Decision: The decision under review is affirmed.

MIGRATION - Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa - Subclass 500 (Student) - genuine access to sufficient funds - no current enrolment - decision under review affirmed

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 395AA

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03, cls 500.211(a), 500.214

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 May 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicant applied for the visa on 17 July 2023. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant had demonstrated that he has sufficient funds available to meet his costs and expenses during his intended stay in Australia.
4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 26 March 2025 to give evidence and present arguments.
5. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.

1. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl 500.211 to cl 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria.
2. The issue before the delegate was whether the applicant has genuine access to sufficient funds to meet his costs and expenses during his intended stay in Australia. However, the issue now is whether, at the time of this decision, the applicant meets the enrolment requirements for the grant of a student visa. This was explained to the applicant at hearing.

1. Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl 500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl 500.211.
2. 'Course of study' is relevantly defined in cl 500.111 of the Regulations as a 'full-time registered course'. 'Registered course' is defined in reg 1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (Cth), to provide the course to overseas students.
3. At hearing, the Tribunal told the applicant that it had information before it that it needed to put to him, under s 359AA of the Act. The Tribunal told the applicant that it had obtained his study records from the government PRISMS database (which is an electronic database that records each student's study history) on 24 March 2025. This revealed that the applicant is not currently enrolled in a registered course of study and has not been since June 2024.
4. The Tribunal told the applicant that if it were to rely on this information, it would lead it to find that the applicant is not currently enrolled in a registered course and does not meet the criterion in cl.500.211(a) with the consequence that he is not entitled to the grant of a student visa.
5. The Tribunal told the applicant that it was informing him that arising from this, the determinative issue in his case has changed. The Tribunal confirmed that the delegate decided the applicant's matter on the access to sufficient funds requirement of clause 500.214 of the Regulations. However, the Tribunal explained that the issue is now whether he meets the enrolment requirement of clause 500.211(a) of the Regulations and on the evidence before it, it appears that he does not.
6. The Tribunal confirmed that this is a mandatory criterion for the grant of this visa. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he understood that the determinative issue has now changed, to which he responded that he did. The Tribunal told the applicant that he could comment or respond to the information orally or in writing and could answer immediately or seek additional time to comment or respond to the information.
7. The applicant responded immediately and confirmed that he was last enrolled to study in June 2024, and he then graduated from his course. For that reason, he explained that he is not currently enrolled in a registered course because he is a graduate.
8. The Tribunal reiterated its concern that based on his own evidence, it is inclined to find that the applicant is not currently enrolled in a registered course and therefore does not meet the mandatory criterion in cl.500.211(a) and is therefore not entitled to the grant of a student visa.
9. The applicant responded that he believed there were errors made in the primary decision record regarding his access to sufficient funds and that further documents could have easily been requested by the Department which could have prevented the refusal decision and the subsequent position he now finds himself in. The Tribunal told the applicant it understood his submissions, however as the determinative issue is now whether he is currently enrolled in a registered course of study, it is still inclined to find that he is not.
10. The applicant asked the Tribunal whether it would have made a difference if he had enrolled in a further course of study after having graduated in June 2024. The Tribunal responded that if there was evidence to demonstrate that he is currently enrolled in a registered course of study then the determinative issue would likely have remained the same as was before the delegate, that is whether he met the financial capacity requirements. However, the Tribunal confirmed that the applicant had stated, and the information before it demonstrated, that he is not currently enrolled in a registered course of study which is a mandatory requirement for the grant of this visa.
11. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant is now enrolled in or has a current offer of enrolment in any applicable course of study.
12. Therefore, the Tribunal finds that cl 500.211 is not met.
13. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.