Sukhdeep Singh (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (Subclass 500). The applicant, a 23-year-old male Indian citizen, had arrived in Australia on a visitor visa in September 2019. He had previously commenced but not completed a Diploma in Diesel Mechanics. The application under review was for a Certificate III in Wall and Floor Tiling, which was due for completion in October 2021. The applicant remained in Australia on a bridging visa without progressing his studies, despite expressing a desire to do so.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, as required by Direction No. 69. This involved assessing the applicant's stated reasons for not progressing his studies, including the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic and financial difficulties faced by his family. The Tribunal was required to consider and apply the terms of Direction No. 69, while also recognising its independent statutory duty to reach its own conclusions on the merits of the applicant's case.

The Tribunal acknowledged that while Direction No. 69 is a lawful direction, its relevance depends on whether the applicant's circumstances engage the specific matters identified within it. The applicant claimed that the pandemic prevented him from studying and that financial hardship impacted his ability to fund his education. The Tribunal expressed empathy for the applicant's situation but noted that financial requirements are a prerequisite for the grant of student visas. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not progressed his studies and had remained onshore on a bridging visa without advancing his educational goals, despite his stated intention to do so.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa.