Yussuff (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5006

Yussuff (Migration) [2019] AATA 5006 (31 October 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Olusegun Bankole Yussuff
Mrs Dideoluwa Comfort Yussuff
Miss Tolunimi Avivah Yussuff
Master Inimiloluwa Maranatha Yussuff

CASE NUMBER:  1922356

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2019/2249686

MEMBER:M. Edgoose

DATE:31 October 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

·cl.500.211(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 31 October 2019 at 9:25am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) – Subclass 500 (Student) – evidence of enrolment – must remain in country during marking of thesis – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cl 500.211(b)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicants applied for the visas on 25 April 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on 5 August 2019.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence of enrolment was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 28 October 2019 to given evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

4. At hearing the Tribunal requested the applicant submit an updated letter from his education provider, RMIT University, as to whether or not the applicant was required to remain in Australia during the marking of his postgraduate thesis.

5. On 29 October 2019 the Tribunal received an updated letter from RMIT University that stated “During this time, RMIT requires that the candidate remain in Australia during the marking of the candidate’s postgraduate thesis” (AAT Folio 48). In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   DECISION

6. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 visa:

   ·cl.500.211(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   M. Edgoose
   Member