• The Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 10 March 2023, contains information that the applicant was aware as a consequence of notices issued by Monash University that throughout January 2023, February 2023 and up until the date of the decision on 10 March 2023 that he was under investigation for student misconduct.

This information is important because if relied upon, the Tribunal may consider that the applicant's concern about the impact of any findings of misconduct and suspension by Monash University would have on his ability to renew your student visa was a primary factor that led to him letting his previous student visa expire without renewal on 15 March 2023, rather than any inadvertent error due to concern for a family member or study pressures. As a consequence the Tribunal may not be satisfied that there is no evidence that you have actively or intentionally abused or circumvent immigration laws, and this could form a reason or a part of a reason for a finding that there are not grounds to exercise the waiver pursuant to PIC 4014(1)(b) and affirming the decision under review.

• The Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 10 March 2023, contains information that he was to be the subject of an academic suspension until 11 January 2024.

The information is relevant because if relied upon the Tribunal may find in circumstances where the applicant was suspended from study, his claims in his statement to the Department dated 15 May 2024 in support of his visa granted on 1 August 2024, and again to the Department and the Tribunal in relation to the visa under review, that his parents suggested he remain in Australia to continue his studies after he became aware of his grandmother's accident leading to him overstaying his student visa beyond 15 March 2023, were unreliable or misleading. As a consequence the Tribunal may not be satisfied that there is no evidence that he had actively or intentionally abused or circumvent immigration laws, and this could form a reason or a part of a reason for a finding that there are not grounds to exercise the waiver pursuant to PIC 4014(1)(b) and affirming the decision under review.

• The Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 10 March 2023, contains information that he was to be the subject of an academic suspension until 11 January 2024.

The information is relevant because if relied upon the Tribunal may find in circumstances where he was suspended from study, his claims in his visa application under review, that due to family reasons he applied for a break on 23 May 2023 and went back to his hometown for a year, were misleading and deceptive. As a consequence the Tribunal may not be satisfied that there is no evidence that he had actively or intentionally abused or circumvent immigration laws, and this could form a reason or a part of a reason for a finding that there are not grounds to exercise the waiver pursuant to PIC 4014(1)(b) and affirming the decision under review.

• The Notice of Decision issued by Monash University, dated 25 March 2025, contains information that have had a finding of academic misconduct (plagiarism) in FIT1008 in 2022, academic and general misconduct (cheating, collusion and breaching the conditions or requirements set for a final assessment) in FIT2004 in 2023, and academic misconduct (plagiarism and unauthorised distribution of course-related material in Assignment 2) in FIT2004, and in FIT3173 (breaching the conditions or requirements set for the final exam) in 2023 and in EXC1200 ( breaching conditions or requirements for an assessment and knowingly or recklessly cheating in a final assessment) in 2025. Further that on 25 March 2025, he received the penalty of exclusion from study at Monash University.

The information is relevant because if relied upon the Tribunal may find that the applicant is not a genuine student, and in circumstances where the waiver had already been exercised in his favour to allow him to complete his studies in the Bachelor of Information Technology and then he has committed acts which have resulted in a finding excluding him from study at Monash University, a finding that it is not within the compelling interests of Australia, or the integrity of the student visa system, to exercise the waiver pursuant to PIC 4014(1)(b). Consequently, the decision under review would be affirmed.

1. On 8 January 2026, the representative of the applicant sought, and was granted, a further extension to provide a response to the Tribunal.
2. On 30 January 2026, the Tribunal received a response from the representative of the applicant to the matters raised by the Tribunal as follows:
   1. The applicant strongly disagreed that Monash University's investigations were the primary factor for not renewing his student visa at the time. The applicant was experiencing hardship and difficulties as a struggling international student, he was deeply grieving due to his grandmother's accident and it was claimed that the Tribunal was placing an imbalanced and disproportionate weight on the investigation by Monash University.
   2. The applicant believed that it was unfair and unjust to infer from his claim that his parents suggested that he remain in Australia to continue his studies rather than return to his grandmother, that he mislead the Department in his last student visa application. As the applicant's academic suspension finished on 11 January 2024, it was irrelevant to previous student visa application. There was no reason or logic for the applicant to mislead the Department.
   3. The statement in his last student visa that he had applied "for a break on 23 May 2023 and went back to China for a year" could be a mistaken belief on the part of the applicant when he notified Monash that he was to depart Australia in May 2023, upon realising that his student visa had expired. At that time he thought that he needed to let Monash know and this in his mind was similar to an application for a break in his studies. As his suspension was only to 11 January 2024, and his then intention was to stay longer, it was reasonable for him to apply for a break.
   4. The applicant felt that he had been treated unfairly and harshly by Monash University because it did not take his statements and evidence into proper consideration before deciding to exclude him from study. While awaiting a review by the NSO the applicant applied for admission into the same course and was accepted at Torrens University, which is clear evidence that he remains a genuine student. All the difficulties and hardship that the applicant encountered while studying at Monash were due to the particular circumstances occurring in March 2023 which also contributed to the harsh exclusion decision in March 2025. The applicant is confident in being able to complete all his remaining 4 units on time. The applicant had performed well in his studies at Torrens University and it would be unfair and unjust to force him to discontinue his studies by not exercising the waiver. There were further compelling interests, being the interest of Torrens University.

Is the applicant affected by a 'risk factor' for the purposes of PIC 4014?

1. The applicant confirmed the accuracy of his migration history as discussed in the delegate's

decision record at the Tribunal hearing. 2. The applicant was initially granted a subclass 500 student visa on 29 October 2019, which expired on 15 March 2023. The applicant remained without a valid visa until 6 June 2023 when he was granted a Bridging visa E. 3. The applicant did not dispute and Tribunal finds that he then departed Australia on 7 June 2023. 4. As the Bridging visa E held by the applicant at the time of his departure, on 7 June 2023, was granted more than 28 days after the applicant previous substantive subclass 500 student visa, the Tribunal finds that the criteria in PIC 4014(5)(b)(ii)(A) is not met 5. The Tribunal consequently finds that the applicant is affected by a risk factor for the purposes of PIC 4014(4).

Was the application for the visa made more than 3 years after the departure of the applicant from Australia referred to in subclause PIC 4014(4)

1. On 24 December 2024, the applicant applied for the visa which is the subject of this review. As set out above, the Tribunal has found that the applicant departed Australia on 7 June 2023. Therefore he applied for the visa which is the subject of this review less than 3 years after his departure. At the hearing, the applicant did not dispute this finding.
2. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements of PIC 4014 (1)(a).

Should the waiver in PIC 4014(1)(b) be exercised

1. A waiver may be exercised in accordance with PIC 4014(1)(b) where there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or where there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen (as defined in reg 1.03), that justify the granting of the visa.
2. The decision-maker must first be satisfied that there are such circumstances, then must consider whether to exercise the discretion to waive the requirements, having regard to those circumstances: Kaur v MIBP [2017] FCAFC 184.
3. The expressions 'compelling circumstances' and 'compassionate or compelling circumstances' are not defined for these purposes. To be compelling, the circumstances must force or drive the decision-maker irresistibly to be satisfied: see Plaintiff M64/2015 v MIBP [2015] HCA 50. The ordinary meaning of 'compassionate' relates to feelings of sympathy, sorrow, pity or concern for others.

Compassionate or compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen

1. In assessing if there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, under Departmental policy there may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen if the applicant was not granted the visa because:

● A business operated by an Australian citizen would have to close down because it lacked the specialist skills required to carry out the business;

● Civil proceedings instigated by an Australian permanent resident would be jeopardised by the absence of the non-citizen witness; or

● An eligible New Zealand citizen would be unable to finalise legal and property matters associated with divorce proceedings without the physical presence of the non‑citizen in Australia.

1. In assessing if there are compassionate circumstances, some examples under policy that there may be compassionate circumstances affecting the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen if the person was not granted the visa are:

● Family members in Australia would be left without financial or emotional support;

● Family members in Australia would be unable to properly arrange a relative's funeral in Australia; or

● A parent in Australia would be separated from their child (for example, if the child was removed with their non-resident parent and is therefore subject to an exclusion period).

1. When invited to address the Tribunal on such circumstances the applicant identified that he had an aunt in Melbourne who was an Australian citizen and she had a daughter that he considered his sister. He said that these family members had be looking after him during his study and that they would feel very sad if he was not granted the visa. Under questioning from the Tribunal the applicant disclosed that his aunt and cousin lived in Melbourne, and he had relied on them while studying at Monash University. Currently, the applicant was living in Queensland to undertake studies at Torrens University. Under further questions from the Tribunal he confirmed that he did not provide any financial support to his aunt or cousin, he was not involved in their daily care and he did not assert that they were emotionally dependence upon him.
2. The Tribunal has considered the claims of the applicant that his aunt and cousin would be sad if he was not granted the visa. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case. However, it is not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that these feelings rise to the level of compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justifies the granting of the visa less than 3 years after his departure.

Compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia

1. Departmental guidelines suggest such circumstances may exist if:
   • Australia's trade or business opportunities would be adversely affected were the person not granted the visa;
   • Australia's relationship with a foreign government would be damaged were the person not granted the visa; or
   • Australia would miss out on a significant benefit that the person could contribute to Australia's business, economic, cultural or other development (for example, a special skill that is highly sought after in Australia) if the person was not granted the visa. [1]
2. Departmental guidelines state that compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia would not include circumstances if the non-citizen merely claims that, if granted the visa, they would:
   • work and pay taxes;
   • pay fees to an education provider; or
   • spend money in Australia.[2]
3. It is claimed that Torrens University would be adversely affected as it would lose an international student and suffer a loss of income by way of tuition fees. The Tribunal notes that Torrens University that the applicant has not been issued with a Confirmation of Enrolment in his course, despite the fact that it has accepted the applicant as a fee paying student. At the hearing, the representative of the applicant informed the Tribunal that because Torrens University was aware that the applicant had not been granted a student visa and was the holder of a bridging visa, it was not their policy to issue confirmation of the applicant's enrolment. It appears that Torrens University entered into the transaction with the applicant to enrol him as a student in circumstances where it was aware that its financial interest could be impacted as the applicant had been refused a student visa and may not be granted a student visa if unsuccessful upon review. Furthermore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the payment of fees to an education provider or the spending of money by the applicant on education in Australia rises to the level of compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia.
4. The Tribunal has also considered Departmental policy pertaining to the discretion to grant a visa to a former student during the exclusion period, which states (emphasis added):

There may be compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia in the case of non-citizens whose last substantive visa was a Student visa and who are applying for a new Student visa. If the applicant's circumstances, including previous study history in Australia, clearly demonstrate that they have been a genuine student in Australia, and there is no evidence that they have actively or intentionally abused or sought to circumvent immigration laws, s65 delegates may accept that compelling and compassionate circumstances exist. If the student wishes to apply for another Student visa, significant weight may also be given where there is evidence of a clear continuing study intention.[3]

1. Unlike the Department, the Tribunal is not bound by policy, and it recognises that some of the examples given in the policy are neither exhaustive nor determinative of the circumstances in which the discretion may be exercised, it has however given the policy some consideration.
2. The Tribunal accepts that since he applied for the visa the applicant has been endeavouring to complete his Bachelor of Information Technology. He has remained consistent with his program of study. It is further accepted that although he was excluded from study at Monash University, he has enrolled at Torren University to continue his studies while awaiting review. From the limited information provided to the Tribunal, it also appears that the applicant has made progress in his studies at Torren University. These are acknowledged to be the actions of consistent with a genuine desire by the applicant to obtain the qualification. The applicant further claims he wishes to pursue masters studies in Australia upon the completion of his bachelor degree which he claims demonstrates his commitment to the field of study. It is accepted that these factors may be indicative of a clear continuing study intention.
3. In considering whether the applicant is a genuine student, the Tribunal notes that the term is not defined in the Department policy or the Regulations. The Tribunal has considered not only the maters set out in paragraph 45 above but also factors such as the whether the applicant was reasonably engaged in his course of study when he previously held a student visa, whether he satisfied course requirements for the course, whether he commenced and completed his course as scheduled, whether he has demonstrated logical course progression and whether there are any study gaps of concern.
4. In the applicant's circumstances while holding his previous student visa, he did not satisfy course requirements for his course at Monash University. He further did not complete the course as scheduled. He is unable to demonstrate course progression because he was excluded by the Monash University for academic misconduct. There are further gaps of concern because he was subject to an exclusion period by Monash University for academic misconduct in 2023, and a further gap when he was excluded from Monash until he commenced studies at Torren University. The Tribunal is further not satisfied on the evidence that the applicant has been at all times transparent with the Department and the Tribunal about these circumstances.
5. It is noted that when asked in the visa application under review, to provide detailed history of the his study record since his first date of first arrival, on page 7 the applicant did not disclose any information about past findings of academic misconduct or that he was previously suspended from studies at Monash University. As identified to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s 359A of the Act, the Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 10 March 2023, contains information that from that date he was to be the subject of an academic suspension until 11 January 2024. Relying on this information the Tribunal holds concerns that the applicant was possibly providing information which was deceptive or misleading when in the visa application under review the applicant wrote "dur(sic) to family reason I applied a break on 2023 May and went back to my hometown for a year, until August 2024." The Tribunal has considered the submission of the applicant's representative that the statement could be due to a mistaken belief of the applicant that he had to notify Monash University of his departure and that as he had a then intention to stay in China longer than his suspension period of 11 January 2024, it was reasonable for him to apply for a break from Monash University. The Tribunal does not accept this response. It considers that the applicant has clearly failed to disclose his study history and represented his study break as family reasons. Further, on the evidence the applicant did attempt to return to Australia at the end of his suspension period so he was not seeking an extended break from Monash University. His representative sets out in her submissions of 26 November 2025, that the applicant applied for a student visa in December 2023 in order to return to Australia, which was refused. The response of the applicant is considered misleading, and causes the Tribunal to have concern about whether the applicant has actively or intentionally tried to circumvent immigration laws in relation to the visa application under review.
6. Having regard to the academic suspension imposed by Monash University it 2023, the Tribunal considered the applicant attempted to obfuscate in his evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing in relation to the extent of his past academic misconduct. He told the Tribunal that he had used a web blog to upload some coding and that he did not sign his name to the coding which was copied. While he claimed he may not have followed the rules of the assessment, it was others who cheated and he had not done so. Again pursuant to the provisions of s 359A of the Act the Tribunal identified to the applicant at hearing information contained in the Monash University Notice of Decision dated 10 March 2023. The relevant information identified to the applicant was that he was subjected to nine separate allegations of academic misconduct, seven of which were established and it was not merely a single matter of uploading unattributed material to a third party website. The applicant was advised the information was important because if relied upon it may have concerns about the reliability of his evidence and the assessment of the Tribunal of whether he was a genuine student. In response, the applicant admitted his misconduct history, but claimed that the rules in Australia were very different, and all his academic misconduct came because he did not understand the principles of western universities. He claimed that he had reflected on these matters and he was doing his best with his current study at Torrens University. The Tribunal has considered this response, however the Notice of Decision sets out that this was not the first instance of academic misconduct alleged against the applicant, and further that he had been provided with details of academic integrity, and developing his academic skills and encouraged to consult with Student Academic Success which included a team of language and learning advisors to assist the applicant understand relevant principles.
7. It has been argued before the Tribunal by the applicant and his representative that the exclusion decision by Monash University in March 2025 was harsh and excessive. It was claimed that the applicant used a second monitor in an exam solely due to an eye condition. The Tribunal has had regard to the letter from Specsavers, dated 16 May 2025, and notes that this was obtained some three months after the examination in question. In any event, the Tribunal has also had regard to Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 25 March 2025, as discussed with the applicant at the hearing pursuant to the provisions of s 359A of the Act, the penalty was imposed after the applicant had a panel hearing, having regard to regulation 42 of the Monash University (Council) Regulations, and having regard to previous findings of misconduct against the applicant on 18 February 2022, 16 January 2023 and 10 March 2023. Further, that the applicant had a right to appeal the decision internally with Monash University. The applicant was informed that the information was relevant because it appeared that the applicant had been afforded procedural fairness in relation to the allegations of misconduct, and that if relied upon the Tribunal may not accept that it was harsh and unreasonable that he was subjected to the exclusion penalty or that this a reason for the exercise of the waiver as he contended. Rather the Tribunal may place weight on the finding as evidence that the applicant was not a genuine student and consequently may not be satisfied that there are compelling circumstances in his particular case. In response, the applicant disputed the finding of Monash University that he access unauthorised material to gain an unfair advantage, he claimed that he was under unwarranted suspicion because of his past conduct and that as an international student despite his evidence, he was powerless to address the judgment of the Student Misconduct Panel. The applicant claimed that he had never cheated, although he made a mistake by using a second screen, but he was trying to put that behind him with his studies at Torrens University. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's response and his representatives submissions to this information being put to the applicant in writing in the Tribunal letter of 16 December 2025. The Tribunal does not intend to go behind the findings of Monash University, from the material produced on summons it is transparent that a lot of documents, testimony and video evidence was considered in arriving at the relative findings, the applicant had the opportunity to address the allegations before findings were made, the decision record documents that his evidence and statements before the Panel were taken into consideration prior to a determination being made. The Tribunal is satisfied on the evidence that the applicant has been found to have committed further acts of academic misconduct which have resulted in a finding excluding him from study at Monash University, in circumstances where he was aware of the rules and consequences of academic misconduct at that institution. The academic exclusion has meant that the applicant did not satisfy the course requirements for the course, did not properly participate in the assessment activities for his course, was unable to complete his course at Monash University and are not in the assessment of the Tribunal to be the actions of a genuine student. Further the Tribunal holds concerns that the exercise of the waiver is in the interests of the integrity of the student visa system.
8. Adding to the deliberations of the Tribunal are concerns that the applicant has been transparent with regard to his previous circumstances in visa applications subsequent to his departure on 7 June 2023. Particularly, the circumstances that led to him overstaying while holding his first student visa. The applicant has claimed that the overstaying of his visa was due to a combination of stress, homesickness and an unfortunate family event, all occurring at the same time. Another event occurring at the same time, as detailed in the Notice of Decision of Monash University dated 10 March 2023, was that the applicant was undergoing investigation for academic misconduct, and he attended a panel hearing on 7 March 2023, then received on 10 March 2023, received a penalty of a six month suspension from studies. The Tribunal discussed this with the applicant at the hearing pursuant to the provisions of s 359A of the Act, it was identified to the applicant that the Tribunal the information was important because the applicant made no reference of these events as a factor impacting him at the time the visa expired and the Tribunal was unable to locate information about his grandmother's injury in the material produced on summons around the time of his panel hearing. Further, that if relied upon these matters may raise concerns for the Tribunal as to whether the applicant was transparent with the Department and the reliability of his evidence. Which may be a reason or a part of the reason for a finding of the Tribunal that the discretion to exercise the waiver should not be exercised. The applicant responded that he had medical evidence of his grandmother's injury he claimed to have submitted an email from Monash University with his visa application and to the Tribunal. He said this email referred to his application for a new enrolment after his suspension and that even while he was suspended he did not give up his studies and was applying himself while in China. The Tribunal has considered this oral response and the submissions of the applicant's representative when this matter was again put to him in writing on 16 December 2025. It has had regard to the submission that it was not a primary factor that led to the applicant not renewing his initial student visa in the first instance, and for the Tribunal to consider that it was a primary factor would place an imbalanced and disproportionate weight on the investigation. The Tribunal accepts that while it may not have been a primary factor, it would arguably have been a considerable factor impacting the applicant at the time and would impact his ability to present a valid enrolment at Monash in any further student visa application in March 2023. Further, it was not a circumstance outside the control of the applicant but a result of his actions. The Tribunal also does not accept that the applicant was alone and without family support at the time as he gave evidence to the Tribunal at hearing that he was supported during his studies in Melbourne by his aunt and his cousin. The Tribunal is also not satisfied on the material before it that the applicant disclosed the penalty of the six month suspension to the Department when he applied for a further student visa in May 2024. The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant had produced an email dated 26 July 2024 from Monash University which confirms that he was enrolled, the Tribunal could not discern details of his suspension in the content of this correspondence. The Tribunal holds considerable concerns that the applicant has been at all times transparent about his circumstances and whether he was actively or intentionally seeking to circumvent Australia's immigration laws by not providing a full disclose of circumstances and study history.
9. The Tribunal is also unable to place weight on that the claim of the applicant that his decision to remain in Australia after March 2023 leading to his overstay, despite the fact that applicant wanted to return to China to spend time with his grandmother, was due to the insistence of the applicant's parents that he continue his studies. As disclosed to the applicant pursuant to the provisions of s 359A of the Act, the Notice of Decision issued by Monash University dated 10 March 2023, contains information that he was to be the subject of an academic suspension from until 11 January 2024. As he was suspended there was no purpose of the applicant remaining onshore until June 2023 to continue his studies. The applicant has submitted it is unfair and unjust for the Tribunal to consider that this claim was misleading as his parents were assuring him at the time that they could care for his grandmother. The Tribunal has considered this submission, but continues to hold reservations that the applicant has been transparent, or misleading, in his dealings with the Department and the Tribunal about his circumstances and whether he has actively tried to circumvent immigration laws when seeking the waiver in the past.
10. The Tribunal has considered the conditional offers of master level study submitted by the applicant from several universities. It is claimed that they demonstrate that the applicant wished to continue his studies in his field. The Tribunal accepts that this may be his wish. It notes however that the offers were conditional, among those conditions was the successful completion of the Bachelor of IT qualification, the maintenance of a stipulated average score and an acceptable unaltered academic transcript. The applicant was unable to meet those conditions. It does not place additional weight on the offers as demonstrating for the purposes of the Tribunal's assessment that he was a genuine student.
11. As to other matters, the Tribunal has considered that the submission that the applicant has already had the benefit of the waiver which was exercised in relation to his visa application of May 2024. It has considered whether it may be in the interests of consistency to again exercise the waiver to permit the applicant to continue his studies. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant disclosed his previous academic suspension when applying for that visa. The Tribunal considers that this is a factor relevant to the consideration of whether the applicant is a genuine student. Further, circumstances of the applicant have changed. His previous visa was granted for the applicant to complete his studies at Monash University until 31 January 2025. The applicant did not complete his studies in this period because he failed to allow sufficient processing time and his visa was granted after the second semester of 2024 at Monash commenced. He now cannot continue his studies because while awaiting review he was the subject of an additional finding of academic misconduct in relation to his actions on 11 February 2025 and excluded from Monash University. The applicant is now seeking the visa, based on the documents submitted from Torrens University, potentially to December 2026, although it is noted that the applicant claims he will finish in the first semester of 2026 by undertaking additional units. Overall, the Tribunal is not satisfied that this consideration weighs in favour of the exercise of the discretion to grant the waiver.
12. Finally, the Tribunal has considered that the submission that the applicant was only seeking the visa for a brief period and it would be unfair and unjust not to allow him to continue his studies at Torrens University in circumstances where he was performing well. The Tribunal has considered this submission, it is not satisfied on balance that the applicant's potential performance at Torrens University outweighs other matters as discussed above. As to the brief period of time that the applicant is seeking to study, he has already gained the benefit of being able to study while awaiting review. Further, the risk factor contained in PIC 4014(4) will only apply for three years since the applicant's last departure on 7 June 2023, it is only a brief period of time that the provision will continue to operate as intended. Torrens University has indicated that they will accept the enrolment of the applicant until December 2026, the applicant claims he can complete his bachelor requirements in one semester. The Tribunal is not satisfied that for the risk factor to be imposed pursuant to PIC 4014 as intended in the circumstances results in an unfair and unjust consequence for the applicant, or that this is a compelling circumstance affecting the interests of Australia.
13. The Tribunal accepts that his mother is supportive of his continued study in Australia, that she considers that he has been dealt with harshly by Monash University in the past and that his family has invested a considerable amount of money in his education. The Tribunal is not satisfied that applicant wishes to study, obtain a good education, as well as his remorse and any of the matters he has raised amount to compelling circumstances affecting Australia's interests.
14. In considering the totality of the material before it, the Tribunal acknowledges that there are some factors which indicate that the applicant is a genuine student. Particularly, his ongoing study of the Bachelor of Information Technology, the fact that he has continued to study at Torrens University while awaiting review and that information that a qualification from Monash University may have been of advantage to his future career, and that potential further study may also assist his future career. does not accept that that there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia. However, it is considered that his actions prior to his enrolment at Torrens University, weigh against the claim that he has been a genuine student and a finding that there exists compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia. While his course progress and study efforts at Torrens University is viewed positively, the Tribunal does not accept this overcomes its concerns, as set out below, to find that on balance there are compelling circumstances affecting the interests of Australia.
15. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and claims of the applicant, the evidence of his witness, the submissions of his representative cumulatively, the summons material and it is not satisfied even cumulatively these are reasons that give rise to compelling reasons affecting the interests of Australia or a compassionate or compelling reason affecting the interest of an Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen, which would justify granting the visa within 3 years after the cancellation of the applicant's previous student visa. Accordingly, the applicant does not satisfy PIC 4014.
16. For the reasons given above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets PIC 4014 for the purposes of cl.500.217 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The decision under review is affirmed.

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

Representative for the Applicant: Ms Zheng Zheng

**Migration Regulations 1994

1. (1) There is no evidence before the Minister that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the ART during the review of a reviewable migration decision, a relevant assessing authority or a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to:

(a) the application for the visa; or

(b) a visa that the applicant held in the period of 12 months before the application was made.

(2) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 3 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

the applicant and each member of the family unit of the applicant has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (1).

(2AA) However, subclause (2) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(2A) The applicant satisfies the Minister as to the applicant's identity.

(2B) The Minister is satisfied that during the period:

(a) starting 10 years before the application was made; and

(b) ending when the Minister makes a decision to grant or refuse to grant the visa;

neither the applicant, nor any member of the family unit of the applicant, has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy the criteria in subclause (2A).

(2BA) However, subclause (2B) does not apply to the applicant if, at the time the application for the refused visa was made, the applicant was under 18.

(3) To avoid doubt, subclauses (1) and (2) apply whether or not the Minister became aware of the bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular because of information given by the applicant.

(4) The Minister may waive the requirements of any or all of paragraphs (1)(a) or (b) and subclause (2) if satisfied that:

(a) compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia; or

(b) compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen;

information that is false or misleading in a material particular means information that is:

(a) false or misleading at the time it is given; and

(b) relevant to any of the criteria the Minister may consider when making a decision on an application, whether or not the decision is made because of that information.

**Migration Act 1958

s 5 Interpretation**

(1) In this Act, unless contrary intention appears:

bogus document, in relation to a person, means a document that the Minister reasonably suspects is a document that:

(a) purports to have been, but was not, issued in respect of the person; or

(b) is counterfeit or has been altered by a person who does not have authority to do so; or

(c) was obtained because of a false or misleading statement, whether or not made knowingly.

[1] Migration Policy and Operational Manual Exclusion periods