1. In their decision record, the delegate found that the circumstances favoured the exercise of the discretion to cancel and determined to cancel the visa on 9 July 2024.

1. The applicant applied for review of the delegate's decision on 9 July 2024. By operation of law, on 14 October 2024 the review application was taken to have been lodged with the Administrative Review Tribunal.[2]
2. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 24 July 2025, inviting him to participate in a hearing scheduled for 21 August 2025 at 2:00pm.[3] The Tribunal's email was sent to the email address provided by the applicant in connection with the review (nominated email address).
3. On 30 July 2025, the Tribunal received an email from the nominated email address, attaching a completed 'response to hearing notice' form which included the following response:

Part 1 - Who will take part in the hearing?

1. Will you take part in the hearing scheduled for 21 August 2025?

(Please indicate 'Yes' or 'No' for each review applicant.)

√ No, I will not participate in the hearing, and request the Tribunal to make a decision on the papers without holding a hearing

I will not be attending the hearing because I have already relocated to Singapore to continue my studies. Due to the long waiting time for the hearing, my circumstances have changed and I no longer have a reason to participate. I request that the Tribunal make a decision based on the documents already provided.

1. On 5 August 2025, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant at the nominated email address, acknowledging receipt of his request for a decision without holding a hearing, informing him that the 21 August 2025 hearing had been cancelled, and inviting him to provide any additional submissions or evidence that he wanted to be considered by the close of business on 12 August 2025.
2. On 15 August 2025 at 12:57pm, the Tribunal received an email from the nominated email address, attaching a written submission addressing the delegate's decision (15 August submission).

1. The circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing are set out in s 106 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (the ART Act). Relevantly, if the only parties to the proceeding are the applicant and a non-participating party, the applicant may request the Tribunal to make a decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding: s 106(3) of the ART Act.
2. Section 348A(1) of the Act provides that the Respondent Minister in this proceeding is a non-participating party. Accordingly, s 106(3)(a) of the ART Act is met.
3. The Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant has requested that the Tribunal make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding. This request is to be understood in the context of the issues the Tribunal has identified for determination in the review,[4] which in the present case are the same as the issues identified by the delegate in their decision. In the circumstances of this case, the applicant's completed response to hearing notice form satisfies the Tribunal that the applicant has made an unambiguous, unconditional request for a decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding.[5] Accordingly, s 106(3)(b)(ii) of the ART Act is met.
4. It must also appear that the issues for determination in this proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. It is for the Tribunal to decide whether the application can be 'adequately determined' without holding a hearing. The answer to the question of whether the issues in a proceeding can be adequately determined without a hearing does not turn on whether the Tribunal has sufficient information to determine the case in the applicant's favour. If the Tribunal is of the view, on the basis of the documents and things already before it, that the issues in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of a hearing, the Tribunal can proceed to do so without being obliged to seek further information_._[6]
5. The issues in the present case are whether the applicant, as the holder of a student visa, has breached condition 8202 of Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) and, if satisfied the applicant has breached condition 8202, whether the visa should be cancelled. The Tribunal has evidence of the applicant's past enrolment and study, the applicant's response to the NOICC, and the 15 August submission to the Tribunal, which enables it to make findings on these issues without seeking further evidence or submissions from the applicant.
6. Accordingly, it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in this proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding: s 106(3)(c) of the ART Act. The Tribunal has therefore exercised its discretion under s 106 to make a decision without holding a hearing.

1. A visa may be cancelled under s 116(1)(b) if the Minister is satisfied that the holder has not complied with a condition of their visa. In this instance condition 8202 was attached to the applicant's visa.

1. 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)
   • maintain enrolment in a registered course that will provide a qualification from the Australian Qualification Framework that is at the same level as, or at a higher level than, the course in relation to which the visa was granted: 8202(2)(b)
   • 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).
2. In the present case, the applicant's visa was cancelled on the basis that he was not enrolled in a full-time registered course from 23 March 2023 until 22 November 2023: condition 8202(2)(a).
3. In his 15 August submission, the applicant acknowledged that he was not enrolled from March to November 2023. He has provided an explanation for his non-enrolment but does not dispute that he did not comply with condition 8202(2)(a) of his visa over this period.
4. Therefore, on the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in and/or did not have a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in a registered course or a full-time course of study or training from 23 March 2023 (when his enrolment in the Bachelor of Engineering was cancelled until 22 November 2023 (after which he enrolled in the Bachelor of EMS) while the holder of a Subclass 500 Student visa. Failing to maintain enrolment means that the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(a).
5. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2). The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the grounds for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) exist.

1. Having found that the applicant has not complied with a condition of the visa, the Tribunal must consider whether the power to cancel the visa should be exercised. For temporary visas other than criminal justice and enforcement visas, there are prescribed matters to which the decision-maker must have regard in determining whether they are satisfied as mentioned in s 116(1)(b): s 116(1A) and reg 2.43A of the Regulations. The prescribed matters are set out in the attachment to this decision.

1. In the absence of evidence that the applicant has been involved in a 'workplace exploitation matter' certified under regs 2.43A(2)(a) and (b), the prescribed matters are mostly not relevant to the Tribunal's assessment in this particular case. However, reg 2.43A(2)(d) does contain matters relevant to the Tribunal's consideration.

Whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa.

1. The evidence indicates that the applicant was not complying with the purpose of the visa when he was not enrolled and studying from 23 March 2023 until 22 November 2023, a period of approximately 7 months, while the holder of a student visa. This is a considerable period. The purpose of the student visa is to permit a holder to engage in approved study in Australia and obtain desired qualifications. The requirement of condition 8202(2)(a) goes to the core purpose of the visa.
2. The applicant has claimed that the gap in his enrolment was the result of an academic dispute and release complications with Deakin College. In his 15 August 2025 submission, the applicant claimed that:
   • In late 2022, I experienced an assessment submission issue in the Applied Algebra and Statistics unit (SIT199). I submitted my assignment before the due time according to my own records, but Deakin deemed the submission late and awarded no marks.

• Despite my appeals, Deakin upheld their decision. Feeling distressed and unsupported, I sought to transfer to another institution.

• My formal release requests to Deakin in November 2022 and February 2023 were both refused.

• Due to Standard 7 transfer restrictions, I could not enrol at other institutions despite Deakin having cancelled my enrolment in March 2023. This left me in an unenviable position: unable to study at Deakin, yet unable to enrol elsewhere.

Despite these obstacles, I made multiple attempts to re-engage with studies:

• Applied to Universal Business School Sydney in May and August 2023 (both unsuccessful due to transfer restrictions).
• Successfully enrolled at AIBI in November 2023 once restrictions were no longer an issue.

1. In his submission, the applicant acknowledges the importance of condition 8202 and expresses regret for his gap in enrolment. He submits that he acted promptly to address the issue by securing new enrolment in the Bachelor of EMS as soon as possible, and complied with Australian laws, including following the cancellation of his visa by applying for a bridging visa and departing Australia within the allocated period**.**
2. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has successfully undertaken study in the past, including by enrolling in the Bachelor of EMS from November 2023 until his visa was cancelled in July 2024. However, his evidence also indicates that he no longer intends to continue his study in Australia. This is not in the assessment of the Tribunal consistent with the purpose of the visa, and weighs in favour of the exercise of the discretion to cancel.

1. Beyond the matters prescribed under reg 2.43A, the Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department's policy guidelines 'General visa cancellation powers (s 109, 116, s 128, s 134B and s 140)', which refers to matters such as the consequences of cancelling the visa, international obligations and any other relevant matters.

The purpose of the applicant's travel and stay in Australia, whether the applicant has a compelling need to travel or remain in Australia

1. As noted above, the applicant first arrived in Australia on 17 January 2018 as the holder of a Student visa. While the Tribunal does not have copies of any qualifications achieved by the applicant, it is prepared to accept on the basis of his PRISMS records that he has completed the studies referred to at [‎5] above. The Tribunal gives this some weight against cancelling the visa.
2. As to whether there is a compelling need for him to stay in Australia, the applicant has given evidence that he has left the country and is now studying in Singapore. He has not expressed any intention to return to Australia to study if the visa cancellation were set aside. While the Tribunal accepts that the purpose of the applicant's original travel to and stay in Australia was to study, it does not accept on the evidence before it that he has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia now. The Tribunal considers that this factor weighs in favour of cancelling the visa.

1. Other than the enrolment gap referred to above, the Tribunal acknowledges that there is no other evidence the applicant did not comply with any other conditions on the student visa granted on 2 August 2021. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant's submission that he never overstayed any visa or engaged in unlawful work, and that he complied with the conditions of the bridging visa granted to him after his student visa was cancelled.
2. Overall, the Tribunal gives this limited weight in favour of exercising its discretion to cancel the visa.

Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

1. The Tribunal accepts the applicant's submission that he genuinely intended to study in Australia, invested significant financial resources and effort into his education, and that he may experience some financial and emotional hardship if the visa cancellation were not set aside. The Tribunal gives this a little weight against cancelling the visa.

Circumstances in which the ground of cancellation arose

1. As noted above, the evidence indicates that the applicant's enrolment in the Bachelor of Engineering was cancelled on 23 March 2023 for non-commencement of studies. The applicant has claimed that his enrolment cancellation followed a dispute with Deakin University over the timing of an assessment submission, which led to him being awarded no marks for the course. After unsuccessfully appealing the decision, the applicant twice requested a release letter from Deakin University, in November 2022 and February 2023, which were refused. The applicant claimed that his study gap arose because he was unable to study at Deakin University, but as they would not provide him with a release letter, he was unable to enrol elsewhere.
2. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant's submission. He has provided no evidence to corroborate his claim to have submitted the disputed assessment on time; that he appealed Deakin's decision to afford him no marks for the assessment; or of the November 2022 and February 2023 requests he made to Deakin to transfer to another institution. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant was unable to remain enrolled in or continue studying at Deakin University between March and November 2023, or that the circumstances that gave rise to the grounds for cancellation were beyond the applicant's control.
3. Therefore, the Tribunal gives this weight in favour of cancelling the visa.

Past and present behaviour of the visa holder toward the Department

1. There is no evidence that the applicant has not been co-operative in his dealings with the Department in the past.
2. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

Whether there would be any consequential cancellations under s 140

1. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that any other person's visa would or may be cancelled if the applicant's visa were cancelled. The Tribunal gives this factor neutral weight.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention, or whether indefinite detention is a possible consequence of cancellation, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister's intervention

1. There are mandatory consequences in the case of the cancellation of the visa, including detention and removal from Australia, as well as difficulties in obtaining further visas to Australia.
2. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant has already departed Australia. Accordingly, the visa cancellation would not result in his unlawfulness or detention.
3. As the applicant is offshore, there is no restrictions on the visas he can apply for if the visa remained cancelled. However, under public interest criterion (PIC) 4013 he may in some cases not be granted a further visa for three years from the date of cancellation.
4. The Tribunal gives this consideration a little weight against cancellation.

Whether Australia's international obligations, including non-refoulement and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

1. The Tribunal has no evidence that Australia's international obligations may or would be breached if the applicant's visa were cancelled. There is no information to indicate that a visa cancellation would be in breach of Australia's non-refoulement obligations, nor has the applicant applied for refugee status or invoked Australia's protection obligations.
2. There is also no information before the Tribunal that a decision to cancel the applicant's visa would be in breach of the Conventions of the Rights of the Child (CROC) or that it would be in contravention of the Convention Against Torture.
3. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight.

1. The applicant has submitted that the Tribunal ought to take into account his history as a genuine student, the exceptional circumstances that led to his non-enrolment, his compliance with immigration requirements after his visa cancellation, and his commitment to completing his studies and contributing positively to the Australian education sector. The Tribunal has earlier not accepted that the applicant's non-enrolment between March and November 2023 was beyond his control, but otherwise has taken those matters into account and afforded them some weight against cancellation.

1. The Tribunal has considered all of the evidence and the relevant circumstances of the applicant, individually and cumulatively. Overall, it is considered that there are limited aspects in favour of the applicant. It is accepted that the applicant has completed some study in Australia, has cooperated with the Department, and will experience some hardship as a result of the cancellation. However, the breach of condition 8202(2)(a) is significant as that condition goes to the core purpose of the grant of a student visa, namely to study in Australia. The applicant's actions have not in the past been consistent with that purpose, and the Tribunal is not satisfied on the material before it that the circumstances which gave rise to the cancellation were outside the control of the applicant, or that the applicant has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant factors and considerations weigh in favour of the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
2. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant's Class TU (subclass 500) visa.

ATTACHMENT - Extract from Schedule 8 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

1. (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.

(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.

ATTACHMENT - Extract from reg 2.43A to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

2.43A Minister must have regard to certain matters in considering cancellation of certain temporary visas for breach of visa condition

(1) This regulation applies in relation to a visa if:

(a) the visa is a temporary visa other than:

(i) a criminal justice visa; or

(ii) an enforcement visa; and

(b) the Minister is satisfied that the visa holder has not complied with a particular condition (the relevant condition) to which the holder's visa is subject; and

(c) regulation 2.43B does not apply in relation to the visa.

(2) For the purposes of paragraph 116(1A)(a) of the Act, the Minister must have regard to the following matters in determining whether the Minister is satisfied as mentioned in paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act:

(a) any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is a government entity if the certificate:

(i) was issued in relation to the visa holder in respect of a workplace exploitation matter; and

(ii) sets out the matters agreed to by Immigration and the government entity;

(b) any written certificate issued by a certifying entity that is not a government entity and that states that the entity considers that:

(i) there is prima facie evidence that the visa holder has been affected by a workplace exploitation matter; and

(ii) if any law limits the time within which a proceeding may be instituted, or a complaint made, in relation to the workplace exploitation matter - that time has not expired; and

(iii) there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter by which the visa holder has been affected;

(c) whether there is a connection between the circumstances relating to the breach of the relevant condition and the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;

(d) whether there is any evidence that the visa holder was not complying, or is no longer seeking to comply, with the purpose of the visa;

(e) whether the visa holder has committed, in writing, to do both of the following:

(i) to take action, in a timely manner, to resolve the workplace exploitation matter to which a certificate mentioned in paragraph (a) or (b) relates;

(ii) to comply in future with the visa conditions to which the holder's visa is subject;

(f) whether the visa holder has failed to comply with a commitment of a kind mentioned in paragraph (e) of this subregulation, or paragraph 2.43B(2)(d), (3)(d) or (4)(d), that the visa holder has previously given in relation to the visa.

(3) Subregulation (2) does not limit, or otherwise affect, a power or duty of the Minister to cancel the visa under:

(a) paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act for non compliance with a condition (other than the relevant condition) to which the visa holder's visa is subject; or

(b) a provision other than paragraph 116(1)(b) of the Act.

Note: For example, see subregulation 2.43(2) for the circumstances in which the Minister must cancel a visa.

[1] According to the Department of Education's website, education institutions can only enrol and deliver education services to students in Australia on a student visa if they are registered on the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students (CRICOS). PRISMS is a computer system developed by the Department of Education in association with the Department of Home Affairs for the purpose of receiving and storing information about accepted overseas students that is given to the Secretary under the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000 (ESOS Act). It is further noted that PRISMS provides a secure system for providers of registered educational institutions to comply with legislative requirements by issuing confirmations of enrolments as 'evidence of enrolment' in a registered full-time course as required by the Department of Home Affairs and reporting changes in course enrolment, particularly where study ceases, or the duration of the study changes.

While it is possible providers may not update PRISMS as required, the Tribunal accepts that PRISMS is a reliable record of enrolments unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in relation to a particular case.

[2] On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.

[3] All times are in Australian Eastern Standard Time (AEST).

[4] LLR24 v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (No 2) [2025] FedCFamC2G 1227 at [82], [86].

[5] Cf 2010120 (Refugee) ARTA 550 (13 May 2025) at [34]-[35] (2010120).

[6] Discussed in EIZ20 v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 637 at [60], [69] in the context of the analogous provision in s 34J of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth); 2010120 at [59]-[60].