• Lawyers in Sydney
• Lawyers in Melbourne
• Lawyers in Brisbane
• Lawyers in Perth
• Family lawyers
• Employment lawyers
• Criminal lawyers
• Wills and estates lawyers
• Find a lawyer

The Tribunal's assessment concentrated on three regulatory strands: English language proficiency, educational qualifications (secondary schooling equivalence), and financial capacity (including genuine access to funds). The Tribunal found, on the material before it, that the applicant had produced an IELTS test report showing an overall band score of 6.0 dated 11 November 2017 and accepted that this satisfied the Schedule 5A requirement for Assessment Level 3 (English language proficiency section). It accepted the applicant's Matriculation and Senior Secondary School certificates and applied Departmental guidance treating Certificate III as equivalent to Year 11 to satisfy the educational requirement (cl.5A409). For financial capacity, the Tribunal calculated a pro rata 'first 12 months' figure given the applicant's short remaining course duration, accepted a 2,500,000 INR fixed deposit at Punjab National Bank held in the name of the applicant's grandfather (Ashok Kumar) together with an affidavit of support, and found both sufficiency of funds and genuine access for the applicant (Financial capacity and Access to funds sections). Those findings led directly to remittal.

Why the court decided this way

The Tribunal's reasoning followed the statutory and regulatory text. Clause 572.223(1A) applies where an applicant is an 'eligible vocational education and training student' who has a COE for their courses. It requires evidence that the applicant has an English level that satisfies the education provider, the educational qualifications required by the provider, and that the Minister is satisfied the applicant will have sufficient funds during the proposed stay. The Tribunal first established that the applicant was an eligible VET student with a COE at an eligible provider (VICAT) (CONSIDERATION section). The applicable assessment level for the applicant (an Indian passport holder enrolled in Subclass 572) was Assessment Level 3 (r.1.42 and IMMI 14/014).

On English proficiency the Tribunal relied on the applicant's IELTS result dated 11 November 2017 showing an overall band of 6.0 and observed that this was less than two years before the application date; the Tribunal treated that evidence as meeting cl.5A407 and hence cl.572.223(1A)(a)(i). That directly answered the delegate's stated deficiency (lack of proof of English proficiency).

For educational qualifications the Tribunal had the applicant's Matriculation and Senior Secondary School certificates and her Australian/VET certificates (Cert III, IV, Diploma). The Tribunal applied Departmental policy equivalence (Certificate III = Year 11) and concluded cl.5A409 was satisfied.

For financial capacity the Tribunal engaged in a multi-step, text-driven process:

• It identified the 'first 12 months' period per cl.5A101 and, because the applicant's principal course had only two weeks remaining and an allowance of six weeks to depart was pragmatic, calculated a two-month first period (First 12 months section).

• It computed outstanding course fees, living costs (using the prescribed annual basic rate and pro rata), secondary applicant living costs and travel costs, deriving a total of $9,188 for two months.

• It accepted a money deposit in the name of Ashok Kumar at Punjab National Bank of 2,500,000 INR as a money deposit held by an 'acceptable individual', accepted Punjab National Bank as a 'financial institution', and accepted the affidavit of support and the applicant's declaration of access to the funds.

• It specifically addressed the regulatory requirement to be satisfied that the applicant will have access to the funds while holding the visa and found the applicant had genuine access (Access to funds section).

Those discrete regulatory findings, grounded in the Regulations and in the evidence, produced the single legal outcome: the Tribunal was satisfied the applicant met cl.572.223(1A)(a), (b) and (c), and remitted the matter to the delegate to reconsider the visa grant.

Before and after state of the law

Before this decision, the applicable statutory framework was the Migration Act 1958 (s.65) and the Migration Regulations 1994, including Schedule 2 cl.572.223 and Schedule 5A evidentiary rules for assessment levels. This decision did not change the law; it applied the existing statutory framework to the facts. The case is an example of the AAT applying Schedule 5A evidentiary rules, the definition of 'first 12 months' in cl.5A101, and the Department's policy equivalence guidance for AQF certificates when assessing schooling equivalence under cl.5A409.

After the decision, the practical import is that an AAT tribunal may accept: (i) an IELTS score within two years meeting the Schedule 5A threshold as satisfying cl.572.223(1A)(a)(i); (ii) Departmental guidance equating AQF Certificate III to Year 11 as sufficient for cl.5A409; (iii) a long-term fixed bank deposit in the name of an acceptable individual plus affidavit of support as satisfying the money deposit/acceptable source requirement in cl.5A408; and (iv) a pragmatic, pro rata approach to the 'first 12 months' calculation where the applicant's course completion is imminent. The decision therefore provides useful administrative guidance for practitioners preparing Subclass 572 applications and appeals, though it is not binding precedent beyond the parties.

Key passages with plain-English translation

1. Tribunal's finding on the delegate's reason for refusal (Application for Review, para 3).

   • Plain English: The delegate had refused the visas because the applicant had not shown she could speak English to the level required.

2. English proficiency acceptance (English language proficiency - clause 5A407).

   • Text: The applicant's IELTS overall band 6.0 dated 11 November 2017 was accepted and the Tribunal was satisfied it met the Schedule 5A requirement.
   • Plain English: The applicant's IELTS test was recent enough and the score was high enough to meet what the rules require for her country and course.

3. 'First 12 months' pro rata calculation (First 12 months section and Total costs).

   • Text: Tribunal treated the 'first 12 months' as beginning on expected visa grant and, since the course ended imminently, calculated two months for the 'first 12 months' requirement, producing a funds requirement of $9,188.
   • Plain English: Because the applicant only had a couple of weeks of study left, the Tribunal only required evidence that she had enough money for about two months, not a whole year, and it worked out how much that would be.

4. Acceptance of grandfather's fixed deposit and affidavit (Financial capacity requirements - clause 5A408).

   • Text: The Tribunal accepted the Punjab National Bank deposit in the grandfather's name and an affidavit as evidence from an acceptable individual and was satisfied the funds were sufficient.
   • Plain English: The bank deposit in the grandfather's name, along with his written promise to support her, was enough to show she had the necessary money.

5. Genuine access (Access to funds - cl.572.223(2)(c)).

   • Text: The Tribunal accepted the applicant's evidence that she had genuine access to the money deposit and found she would have access while holding the visa.
   • Plain English: The Tribunal believed she could actually use or get at that money while in Australia.

What fact patterns trigger this precedent

This decision is instructive in fact patterns where:

• A Subclass 572 applicant is an eligible VET student with an imminent course completion date (short remaining study period) and seeks to rely on Schedule 5A evidence to satisfy cl.572.223(1A).
• The applicant has an English test result within two years at or above the Schedule 5A threshold for their assessment level (e.g., IELTS overall band >= 5.5 for the relevant rule as interpreted here).
• The applicant's schooling is from overseas but she holds vocational certificates (Cert III/IV) for which Departmental guidance equates AQF Certificates to Years 11/12.
• Financial support is provided by a parent or grandparent via a fixed-term deposit in the sponsor's name together with an affidavit and declaration of access, particularly where the deposit is large enough and in a recognised bank.
• A delegate's refusal rests on a single evidentiary deficiency (here English proficiency) and the Tribunal can decide the matter on the papers with documentary evidence.

Practitioners should note that where a course is almost complete, a pro rata calculation of the 'first 12 months' is a relevant and potentially determinative approach.

How later courts have treated it

This is an AAT decision; the text does not record later judicial treatment. The decision applies the Regulations to the facts and is persuasive for tribunals and decision-makers dealing with similar evidentiary packages. It is not a binding authority in courts. The principles it applies, particularly on what constitutes acceptable evidence of funds (money deposit in a sponsor's name plus affidavit) and the pro rata approach to the 'first 12 months', may be relied upon in future AAT reviews, subject to the particulars of each case and any contrary findings in higher courts or by later tribunal panels. Users should check for subsequent AAT or judicial decisions that address money deposits, genuine access, or the calculation of the 'first 12 months' since those are fact-sensitive areas.

Still-open questions

1. Degree of proof for 'genuine access': The Tribunal accepted the applicant's assertion and the affidavit of the grandfather as sufficient to establish genuine access. The decision does not set out a detailed analytic test for 'genuine access' (for example, documentary evidence of withdrawal privileges or power of attorney). For future cases, the degree and type of evidence required to establish genuine access in more contested circumstances remains open.

2. Acceptance of overseas bank instruments: The Tribunal accepted a long-term fixed deposit with Punjab National Bank as an acceptable money deposit and took the bank to be a financial institution for the Regulations' purposes. If the deposit were in a less recognised institution, or subject to restrictive withdrawal terms, whether such instruments suffice remains fact-specific and unresolved here.

3. Pro rata calculation boundary: The Tribunal adopted a pragmatic pro rata approach where the principal course was nearly complete. The decision does not provide a bright-line rule for when pro rata treatment is appropriate. Cases with longer residual enrolments, overlapping courses, or more complex travel/return arrangements may raise contested issues.

4. Weight of Departmental guidance vs. documentary evidence: The Tribunal applied Departmental policy guidance equating AQF Certificates to years of schooling. Where documentary evidence is ambiguous or policy guidance differs from internationally comparable frameworks, how to resolve conflicts will be a live question.

5. Extent of Tribunal remittal directions: The Tribunal directed that the applicant meets cl.572.223(1A)(a),(b),(c) and remitted for reconsideration. The scope for a delegate to revisit other discretionary matters or new adverse material on remittal is procedural and may raise questions as to the limits of the Tribunal's direction on remittal.

Practitioners should take from this decision the importance of assembling contemporaneous documentary evidence of English proficiency within the two-year window, clear documentary proof of schooling and qualifications (with AQF equivalence evidence), a clear financial evidentiary package that demonstrates both sufficiency and access, and an awareness that tribunals may apply sensible, pragmatic calculations to temporal requirements like the 'first 12 months'.