SYED (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision to refuse a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 572 (Vocational Education and Training Sector). The applicant sought to challenge the Tribunal's affirmation of the delegate's decision to refuse his visa. The applicant had initially been enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at George Brown College, but claimed he believed he had enrolled in an accounting course. He stated that he discovered this discrepancy in early August 2016, and that the Leadership and Management course was subsequently cancelled. His visa was refused on 8 August 2016, and he lodged an application for review with the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a "genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student" as required by the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically cl.572.223. This involved determining if the applicant had provided sufficient evidence of his enrolment in a principal course of study, or an offer of enrolment, and whether he had demonstrated genuine intent to study in Australia. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's claims regarding his enrolment and the lack of documentary evidence to support these claims.

The Tribunal reasoned that at the time of the decision, the applicant had not provided any evidence of current enrolment or an offer of enrolment in a course. While he had been enrolled in a course at the time of his visa application, he later claimed to have discovered he was enrolled in an incorrect course and that his intended course was cancelled. The applicant provided no documentary evidence to substantiate these claims, nor did he provide reliable evidence of any study undertaken since his visa application. Given the absence of evidence of enrolment or a genuine offer of enrolment, and the lack of supporting documentation for his explanation, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of cl.572.223.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa. The Tribunal found no evidence that the applicant was eligible for a student visa of another subclass, leading to the affirmation of the original decision.