Wang (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3457

Wang (Migration) [2020] AATA 3457 (14 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Yanlin Wang

CASE NUMBER:  1922786

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2603605

MEMBER:David McCulloch

DATE:14 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

Statement made on 14 July 2020 at 8:53am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – cancellation – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – ground for cancellation – enrolment – not enrolled in a registered course – validity of enrolment cancellation not affected by procedural requirements – consideration of discretion – study history and progress in Australia – unsatisfactory attendance record – procedural requirements – complaints and appeal process – current intention to study – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 116
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 8, Condition 8202

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. The applicant is a national of the People’s Republic of China, born on 2 August 1993. The visa that has been cancelled was granted on 19 October 2017 for a stay period until 2 February 2020. That visa was subject to condition 8202.

2. On 5 July 2019, the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider Cancellation (NOICC) because the delegate considered that the applicant did not comply with condition 8202 of his visa, as he ceased to be enrolled in a registered course from 29 June 2018. The applicant’s lawyer provided a written response to the NOICC on 19 July 2019.  On 13 August 2019 the delegate decided to cancel the visa held by the applicant on the basis that the applicant breached condition 8202 of his visa. The applicant seeks review of the delegate’s decision.

3. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant had breached condition 8202 in relation to the requirement to be enrolled in a registered course. The issue in the present case is whether the ground for cancellation is made out and, if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 June 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was represented by his registered migration agent, who did not attend the hearing.

5. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

6. 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

7. 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. This is an application for review of a decision dated 13 August 2019 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 (the Act).

   Did the applicant comply with condition 8202?

8. 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 full time registered course: 8202(2)(a)

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course progress as specified: 8202(2)(c)(i), and

   ·has not been certified by his or her education provider, as not achieving satisfactory course attendance as specified: 8202(2)(c)(ii).

9. In the present case, the applicant’s visa was cancelled on the basis the applicant was not enrolled in a full time registered course.

10. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal which indicates that he has not been enrolled in a registered course of study since 29 June 2018. The Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicates that this occurred for disciplinary reasons in relation to the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management. This also resulted in the cancellation of the applicant’s subsequent enrolment in a Diploma of Business on the same date.

11. The applicant’s lawyer has indicated in response to the NOICC that he has not been afforded procedural requirements by his education provider in not being informed of the intention to report or given notification of appeal and complaint rights. There is a potential submission therefore that the ground of cancellation is not made out because of procedural requirements not being followed.

12. However, it is clear from judicial authority that a failure to comply with procedural requirements by the education provider does not affect whether an enrolment has been validly cancelled. It may, however, have a bearing as to explain why the applicant was not enrolled and therefore a relevant discretionary factor[1].

    [1] In Mohammed v MIBP [2018] FCCA 2762, the applicant’s visa was cancelled for non-enrolment. The applicant submitted that there were exceptional circumstances beyond his control that led to the ground for cancelling the visa (not that he complied with Condition 8202), at [7]. The Tribunal found the education provider had not breached the National Code, but said that even if it were to accept that the provider had breached it, it was not satisfied that any breach of the Code meant the visa should not be cancelled as it was the applicant’s responsibility to ensure that he had complied with his visa conditions, at [12]. The court found that even if the Tribunal had erred in finding that there was no breach of the National Code, there was no jurisdictional error because the Tribunal proceeded on the alternative basis that the university may have breached the Code, at [23]-[27]. It is implicit in this reasoning that non-enrolment amounts to breach of Condition 8202, regardless of whether there was compliance with the National Code or not. In Karki v MIBP [2015] FCA 1308, the applicant’s visa was cancelled for non-enrolment. The appellant submitted that the student’s education provider had failed to follow the National Code by informing him of its intention to cancel his enrolment and of the provider’s internal appeals process, at [6]. The Tribunal did not accept that the education provider had failed to follow the National Code and found that in any case the appellant understood that if he did not pay his fees the provider would cancel his enrolment. The Court accepted the Minister’s submissions at [56]-[57] that even if there was proper notice it would have not made any difference to the exercise of the discretion as the applicant knew about the possible cancellation. It was also found that when due regard is had to the discretion, a conclusive finding by the Tribunal as to whether the education provider did comply with their procedural requirements cannot be a matter that the Tribunal was bound to take into consideration in its discretion.

13. In any event, the PRISMS record as set out in the delegate’s decision, and confirmed by the Tribunal from the PRISMS record, indicates that the applicant was issued a written notice of intention to report and that he chose to not access the complaints and appeals process.

14. This information was put to the applicant in the hearing pursuant to the procedural requirements of s.359AA of the Act. This is discussed further in this section as to whether the visa should be cancelled.

15. However, in the hearing the applicant acknowledged that his enrolment had been cancelled on 29 June 2018.

16. In light of these factors, in the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s enrolment was validly cancelled on 29 June 2018 and therefore the ground of cancellation is made out.

17. There is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant was a holder of a Subclass 560 or 571 (School Sector) visa as a secondary exchange student, thus the applicant’s obligation under condition 8202(2) is to be enrolled in a registered course.

18. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2).

    Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

19. Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether to exercise its discretion to cancel the visa.

20. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that are required to be considered in relation to the exercise of this discretion. However, the Tribunal has had regard to matters raised by the applicant as to why the visa should not be cancelled, and government policy guidelines contained in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3). These matters include: the purpose of the visa holder's travel to and stay in Australia; compelling reasons to remain in Australia; the extent of compliance with visa conditions; the degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members; the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose – whether there are extenuating circumstances beyond the visa holder’s control; the visa holder's past and present behaviour towards the Department; whether there are any persons in Australia whose visas would or may be cancelled under s.140 (i.e. consequential cancellation); whether there are mandatory legal consequences to the decision (whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence in light of any non-refoulement obligations; provisions in the Act which prevent the person making a valid application without the intervention of the Minister; whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to be detained upon cancellation); whether Australia has obligations under relevant international agreements that would be breached as a result of the visa cancellation; the impact on children of the cancellation; whether the cancellation would lead to removal in breach of Australia's non-refoulement obligations; and any other relevant matters.

    Study history and progress in Australia

21. The PRISMS record indicates that the applicant has been studying in Australia since September 2014 having been enrolled in 10 courses over that time.

22. The applicant indicated in the hearing that he has not completed any course since he began studying in September 2014.

23. The applicant’s more recent study includes a Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English – Further Studies which was due to commence on 27 March 2017 and finish on 22 September 2017. Thereafter the applicant was due to commence a Certificate IV in Leadership and Management on to October 2017 concluding on 23 November 2018. This is the course that was cancelled on 29 June 2018 for disciplinary reasons. Also cancelled on that date was the applicant’s subsequent enrolment in a Diploma of Business due to commence on 21 January 2019. The education provider for these courses was Australian Colleges of Further Education (ACFE).

24. On the Departmental file is an email from the applicant’s education provider dated 3 July 2019 indicating the applicant’s progression in the above mentioned studies. The email indicates that the applicant only completed two units in the Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English – Further Studies and that attendance at best was 50%.

25. This information was put to the applicant in the hearing pursuant to s.359AA of the Act. In response, the applicant indicated that that information was not correct. The applicant indicated that he believes he passed more than two units and that his attendance was greater than 50%.

26. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had a transcript of his progress in this course to substantiate that he passed more than the two units as indicated by the education provider. In response, the applicant indicated that he was not able to get a transcript because he has not completed the course.

27. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was inclined to consider more probative evidence by the education provider provided to the Department as to the applicant study progress than contrary assertions by the applicant, without authoritative evidence. The applicant indicated that he could potentially seek to get evidence of completing more units in this course. The Tribunal gave the applicant a period following the hearing to provide such evidence. The applicant did not provide such a response within the period provided or thereafter.

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant about his progress in the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management. The applicant indicated that to his recollection he completed five to six units and his attendance was 70%.

29. The Tribunal indicated to the applicant to the extent he was seeking following the hearing information from the education provider as to progress in the Certificate IV Spoken and Written English, the applicant should also seek information as to units passed in the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management. No response was provided.

30. The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing that there was an obligation to attend at least 80% of classes and the applicant had indicated in the hearing that he only attended 70% of the classes in the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management. 

31. The applicant indicated that he had been unhappy with ACFE in terms of the adequacy of their teaching in relation to both the English and management courses and they did not pay him enough attention. This seeks to explain the less than required attendance.

32. The Tribunal assesses the applicant’s study history and progress in Australia. The applicant had been studying in Australia for approximately five years until the visa was cancelled. This is a not insignificant period of time. In that time, the applicant has not completed any of the 10 courses that he was enrolled in, according to his evidence. This is adverse to the applicant in terms of consideration of either the applicant’s ability or motivation to undertake successful study in Australia. Whilst the Tribunal does not expect students to be able to progress with study without some hurdles and setbacks, five years and not completing any of 10 enrolled courses is a very significant lack of achievement.

33. An indication of the lack of commitment by the applicant is the fact that the education provider indicated to the Department that the applicant’s attendance in the Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English was at best 50%. The Tribunal prefers this information provided by the education provider to the Department to the unsubstantiated evidence to the contrary by the applicant at the hearing that he believed he passed more courses. Attendance at less than the required standard of 80% was admitted to by the applicant in the hearing in relation to the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management. The Tribunal would not accept that unhappiness with the education provider justifies inappropriate attendance. The correct course of action if this were the case would be to seek enrolment with an institution that better accommodated the applicant’s needs.

    Notification of attendance requirements, the payment of fees and notification of intention to cancel enrolment, and extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control for non-enrolment

34. In the hearing, the Tribunal put to the applicant that, in relation to the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management, on 22 January 2018 ACFE had written to the applicant about his non-attendance reminding him of the 80% attendance requirement.

35. In response, the applicant indicated that this was a ‘bogus’ email and the applicant was never contacted by the education provider including in relation to lack of attendance. The applicant was also never contacted in relation to the intention to cancel the enrolment.

36. The Tribunal took a break in the proceedings.  When the Tribunal recommenced, it indicated to the applicant that his own migration agent had provided this email to the Department in response to the NOICC. This was put to the applicant as undermining his earlier claim that the education provider had not sent such an email.

37. The Tribunal notes further specifics of the email of 22 January 2018 from ACFE to the applicant. The email notes the applicant’s absence from classes noted on that day and that there is an obligation to supply an apology with a reason for non-attendance. The applicant is reminded to comply with conditions on his student visa to maintain a satisfactory minimum attendance rate of 80% or scheduled course contact hours. The applicant is warned that he will be reported to the Department if he fails to achieve satisfactory attendance. The applicant is given the opportunity for assistance if there is an inability to comply with these conditions. The applicant is urged to contact the writer if there are any difficulties.

38. It is further indicated in the information provided to the Department by the education provider that regular contacts were made regarding the applicant’s absence, a warning letter was issued by the previous DOS and a support plan was put in place as per his notes, but that there was no response by the applicant.

39. The submission on behalf of the applicant in response to the NOICC partly confirms this and indicates that there were other emails to inform the applicant to attend class and to remind him of fees due on 1 March 2018.

40. In response to the Tribunal putting to the applicant that his own lawyers had provided the email from the education provider to the applicant as countering the applicant’s assertion in the hearing that it was a bogus email, the applicant initially maintained that the notification had not been given before indicating that it was a long time ago and that he would need to check.

41. In relation to fees that were due, the applicant indicated in the hearing that no notification was given that fees were due to be paid on 1 March 2018 and as a result the applicant did not pay the fees.

42. This is inconsistent with the submission by the applicant’s migration agent in response to the NOICC that there were emails to the applicant reminding him of the need to pay fees due on 1 March 2018.

43. In response, the applicant indicated that the lawyer should have said that he did not receive emails. The applicant then said it was a long time ago and he would need to check.

44. No post hearing information was provided by the applicant.

45. It is submitted in response to the NOICC that the applicant was not afforded procedural requirements as required by federal legislation and a national code in terms of being given notification of the intention to cancel his enrolment and the opportunity to make comments. It is submitted that there was no formal notice during the entire time that the applicant was struggling with his life direction. If the applicant had been informed, he would have rectified this mischief or maintained enrolment or enrolled in another course in a timely manner. It is submitted that the applicant was not given notification as required of access to a complaints handling and appeals process.

46. As indicated in the section above as to whether the ground of cancellation is made out, failure to abide with procedural requirements does not vitiate as to whether the enrolment has been validly cancelled. However, the Tribunal would accept that it would be a relevant discretionary factor, particularly in terms of giving the applicant warning of the need to rectify his mischief, the availability of an appeal process and complaints mechanism and the need by the applicant to enrol in a registered course upon notification of the cancellation of enrolment in order to comply with visa condition 8202.

1. However, the PRISMS record, as noted by the delegate and checked by the Tribunal, indicates that the applicant was given a written notice of intention to report him and he chose not to access the complaints and appeal process.

2. The Tribunal put to the applicant in the hearing pursuant to the procedural requirements of s.359AA of the Act the PRISMS record which indicates that he was provided written notification of intention to report and that he declined the opportunity to proceed with appeal or complaints processes.

3. In response, the applicant indicated that he does not remember receiving information about the right to appeal. The Tribunal asked the applicant if he was maintaining the he did not receive notification of the intention to cancel his enrolment. The applicant responded that he cannot recall.

4. The applicant has been contradictory and evasive in evidence on this issue. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a truthful or credible witness in relation to initial claims of not having been afforded procedural requirements in terms of notification of cancellation of enrolment and of appeal and review processes. The official PRISMS record is quite clear that procedural requirements were met. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that there are any extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control arising from failure by the education provider to comply with procedural requirements that explain or justify the cancellation of the applicant’s enrolment in the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management.

5. The credibility concerns in relation to the applicant are significantly compounded by the applicant claiming as bogus an email from his education provider that in fact the applicant’s migration agent provided to the Department in response to the NOICC.  The Tribunal is also not satisfied that the applicant has been truthful in relation to claims relating to no notification that fees were due.

6. The Tribunal is not satisfied that unhappiness with teaching methods would be an extenuating circumstance beyond the applicant’s control explaining the cancellation of his enrolment. If the applicant was unhappy with the course he was undertaking, he should have ceased enrolment and have sought enrolment in a new registered course.

7. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that any of these matters constitute extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control for his failure to be enrolled. The Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence that there are any other claimed extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control explaining nonenrolment.

   Subsequent study, and study and other plans

8. The applicant indicated to the Tribunal the he has engaged in no subsequent study after his enrolments were cancelled in June 2018. However, when asked, the applicant indicated that his intention is to seek to resume study if the visa is reinstated. The Tribunal sought to explore with the applicant what specific plans he has made in this respect, or if there are specific courses that he has investigated. The applicant was initially vague and unclear in response apart from indicating that he had consulted a migration agent.

9. The Tribunal noted to the applicant that there was no restriction on his bridging visa in terms of an ability to study. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it would have expected if he wished to pursue further study he would have done this at an earlier opportunity after the cancellation of his enrolments in June 2018. In response, the applicant indicated that he did not know that he has the ability to study.

10. The Tribunal finds it difficult to accept that if the applicant had a genuine desire to study he would not have ascertained that there was no restriction on his bridging visa in terms of study. This is particularly the case given that the applicant was advised by a lawyer in responding to the NOICC and that the migration agent had clearly explored with the applicant his future intentions and they were that the applicant was going to apply as a dependent on his partner’s student visa.

11. It is telling to the Tribunal that in response to the NOICC the applicant made no indication of an ongoing desire to study, and instead indicated that his aim was to seek a dependent visa based on his partner’s student visa.

12. When the Tribunal explored further with the applicant study options, the applicant indicated that he would like to continue with the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management with his previous education provider.

13. It is also not consistent with the indication by the applicant that he would like to return to the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management that he had previously given evidence to the Tribunal in the hearing that the was not comfortable with the teaching in this institution and that they did not pay him enough attention.

14. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has had an ongoing desire to study since his enrolments were cancelled. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a current intention to return to his previous course. The fact of the applicant’s lack of completion of any of the 10 courses enrolled in during the five years that he held the visa reinforces this view. In disbelieving the applicant in relation to a claim of further intention to study, the Tribunal also takes into account the significant cumulative effect of the credibility concerns identified in relation to the applicant earlier in this decision.

15. The lack of study since the enrolments were cancelled and the Tribunal’s view that the applicant does not have a current intention to study is adverse to the applicant.

    Relationship

16. In response to the NOICC it is indicated that the applicant has been in a relationship with his de facto partner since 4 November 2017 and since that time the applicant has been financially and emotionally supporting his partner.

17. In the hearing the applicant indicated that he is still in a relationship with this person. They currently live together. The applicant’s partner is a Chinese citizen and currently studying in Australia on a student visa.  Her course has another year to run. Her plans after that point are unclear.

    Hardship if visa remains cancelled and compelling reasons to remain in Australia

18. It is claimed in response that the hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled is that he will be forced to live away from his partner for three years minimum due to the implications of PIC 4013.  This would cause extreme levels of hardship to their relationship.

19. The Tribunal accepts that if the visa remains cancelled and the applicant needs to return to China this could result in at least a temporary split from his partner while she completes her studies in Australia and that this would be a hardship.

20. The applicant indicated in the hearing the hardship to him if the visa remains cancelled will be his inability to continue to study in Australia. For the reasons already expressed, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has a genuine intention to undertake ongoing study.

21. The Tribunal accepts hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled in terms of his inability onshore to apply for a wide variety of visas.  The Tribunal also accepts that if the visa remains cancelled he could be an unlawful noncitizen, although the Tribunal considers he would be eligible to apply for a bridging visa to make his status lawful while he makes arrangements to leave the country.

    Other discretionary factors

22. The applicant indicated in the hearing that there are no children in Australia whose interests would be affected by the cancellation. The Tribunal explored with the applicant whether he has a fear of persecution or significant harm in China. The applicant indicated that he did not.

23. If the visa remains cancelled the applicant could be an unlawful noncitizen, although the Tribunal considers that the applicant would retain the eligibility to hold a bridging visa while he makes arrangements to leave the country.

24. The applicant referred to the COVID-19 pandemic as creating possible hurdles in returning to China. The impact of the pandemic is time limited in nature. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that there are limitations on the ability of the applicant to find flights to China, no evidence has been provided that travel is impossible or that the applicant, as a Chinese citizen, would have entry to China refused.

25. The Tribunal considers that the matters raised in this decision constitute pertinent discretionary factors that need to be considered.

    Weighing discretionary factors

26. The circumstances in which the ground of cancellation is made out are significantly adverse to the applicant. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are any extenuating circumstances beyond the applicant’s control that explain or justify his failure to be enrolled in a registered course. The Tribunal considers that the lack of the completion of any study by the applicant over a decade demonstrates a lack of either aptitude or commitment of the applicant towards his studies. The lack of subsequent study after the applicant’s enrolments were cancelled, both before and after the cancellation of his visa are adverse to the applicant in the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion.

27. The Tribunal is not satisfied that there is hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled in terms the inability of the applicant to undertake further study given the Tribunal’s view that he has no such intention. The Tribunal accepts not insignificant hardship to the applicant if the visa remains cancelled in terms of his and his partner potentially being apart while she completes the remaining year of her studies in Australia. However, on the basis that the relationship is genuine and committed, the applicant’s partner will be able to return to her home country to be with the applicant at the completion of his studies in Australia. Having said that, the Tribunal does accept that if she has intentions to further her stay in Australia on another visa that her partner returning to China could disrupt this. The Tribunal accepts hardship in terms of the bar on the applicant in applying for a variety of other visas for a period.

28. Balancing discretionary factors, matters in the applicant’s favour do not outweigh the matters adverse to the applicant including the circumstances in which the ground of cancellation is made out.

29. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal readily concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

    DECISION

30. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Class TU visa.

    David McCulloch
    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.