Tandukar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs

The case of Tandukar v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs involved a citizen of Nepal who had arrived in Australia in 2008 and applied for a further student visa in 2016. The appellant had previously held a Class TU Subclass 572 Student visa and had been granted several extensions and related bridging visas. The Minister’s delegate questioned whether the appellant was a genuine student and sought additional information. The appellant responded with various reasons for her course changes and frequent changes of discipline. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine if the appellant met the criterion in cl 572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and if the appellant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

The AAT found that the appellant had not provided consistent explanations for her course changes and had not followed a clear study pathway relevant to her stated career plan. It concluded that the appellant did not require a Bachelors of Accounting for managing her family’s dairy farm in Nepal, despite her claims. The AAT also found that the appellant’s ties to Nepal did not present a significant incentive for her to return there on completion of her course, especially considering her part-time employment in Australia.

The AAT affirmed the delegate’s decision and dismissed the appeal. The appellant was ordered to pay the first respondent’s costs of the appeal. This case highlights the importance of providing consistent and relevant information when applying for a student visa in Australia and the need for applicants to follow a clear study pathway.