and breach of natural justice. The applicant also requested that the hearing be conducted via written submission because of his difficulties expressing himself in English when nervous. He requested 30 days to provide written submissions, referring to his lack of legal expertise and English not being his first language. He said he had prepared a submission which he would provide, but was not content with it and wanted to work on it further to improve it.
The applicant provided three further letters on the morning of 1 September 2025. The first repeats his request for a Punjabi interpreter, and also refers to being nervous, mentally depressed and unwell with a high 40 degree fever. The second letter requests to postpone the hearing for at least a week because he is not in his right state of mind and has woken with a high fever. He refers to being mentally depressed and feeling unwell for the past two weeks, and extremely unwell on the day of the hearing. The applicant then sent a third letter which requests an exemption from the hearing as he is shy to face an audience. He refers to difficulty expressing his feelings, communicating in English in a Tribunal setting, and being unwell due to high fever, suffering from depression and nervousness. The applicant requested that the hearing be conducted based on written submissions and the other documents provided, and for the Tribunal to ask for additional information or documents in writing so that he can communicate and express himself clearly. He makes argument that this approach will avoid a miscarriage of justice. He states that in the event this request is turned down in unfairness, he requests an interpreter. He says however that this will not ensure justice, as he is not best at communicating via speaking.
On the morning of 1 September 2025, a Tribunal officer telephoned and spoke to the applicant. The officer sought clarification of whether he wished to postpone the hearing or have a decision on the papers. The officer advised that if he wanted to postpone, he would need to provide a medical certificate by the end of today, or if he wanted a decision on the papers he would need to request that. The applicant then indicated he could participate in the 9.30am hearing.
After some delay in which the applicant appeared to have difficulty joining the call, the applicant ultimately appeared before the Tribunal on 1 September 2025 via Microsoft Teams video. The Tribunal was assisted by an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
At the hearing, I asked the applicant if he felt ok to go ahead with the hearing and he said yes. He did not raise any further concerns about inability to adequately communicate, feeling physically or mentally unwell, or otherwise being unable to participate in a hearing. He has provided no evidence relating to his health. I do not accept that the applicant was unable to express himself orally or was otherwise impeded in participating in the hearing, beyond the understandable stress and nervousness that would be felt by most applicants before the Tribunal.
The applicant was allowed one week after the hearing to provide any further material he wishes to rely on. Nothing further has been received.
I note that the applicant’s communication prior to the hearing included a request for an extension of 30 days in which to provide a written submission, referring to his lack of English and legal expertise. The applicant’s review has been pending with the Tribunal since November 2024. He was sent a notice of hearing on 23 July 2025, over a month prior to the scheduled hearing. It was sent to the email address he provided, and which he has since used in communicating with the Tribunal. He was also sent an SMS reminder about the hearing on 25 August, a week prior to the scheduled hearing, which ought to have prompted him to contact the Tribunal if he had not seen the notice and was unaware of the upcoming hearing. The applicant provided written submissions prior to the hearing and has been given time to provide anything further after the hearing. In all the circumstances I have decided not to grant him 30 days in which to provide further submissions.
Did the applicant comply with Condition 8202?
In his response to the NOICC and to the Tribunal, the applicant has said that his breach of condition 8202(2)(b) was inadvertent and unintentional. The information before me, and the applicant’s response to the NOICC and submissions, indicate that the applicant was granted his visa to study an AQF Level 9 Masters Degree, being a Masters of Business Administration (Global) at Victoria University Sydney. According to the PRISMS records before the Tribunal, the applicant’s enrolment in this course was cancelled on 27 March 2023. On those records and the applicant’s evidence, the applicant instead enrolled in a Certificate III in Automotive Electrical Technology and Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis at Trinity Institute. The records before me were discussed with the applicant at the hearing. The applicant conceded that he had not maintained enrolment in an AQF Level 9 course and had therefore breached condition 8202(2)(b).
On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant’s visa was granted in relation to a Masters degree, which would have provided a qualification at AQF level 9. Since then, the applicant has enrolled in a Certificate III and Certificate IV, which provide a qualification at AQF levels 3 and 4. I find that the applicant has not maintained 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. Accordingly, 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. 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.
Prescribed matters
Much of regulation 2.43A concerns circumstances where there has been a written certificate relating to workplace exploitation matters issued. There is no evidence of that nature in this case, and those parts of the regulation do not apply. I have however considered, in accordance with reg 2.43A, whether there is evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa.
The purpose of a student visa is to study. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that he had initially studied and passed six months of the MBA he was enrolled in. The PRISMS records before me indicate that almost immediately after his enrolment in the MBA was cancelled on 27 March 2023, the applicant was enrolled in a Certificate III in Automotive Electrical Technology for study between 3 April 2023 and 31 March 2024. He has provided the Tribunal with evidence that he completed that study with high attendance. He then enrolled in a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis for study between 1 April 2024 and 30 March 2025. PRISMS records this course as cancelled, but the applicant said in the written submissions and at the hearing that he in fact completed it on 30 March 2025. He was invited to provide evidence relating to the Certificate IV following the hearing but has not done so. In any event, I am willing to accept he has completed it as he claims.

As the applicant has argued in his submissions, after becoming aware that changing from his MBA to the Certificates III and IV was a breach of a condition of his visa, he submitted a further student visa application on 14 October 2024 in order to be permitted to study the vocational courses he was enrolled in (on the applicant’s submissions, this application was refused on 11 June 2025 and he has applied to the ART for review of that decision). The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that if the Tribunal decides that his visa should not be cancelled, he intends to enrol in a diploma in the same field that he is currently studying.
On the evidence he has given to the Tribunal up until the cancellation of his visa the applicant was continuing to study. He says he continued to study even after that time, and that he intends to do further study if the decision of the Department is set aside. I find that the applicant has been complying with the purpose of the visa and is seeking to comply with that purpose in the future. This weighs against exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
However, I also take into consideration that the purpose of the applicant’s particular visa was to study an MBA, whereas the courses he has completed, and that he intends to enrol in, are lower level and unrelated vocational courses. The applicant is not seeking to comply with the purpose for which he, personally, was granted a visa. This reduces the weight I place on the fact that he is complying with the purpose of the visa.
Policy considerations
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.
Circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose; whether circumstances were beyond the visa holder’s control.
The ground for cancellation in this case arose from the applicant changing his course of study to a course of a significantly lower level, resulting in a breach of his visa conditions.
The applicant has consistently maintained in his response to the Department and written and oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was unaware that changing the level of his course amounted to a breach of his visa conditions until notified by the Department of the intention to consider cancellation. He has said that the breach was unintentional, inadvertent and he attempted to rectify it as soon as he became aware of it by applying for a further student visa on the basis of his current courses. He refers to being young, new to Australia, having English as a second language, and the complexities of immigration law.
Asked about his awareness of his visa conditions at the hearing, the applicant said that he was not exactly aware of the conditions. He said the condition had been mentioned on the letter informing him of his visa grant, but he did not have much understanding of what it meant. He claimed to have not realised that the subsequent courses he had enrolled in were not at the same level.
In his response to the NOICC the applicant says that he changed his course to pursue something which aligned more with his passion for motor vehicles. He also learned that the field of automotives is financially rewarding in India. He says in his written submissions that he was motivated by genuine academic and career interest and practical employment goals.
The applicant similarly said at the hearing that he thought that the automotive course would be more practical and help his future. Asked why he had not applied to study that course initially, he claimed to have been previously unaware that such courses were offered in Australia. In response to my questions, he gave evidence that he had not sought advice from his educational institution or the Department before changing his course, although he spoke to friends about it. When I asked why he had not checked with the Department or his education provider that he was permitted to change his course, he referred to having made a mistake and not having much knowledge. He said he had learnt from it and would not repeat it. I raised concerns with the applicant that the circumstances which led to the breach seemed to be factors within his control. He again admitted his mistake and referred to his lack of knowledge and awareness, to not properly doing his research.
I take into consideration the applicant’s arguments in his response to the Department and submissions to the Tribunal that he is aware of other persons who have changed from higher education to VET courses and not had their visas cancelled. I am willing to accept this may have given him the impression that such transitions were permitted. I also take into consideration that upon realising his error the applicant quickly applied for a further visa in an attempt to correct the breach of his conditions.
I accept the applicant did not intentionally breach his visa condition, and was unaware that changing his course of study in the way he did would amount to a breach. However, I find that this was due to his own failure to familiarise himself with his visa conditions and make inquiries or otherwise inform himself about the implications of changing his course of study. The applicant was initially studying in English at Masters level and I do not accept he was incapable of making those inquiries or properly understanding his visa conditions. The breach arose from the applicant’s own decisions and failure to properly inform himself, and there were no extenuating circumstances beyond his control that led to the grounds for cancellation of the visa. This weighs towards exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa, although the weight I place on it is somewhat reduced by the fact that the breach was not intentional and the applicant attempted to rectify it.
Purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia and whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia
As set out above, I accept that the purpose of the applicant’s travel to and stay in Australia has been to study. However, for the reasons below I do not accept that he has a compelling need to remain here.
On the applicant’s evidence, he has now completed the Certificates III and IV in which he was enrolled. Asked at the hearing about why he had a compelling need to remain, the applicant said that his only compelling need is to pursue further studies. In response to my questions about the possibility of undertaking that study in India, the applicant said that the institutions were better in Australia and Australian courses were more practically-focused. He said he had not done any extensive search on options to study in India because he is in Australia to study, and would like to search more about available opportunities here.
In his written submissions, the applicant refers to his commitment to further study and intention to eventually contribute to the Indian workforce in the automotive sector which is impacted by skills shortage. When I questioned the applicant at the hearing about his intentions after finishing the courses, he referred to going back to India and applying his learning. Despite being asked multiple questions to ascertain what kind of work he wanted to do, the applicant gave vague answers such as getting a better job, working in the automotive industry in a company that would provide opportunities, and working in a ‘relevant industry in a big company’. He said he was focused on his studies and would look for jobs in India after that, that there were good work opportunities there. When asked to be specific about what kind of job he wanted to do, he referred to not yet being sure because his studies were not competed to the level he wanted to achieve, but that there were good opportunities in multinational corporations and he hoped to work in one of them.
When asked if there was a compelling need for qualifications from Australia to do this kind of work, the applicant referred generally to foreign study having better value, being more practical, and learning more. I asked the applicant about what sort of work his past and proposed future courses would qualify him to do. In response, the applicant said he was not sure because his studies were not completed to the level he aimed to achieve. He referred generally to the opportunities in India and wanting to work in a multinational corporation. When pressed on what the courses actually qualified him to do, he again referred to focusing on his studies and not having done much research into what he was applying for or aiming for. When I put to him that he did not seem to know what the job the qualifications would lead to or what they taught him to do, he stated that there were opportunities but he had not done enough searching on them as he was focused on his studies, and once that was done he would take time out and research what he could apply for.
The applicant says his only compelling need to remain in Australia is to pursue further studies here. While I accept the standard of education may be higher in Australia and that value is placed on foreign qualifications, the applicant has not demonstrated that he would be unable to do similar study in India. The applicant has already completed the two qualifications in which he was enrolled. He seems to have given little thought to what he might do with these qualifications, or the diploma he says he hopes to achieve. He is not familiar with what type of work his existing or intended future vocational study would actually qualify him to do. In the circumstances, I do not accept that the applicant’s desire to pursue further studies is a compelling need to remain in Australia, or that there is otherwise a compelling need for the applicant to remain here. This weighs heavily towards exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Degree of hardship that may be caused to the applicant and any family members, including financial, psychological, emotional or any other hardship as a result of cancellation
In his response to the NOICC the applicant says he has invested a lot of his family’s money along with his time in building a sustainable future for himself in India. His family’s reputation and social acceptance lies in his academic achievements. The applicant’s future depends upon his education. His entire family including himself will have to give up their life if his visa was cancelled. That would cause severe financial detriment and a massive social embarrassment. They cannot tolerate this as a normal middle-class family in India. In the written statement to the Tribunal he says he comes from a modest family background and his family’s emotional and financial hopes are deeply invested in his education and future in Australia. He has referred to the stress and uncertainty cause by the situation, the impact on himself and his family, and to suffering depression. At the hearing he referred further to his future being ruined, his family investing a lot of money, and the stress the cancellation of his visa has placed on them and himself. Asked why he claimed his future would be ruined, considering he had completed his qualifications, he referred to wanting to study more so he could get a better job.
I accept that cancellation of the visa will lead to some psychological and emotional distress to the applicant and his family. However, following from the discussion above, I do not consider that it will negatively impact the applicant’s prospects in India, given that he has not clearly identified what those prospects might otherwise have been. In considering the applicant’s claims about the financial commitment made by his family, potential embarrassment and the time he has put into his studies, I take into account that the applicant has in fact completed the two qualifications in which he had enrolled. While I accept he may not have studied to the level he would like, I am not persuaded that cancellation of the visa would lead to any hardship to the applicant or his family beyond the understandable distress and disappointment that he is not able to pursue further studies beyond what he has already achieved. I give this some, but only very small, weight against exercise of the discretion to cancel of the visa.
Extent of compliance with visa conditions, now and on previous occasions
On the applicant’s evidence he studied his level 9 AQF course for only six months, and then enrolled in courses at a much lower level. I consider the extent of non-compliance with condition 8202(2)(b) to be significant.
The applicant has claimed to have otherwise complied with all visa conditions. However, he also says that completed his Certificate IV in March 2025. As raised with the applicant at the hearing in accordance with s 359A, the records before me indicate that from 30 January 2025, the applicant held a Bridging visa E which was subject to condition 8207. That condition requires that the visa holder must not engage in any studies or training in Australia. I asked the applicant what visa he held at the time of completing the Certificate IV and he said that at the time he got the visa cancellation email, he was almost done with his studies and had submitted all assignments. I queried how he could have completed the coursework when the visa was cancelled in October 2024, almost six months prior to the end of the course. He then referred to having applied hoping to get study rights. I put to him that he had condition 8207 on his visa from January, and it seemed he may have been in breach of his visa conditions by continuing to study after that time. He reiterated his explanation that he had completed the assignments earlier. I put to the applicant that on the records before me it appeared that his enrolment in that course had been cancelled. He disputed that. I invited the applicant to provide evidence showing when he had completed the assignments and the course, and advised that in the absence of that evidence, it seemed that he may have been in breach of his visa condition, which I would weigh when deciding whether or not to cancel the visa. He said he would try his best to submit evidence.
The applicant has provided no evidence to demonstrate that he had completed the coursework prior to January 2025 and it appears that he may have been in breach of condition 8207. However, as he says he completed the course in March 2025, the breach would have been for a relatively short time. Continuing to study, while in breach of his conditions, was in compliance with his overall purpose of being in Australia. Beyond this matter and the breach which led to the cancellation, there is no evidence before me that the applicant has not complied with the conditions on his present and past visas. I give this factor some but minimal weight towards exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that he had been cooperative and responsive to the Department. I accept that to be the case and give that weight against exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be consequentially cancelled under s 140
On the information before me and confirmed by the applicant at hearing, there are no other persons in Australia whose visa would or may be cancelled as a consequence of the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. I do not give this factor any weight either towards or against cancelling the visa.
Mandatory legal consequences to cancellation, such as: indefinite detention if the person cannot be removed consistently with Australia’s non-refoulement obligations; whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister personally intervening; and whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention and removal
If the visa remains cancelled the applicant would likely be granted a Bridging visa for a short period of time to allow him to finalise his affairs. If the applicant remained in Australia without a valid visa, he would be residing unlawfully and liable to detention and removal. However, the applicant gave evidence at the hearing that if he was unsuccessful in the review and had exhausted all options for appeal, he would comply with any directions from the Department to leave. The likelihood of the applicant being liable to detention, indefinite or otherwise, as a consequence of the cancellation is remote. Asked about the impact of the consequences of visa cancellation, such as bars or prohibitions on applying for another type of visa, he referred to the impact on his studies, which he wishes to remain and finish. He referred to the impact this would also have on his family. While I accept the applicant may be prevented from applying from further visas without intervention of the Minister, I do not consider these factors to be reasons not to cancel the visa in his circumstances. I do not give this factor any weight either towards or against cancelling the visa.
Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation, including the best interests of any children whose interests could be affected by the cancellation and whether cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations
The applicant said at the hearing that there are no children who would be impacted by the decision to cancel his visa, and I find a decision to cancel his visa would not be inconsistent with Australia’s obligations under the Convention on the Rights of the Child. Regarding Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, the applicant said at the hearing he has no fears about returning to India, although referred to wanting a better future, his family wanting him to finish his study, and that cancellation of his visa would cause his parents stress, which they are old and may not tolerate. The applicant’s evidence does not suggest that cancellation of the visa and removal would lead to a risk of treatment that might be in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations or other international obligations. If the applicant held such concerns, it would be appropriate for them to be fully assessed via a protection visa application. I do not give this factor any weight either towards or against cancelling the visa.
Any other relevant matters; matters raised by the applicant
I have also considered the additional matters specifically raised by the applicant.
At the time of his response to the NOICC the applicant argued that he had completed the majority of his Certificate IV and wished to complete the small part that remained. I do not give this any weight against cancelling the visa since, on the applicant’s evidence, he has now completed that qualification.
The applicant has argued that the visa conditions amount to restrictions on changing course based on nationality. He has also made arguments that many other international students are permitted to remain in Australia after breaching conditions and that he has been given unfair and unequal treatment compared to other international students who engaged in the same or similar conduct. He says it is well known among the international student community that many students transition from higher education to VET courses and do not get their visa cancelled, and some are allowed to continue studies. He says there is a discretionary and varied approach to such situations and has resulted in a disproportionately harsh outcome in his case in light of his responses to being informed of the breach, and his academic progress in the new courses. He argues that like cases should be treated alike unless there is a compelling reason to justify different treatment, which he says is not the case here.

The conditions that are placed on visa holders is a policy matter for Government and the identification and scrutiny of compliance or otherwise with visa conditions is a matter for the Department of Home Affairs. The applicant chose to travel to Australia on a visa that was subject to conditions and was liable for cancellation in the event those conditions were breached. While I accept the applicant perceives that he has received unfair and differential treatment, these claims are merely anecdotal. I am considering the applicant’s case and his circumstances. The fact that other visa holders have breached conditions without facing similar enforcement action, if that is the case, is of little relevance and I do not give these matters any weight either for or against cancelling the applicant’s visa.
The applicant has referred to his desire to pursue his passion and wanting to build a better future through education. I do not give this any weight against exercising the discretion to cancel the visa, taking into consideration that the applicant has in fact completed the qualifications in which he was enrolled, and has not identified how any further qualifications he might study would benefit him, other than in a very vague sense.
The applicant states he has not been involved in criminal or fraudulent activity and intends to follow the law, poses no risk to the community and is not in breach of public health or character requirements. He reiterates that he has learnt from his mistake and will not repeat it. I accept these matters and give them some weight against exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
Conclusions on exercise of discretion
Overall, I consider the circumstances of this case weigh towards cancellation of the visa. While not intentional, the breach of condition 8202(2)(b) arose from the applicant’s decision to change his course and failure to inform himself of his visa conditions. There was a significant change in level, from AQF 9 to AQF 3 and 4, and while I accept he has been studying, and wishes to pursue further study, it is in a field entirely unrelated and a much lower level than that for which he was granted the visa. Despite saying he made the decision to change his course due to passion and interest, he was unable to identify with any kind of specificity what the courses would actually qualify him to do, or the value of a further related course and why that would represent a compelling need to remain in Australia, or why he otherwise has a compelling need to remain. While I accept his family has invested money and the cancellation of the visa may cause some distress, and he may not have achieved the level of study he had hoped, on his evidence the applicant has in fact completed the courses in which he was enrolled and obtained those qualifications. I consider this mitigates the level of hardship that might otherwise be caused by the cancellation of his visa. I accept the applicant is repentant and would not repeat his mistake, and that he has been otherwise largely compliant with his conditions and attitude towards the Department. However, in all the circumstances of the case, I find that the evidence weighs towards exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.
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 of hearing:  1 September 2025
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.