Suasti Mendoza (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2600

Suasti Mendoza (Migration) [2019] AATA 2600 (21 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Paul Sebastian Suasti Mendoza

CASE NUMBER:  1834535

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2018/3284501

MEMBER:Meredith Jackson

DATE:21 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

·cl.500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 21 May 2019 at 10:03am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – enrolment status – evidence of enrolment received – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.211

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 30 August 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 6 November 2018.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of enrolment was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. On 27 November 2019 the applicant’s migration agent submitted to the Tribunal a copy of a Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) from Australian College of Technology and Business Pty Ltd, recording that the applicant is enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Management (Learning) commencing on 3 December 2018 and due to finish on 15 December 2019.

4. The agent stated that the reason the applicant had not previously provided a COE was due to the education provider from whom he had secured an offer for a similar course at the time of application, ECA Education Graduate Institute (EGI), had been unable to issue COEs because of delays in its CRICOS registration process. The applicant provided evidence that EGI had since apologised and reimbursed the applicant’s review application fee.

5. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

   ·cl.500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Meredith Jackson
   Member