Yang (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, subclass 572, by an applicant enrolled in a Diploma of Remedial Massage. The central dispute was whether the applicant met the requirement of being a 'genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student', as mandated by cl.572.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by Penelope Hunter, a Member of the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of cl.572.223, specifically whether she was an 'eligible vocational education and training student' and, if not, whether she had provided evidence in accordance with Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level applicable to her passport. The Tribunal was also required to be satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and would have access to sufficient funds while holding the visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was not an 'eligible vocational education and training student' as defined in cl.572.111, meaning cl.572.223(1A) did not apply. Consequently, the applicant was required to satisfy cl.572.223(2), which necessitates providing evidence in accordance with Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level. The applicant held a passport from China, which corresponded to assessment level 3 for a subclass 572 visa. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided evidence in accordance with the applicable Schedule 5A requirements, specifically concerning financial capacity and the source and duration of funds.

As the applicant failed to meet the evidentiary requirements of cl.572.223(2)(a), the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.