Singh (Migration)

Singh (Migration) [2022] AATA 5142 (17 November 2022)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Kuljinder Singh
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Mohammad Ahasan Ali (MARN: 0851085)
CASE NUMBER:  2200512
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2020/869992
MEMBER:Gabrielle Cullen
DATE:17 November 2022
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 17 November 2022 at 11:30am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – ground for cancellation – not enrolled in a registered course – consideration of discretion – length of time not studying – death of grandfather – COVID-19 pandemic – loss of financial support from family – mental health – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 116, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8, Condition 8202

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision dated 7 January 2022 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass 500 (Student) visa under s 116(1)(b) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The Tribunal received an application for review of the delegate’s decision from the applicant on 13 January 2022. The applicant attached the Department’s Notification of Cancellation under Section 116 dated 7 January 2022 which indicates that on 3 November 2021 the Department notified and invited the applicant to comment on the intention to consider cancellation of his subclass 500 student visa. The applicant responded on 25 November 2021.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal via video on 9 November 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was represented in relation to the application for review by his registered migration agent. His representative attended the hearing.
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
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). If the applicant has breached that condition, under s.116(1) of the Act, the visa may be cancelled.
Did the applicant comply with condition 8202?
Condition 8202, as it applies in this case, is set out in the attachment to this decision. Relevantly, it requires that the applicant:
·be enrolled in a registered course, or in limited cases, a full time course of study or training: 8202(2);
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(3)(a); and
·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(3)(b).
In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course: condition 8202(2).
The decision record also set out that the applicant was notified of the intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) of his visa on 5 January 2022. The Tribunal is satisfied that the NOICC was validly issued.
The delegate found on 7 January 2022 the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course of study from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021. The delegate proceeded to cancel the visa on 7 January 2022.
As raised with the applicant at hearing via s.359AA the applicant’s Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) records contain information that the applicant had not been enrolled in a registered course of study from 27 August 2019 when he notified cessation of studies from the Bachelor of Professional Accounting until his enrolment in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, commencing 8 November 2021 with the COE dated 5 November 2021. The Tribunal also raised with the applicant via s.359AA that movement records indicate he was the holder of a subclass 500 student visa granted on 23 July 2019 valid to 7 January 2022 in which condition 8202 applied.
The applicant confirmed in oral evidence to the Tribunal that he was not enrolled in a course of study from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021. The applicant also did not dispute that he had not complied with condition 8202(2) of his visa.
Therefore, on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in and did not have a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course or a full-time course of study or training from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021. Failing to maintain enrolment means that the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2).
The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the grounds for cancellation in s.116(2)(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 visa should be cancelled.
There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion. The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedural Instruction ‘General visa cancellation powers’.
Background
The applicant is a 25-year-old citizen of India. He first arrived in Australia on 29 December 2015 on a subclass 572 student visa valid to 15 March 2019 to undertake a Certificate IV in Information Technology, Diploma of Systems Analysis and Design and Advanced Diploma of Information Technology and Business Analysis to 25 November 2018. Following the successful completion of the Certificate IV in IT he changed to study a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management to 31 March 2019 and he successfully completed both courses. He was then granted a subclass 500 visa on 23 July 2019 valid to 7 January 2022 to study a Bachelor of Professional Accounting but the applicant notified cessation of studies on 27 August 2019. He is now enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from 8 November 2021 to 7 May 2023, followed by a Diploma of Hospitality Management from 8 May 2023 to 5 November 2023 then a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) to 2 November 2025.[1] No ‘no study’ condition was placed on his bridging visa.
[1] As raised with the applicant via s.359AA at hearing.
The applicant’s representative responded to the NOICC with a submission summarised as follows:
·He has completed a Certificate IV in Information Technology, Diploma of Leadership and Management and Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management from Wells International College.
·He is currently studying a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and Diploma of Hospitality Management followed by Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning).
·He is currently maintaining his enrolment in a registered course.
·The education provider did not certify his as not achieving satisfactory course progress under section 19 of the Education Services for Overseas Student Act 2000.
With regard to the discretionary criteria, he outlined the following:
The purpose of the visa holder’s travel to and stay in Australia: Mr. Singh came to Australia on Student visa and all time he continued his study in Australia on a full-time basis and he full-fill the purpose of his visa.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions: He is currently enrolled in a registered course. Previously he did not receive any visa cancellation notice from the Department of Home Affairs.
The degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder: If his visa is cancelled than he would lose his concentration to continue his study in Australia. In addition, if his visa is cancelled than He would have to start his study from the beginning as he did not complete any reasonable qualification in Australia.
The visa holder’s past and present behaviour towards the department: It is his first notice of consider cancellation and he always truthful and cooperative with the department.
Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be cancelled under s140: He is on a student visa and his visa was not consider to cancel under section 140.
Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to a cancellation decision: There is no legal consequences to cancel his visa.
Whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation: there is no obligation for Australian government under relevant international agreement to cancel his visa.
Any other relevant matters: Under direction no 69 he can be considered as a genuine student.
The applicant provided a submission to the Tribunal including COEs outlining his study history outlined above and past courses completed.
He also provided
·A letter from Training for Knowledge and Livelihood dated 28 October 2022 confirming the applicant’s enrolment in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery with the expected completion date of 7 May 2023.
·Death Certificate of the applicant’s grandfather with date of death being 6 August 2021.
His representative in a submission dated 9 November 2022 submits the additional information as follows.
·During Covid the applicant had a lack of family support from his family as they were facing the hardship of Covid there and for this reason he had difficulty surviving without their support, he lost his employment and he suffered depression as there was a death in the family.
·He successfully finished the Diploma of IT, Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management to 31 March 2019.
·He then enrolled in the Bachelor of Accounting from April 2019 but could not pass any subjects as it was too difficult and for this reason his COE was cancelled.
·He was going to enrol elsewhere but then the pandemic began and he could not enrol because of lockdown and his family could not support him.
·Then his maternal grandfather died in India which left him upset and he could not concentrate properly.
·He was unemployed and not eligible for any benefits or government assistance during Covid.
·He was badly affected by the pandemic and it was difficult for him to pay the College fees and living expenses as he had no employment and no financial support. Consequently, he was depressed and isolated and did not enrol in any course
He also provided evidence at the Tribunal hearing as to why he has not been enrolled from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021 and as to the discretionary criteria outlined below which where relevant is outlined below.
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 purpose of the visa grant was for the applicant to travel and stay in Australia for the purposes of study. The evidence from the applicant is that he first arrived in Australia on 29 December 2015 on a subclass 572 student visa valid to 15 March 2019 to undertake a Certificate IV in Information Technology, Diploma of Systems Analysis and Design and Advanced Diploma of Information Technology and Business Analysis to 25 November 2018. Following the successful completion of the Certificate IV in IT he changed to study a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management to 31 March 2019 and he successfully completed both these courses. The applicant indicated at hearing that his purpose for coming to Australia was to study. Based on the applicant’s evidence and successful completion of courses to 31 March 2019 the Tribunal accepts that his travel to Australia in December 2015 was for the purpose of study.
He was then granted a subclass 500 visa on 23 July 2019 valid to 7 January 2022 to study a Bachelor of Professional Accounting but the applicant notified cessation of studies on 27 August 2019. He is now enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from 8 November 2021 to 7 May 2023, followed by a Diploma of Hospitality Management from 8 May 2023 to 5 November 2023 then a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) to 2 November 2025.[2] No ‘no study’ condition was placed on his bridging visa. The evidence indicates he is currently achieving course progression in the Certificate Iv in Commercial Cookery
[2] As raised with the applicant via s.359AA at hearing.
While the Tribunal has accepted above that his travel to Australia in 2015 was for the purpose of study and he successfully completed courses to March 2019 it does not except for the reasons outlined below that from August 2019 his stay in Australia was and is for the purpose of study. The Tribunal views the extended length of time he was not enrolled from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021, a period of over 2 years to undermine his claim his stay in Australia was for the purpose of study. The Tribunal is of the view if his intention was to study, he would have enrolled and studied in this period.
In making this finding the Tribunal has considered the reasons he did not study in the relevant period from August 2019. At hearing he indicated that he did not successfully complete any subject in the Bachelor of Accounting. He said he undertook 4 courses but did not complete any of them and did not understand it and ceased studying. He then said Covid happened and he thought he would learn cookery. He said he could not successfully complete the Bachelor of Accounting and it them t took time to decide what he wanted to study. He also referred to his maternal grandfather dying of Covid in July/August 2021 and described that he had lived with his grandparents since he was 2 years old and was extremely attached. He referred to the emotional stress his grandfather’s death had on him and the lack of income and support from India. His representative referred to the loss of financial support due to Covid combine with his loss of employment, which resulted in the difficulty paying his fees as well as the depression caused by his grandfather’s death, as well as being unable to enrol because of lockdown.
As to his work he said he worked in a car wash from December 2015 to 2018 and since then has worked in a bakery, 20 hours per week and increased those hours after the second lockdown, when allowed. He said from March 2020 to approximately July 2020 he could not work in the bakery because of Covid but was able to work other than those months up to 20 hours a week. He said he worked as a driver in the bakery and then in packing.
The evidence indicates, as raised with him via s.359AA that he ceased studying the Bachelor of Accounting, notifying the provider. The Tribunal accepts his claim that he ceased studying in August 2019 as the course was too difficult. However, the Tribunal is of the view if he was genuine in his claim to be in Australia to study and the bachelor course was too hard, he would have changed to a course at a lower level or different area at that time rather than not study for over 2 years. While the Tribunal accepts that there were events that occurred outside the applicant’s control, such as Covid and his grandfather dying of Covid in India from March 2020, it is not satisfied that his failure to maintain enrolment was because of these events. The Tribunal does not accept his claim he was unable to study due to the mental and emotional issues he faced as a result of his grandfather’s death or Covid generally. It is of the view that if the mental and emotional stress he faced was to the extent that he could not study he would have sought medical or professional help, which the evidence indicates he did not, particularly over such a lengthy period. Further, that he continued to work other than in Covid lockdown from March 2020 to July 2020 undermines his claim he did not study in the period and especially after his grandfather died in July/August 2021 due to depression or mental or emotional stress. The Tribunal is of the view if the applicant was in Australia to study, he would have studied if he was able to work.
The tribunal has also considered his claim he did not have the money to pay the fees due to a lack of support from India due to Covid and lack of employment in Australia. While the Tribunal accepts that Covid in India may have resulted in his family being unable to support him and particularly financially support him, it notes he continued to be employed other than for 3 months from march to July 2020 and is of the view if he was in Australia to study, he would have maintained enrolment despite losing support from India. It also does not explain his lack of enrolment from August 2019 to March 2020.
He also claims he did not know wat to study in this period and it took him a while to realise he wanted to study commercial cookery. The Tribunal has difficulty accepting if his purpose was to be in Australia to study it would take him over 2 years to enrol in a course as he did not know what to study. It also is concerned he only enrolled in a course following receipt of the NOICC on 3 November 2021. The evidence indicates the COEs were issued on 5 November 2021, 2 days later.
As to his representative’s claim that there were no courses available due to lockdown the Tribunal is of the view while there were shot periods where courses were not offered, most courses moved online and that there were many courses available to enrol in and study over the 2-year period. The Tribunal does not accept this explains his lack of enrolment particularly from August 2019 to March 2020 and for the over 2-year period.
In making this finding it has also considered that he is currently enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from 8 November 2021 to 7 May 2023, followed by a Diploma of Hospitality Management from 8 May 2023 to 5 November 2023 then a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) to 2 November 2025 and achieving course progression in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery but questions whether he is studying for the reasons he claims. The Tribunal accepts that being enrolled and achieving course progression is an indicator of a genuine student whose purpose is in Australia to study. However, it views as of concern the timing of enrolment in these courses, noting he only enrolled in these courses following receipt of the NOICC on 3 November 2021 after over 2 years of not being enrolled. Further, when the Tribunal asked why he is studying this course his evidence was vague and lacking in detail. He said because he has an interest in the area and wants to be a Chef in a big multinational hotel and own his own restaurant on return to India. When asked what led to the change in study area, he said he loves cooking at home and wants to work as a Chef. When asked for further detail he repeated that he will first work as a Chef then open his own restaurant and that he loves cooking. The Tribunal is of the view that after not studying for a 2-year period he would be able to provide detailed evidence as to his future career aim and why he is studying this course if he was studying genuinely for his future career aim. The Tribunal also raised as of concern why if working as a Chef is his future career aim, he was not working in a restaurant in Australia and he said he needs the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery to do so. The Tribunal is of the view if he was in Australia genuinely studying to become a Chef and open his own restaurant in the long term, he would work in a restaurant in any role to gain experience, even in a role in a restaurant where a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery is not required, such as front of house so as to gain experience to open his restaurant in the future.
Therefore, despite his current enrolment in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery from 8 November 2021 to 7 May 2023, followed by a Diploma of Hospitality Management from 8 May 2023 to 5 November 2023 then a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) to 2 November 2025 and achieving course progression the Tribunal is not satisfied that his stay in Australia from the time of his non-enrolment to date is genuine for the purpose of study.

As to why there is a compelling need for him to stay in Australia, he referred to now studying the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery. While he indicated there were similar courses in India, he said foreign study is more valuable and beneficial. He said he want to finish his studies in cookery that he has started and return to open his own business. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence however, on the material before it and as there are courses available in India, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a compelling need to travel and remain in Australia.
The Tribunal gives this this discretionary factor no weight in favour of the applicant.
The extent of compliance with visa conditions
The applicant did not comply with condition 8202(2) and was not enrolled in a registered course of study from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021. The Tribunal considers this period of 2 years and 2 months to be significant, and the Tribunal is mindful that it is expected that all visa holders adhere to the conditions of their visa.
The Tribunal acknowledges that there is no other evidence the applicant did not comply with any other conditions on his visa and that he has taken steps to enrol in a course of study since 5 November 2021.
Although there is no other evidence of non-compliance, considering the lengthy period of time the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study prior to the date of cancellation, the Tribunal gives this discretionary factor little weight in favour of the applicant.
Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)
At hearing the applicant referred to being unable to finish the current courses he is enrolled in where he has completed 3 semesters and will forgo the fees paid as hardship. While the Tribunal accepts, he will forego the fee, as it is of the view he is not genuine in his reasons for studying these courses it gives this low weight in favour of the applicant.
When asked why he could not study in India as there are many courses available to him there, he said he could but he wants to stay and study here so he can obtain a degree from Australia so he can obtain a job in Australia and return to India with a degree for his family. As set out above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant still has study options available to him in his home country. While it accepts there is a degree of hardship to the applicant and his family as to his lack of obtaining Australian qualifications and learning different perspectives than that provided by studying in India on the evidence before it the Tribunal gives such disappointment for him and his family low weight in favour of the applicant.
The Tribunal gives this consideration low weight in favour of the applicant.
Circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose
In his evidence the applicant has advanced several matters that impacted on his ability to study. He has referred to not knowing what to study after he could not complete the Bachelor of Accounting, Covid and the death of his maternal grandfather, the emotional and mental stress as a result and the lack of work and funds from India due to Covid and his grandfather’s death which led him to not be enrolled and being unable to pay the fees in the relevant period. He has also referred to lack of courses available. The Tribunal has considered these matters above in detail. As raised with him, the Tribunal has difficulty accepting the mental stress as a result of the events claimed affected his ability to study when there is no evidence he ever sought medical help and but for three months from March 2020 to July 2020 he was able to work up to 20 hours per week throughout this period. As it is his claim he is in Australia for the purpose of study the Tribunal is of the view if he was able to work, he could have studied. The Tribunal is of the view if he was so mentally affected, he could not study, he would have sought medical help as he has claimed he was in Australia to study.
While it accepts because of Covid for some short periods courses were closed, it does not explain his lack of any enrolment for two years from August 2019 to November 2021 was because of Covid and the unavailability of courses as most courses moved online. It also does not explain his lack of enrolment form Augusts 2019 to March 2020. It has considered his claim he did not have the funds to study for the reasons he claims but notes but the evidence indicates that for only 3 months he was working and this does not explain his lack of enrolment from Aust 2019, 6 months before Covid for over 2 years. It has also considered above his claim he did not know what to study but has difficulty accepting this for a period of over 2 years and has concern he only enrolled after receiving the NOICC.
Considering the totality of the applicant’s claims regarding the circumstances in which the grounds for cancellation arose, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was impacted by the Covid situation in Australia and his home country as well as the death of his maternal grandfather but not to the extent claimed which led him to be unable to study for over 2 years from 27 August 2019 to 5 November 2021. On the evidence it does not accept that the events advanced by the applicant created circumstances outside the applicant’s control leading to the cancellation of his student visa. Therefore, the Tribunal only attributes them low weight in favour of the applicant.
Past and present behaviour of the visa holder toward the Department
There is no evidence that the applicant has not been co-operative in his dealings with the Department in the past. The Tribunal gives this consideration some weight in the applicant’s favour.
Whether there would be any consequential cancellations under s.140
The applicant claimed to be single with no dependants. There is no evidence that any other person’s visa would or may be cancelled if the applicant’s visa was cancelled. The Tribunal gives this factor no weight.
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 applicant would continue to hold a bridging visa for a short period of time to allow him to finalise his affairs before returning to India, subject to any appeal of the Tribunal decision. It is acknowledged that there may be restrictions on travel that may give rise to further delay in the applicant returning to India, however there are some allowances in legitimate circumstances for relevant bridging visas to extend. If the applicant remained in Australia without a valid visa, he would be residing unlawfully and liable to detention and removal. The applicant however provided oral evidence to the Tribunal that he intended to comply with any lawful direction to depart Australia, and therefore the likelihood of the applicant being detained is remote.
If the visa is cancelled, the applicant may be subject to a restriction under s.48 of the Act and the applicant would have difficulties in obtaining any further visas in Australia. Under PIC 4013 he also may not be granted a further visa for three years from the date of cancellation. The cancellation may also restrict the applicant’s future ability to make a valid application for any visa other than those prescribed in reg 2.12. However, those are also intended and legitimate consequences of cancellation.
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
The Tribunal has no evidence that Australia’s international obligations may or would be breached if the applicant’s visa was cancelled. There is no information to indicate that a visa cancellation would be in breach of Australia’s non-refoulement obligations, nor has the applicant applied for refugee status or invoked Australia’s protection obligations. When asked by the Tribunal whether he had any fear of returning to India the applicant said he did not.
There is also no information before the Tribunal that a decision to cancel the applicant’s visa would be in breach of the Conventions of the Rights of the Child (CROC) or that it would be in contravention of the Convention Against Torture.
The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.
Any other relevant matter
The applicant’s representative has referred to the applicant being a genuine student and referred to Direction 69. For the reasons above the Tribunal has found the applicant is not in Australia studying for any value to his future and is not genuine in his reason for studying in Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal is satisfied that there are limited aspects that are favourable to the applicant. Although it is accepted that there were events that occurred outside the applicant’s control, the Tribunal is also mindful of the seriousness of breaching a visa condition and remaining in Australia on a student visa for a considerable period without studying or maintaining enrolment. Further, that the cancellation of the visa is the intended consequence of breach of the relevant condition. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the limited aspects favourable to the applicant do not outweigh the reasons to cancel the visa. 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.
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.
Gabrielle Cullen
Member

ATTACHMENT
Migration Regulations 1994
…
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.

[2022] AATA 5142

17 November 2022

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction