a) Copies of his Chinese birth certificate, family household register and the Chinese National Immigration Administration exit and entry record dated 21 August 2025, with English translations; > > b) A copy of his overseas student health insurance certificate; > > c) Copies of his father's medical documents with English translations; > > d) A copy of his father's Bank of China statements listing transaction records from February to August 2025; > > e) An undated screenshot of 'myUNSW', Student Portal for UNSW students showing 4 subjects for Term 2 2025; and > > f) His UNSW Academic Transcript dated 22 August 2025 showing that he failed 2 subjects in Term 3 2022, passed 2 subjects in Term 3 2024, passed 3 subjects in Term 1 2025 and enrolled in 4 subjects in Term 2 2025.

10. Neither the applicant nor his representative provided any submissions to explain the relevance of the above documents. They also did not provide any submissions addressing the delegate's findings or about why his visa should not be cancelled.
11. The Tribunal accessed the applicant's PRISMS record on 28 August 2025. The applicant's study history in PRISMS indicates that he is not currently enrolled in any courses. His original enrolment in Bachelor of Commerce / Bachelor of Laws was cancelled on 22 February 2023 and the subsequent enrolment in the same course that was approved on 27 August 2024 appears to have been cancelled on 11 September 2024 upon visa cancellation.
12. The Tribunal also accessed the applicant's movement details recorded by the Department on 28 August 2025. The applicant's travel history since first arriving in Australia on 14 September 2022 is consistent with his Chinese National Immigration Administration exit and entry record dated 21 August 2025. Both records show that the applicant travelled to China on 9 January 2023 to 11 May 2023, 29 July 2023 to 12 September 2023 and 19 November 2023 to 5 February 2024. The Departmental records show that the applicant was granted a Bridging E visa on 23 November 2024 with visa conditions 8104 (work restrictions) and 8207 (no study or training). A subsequent Bridging E visa was granted on 20 December 2024 with the 8104 (work restriction) condition removed, but 8207 (no study) condition remaining.
13. As noted above, the Tribunal heard evidence from the applicant at a hearing on 4 September 2025. At the hearing, the Tribunal discussed with the applicant the information in the applicant's PRISMS and movement records, pursuant to s 359A of the Act.
14. The applicant was granted time to provide further specific information after the hearing and the Tribunal received the following on 11 September 2025:

a) The applicant's personal statement dated 11 September 2025; > > b) The representative's written submissions dated 11 September 2025; > > c) Copies of UNSW Fee Statements and bank transfer records between 14 September 2024 and 12 June 2025, showing the applicant's enrolments in subjects consistent with his UNSW Academic Transcript and payments of fees for these subjects; > > d) Copies of the applicant's assessment submissions and grademark reports between June and August 2025, as evidence of his engagement in studies in Term 2 2025; > > e) A letter dated 11 September 2025 from UNSW Registrar & Director of Student Services confirming the applicant's current enrolment in the Commerce/Law program for the 2025 academic year; and > > f) A duplicate copy of the CoE created on 21 August 2024 for the UNSW Bachelor of Commerce / Bachelor of Laws program.

15. The evidence before the Tribunal, including the applicant's oral evidence at the hearing, is discussed below where relevant.

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

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 the applicant was not enrolled in a fulltime registered course.
3. At the hearing, the applicant claimed that he did not know until now that his student visa was subject to certain conditions including that he is required to remain in enrolment in a fulltime registered course of study. Notwithstanding this concerning response, the applicant conceded that he was not enrolled in any course from 22 February 2023 to 26 August 2024 and that he was in breach of condition 8202(2)(a).
4. As noted above, the applicant's PRISMS records indicate that his original enrolment in the UNSW Bachelor of Commerce / Bachelor of Laws was cancelled on 22 February 2023 and a new CoE in the same course was approved on 27 August 2024, although it has since been cancelled on 11 September 2024. On the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in a fulltime registered course between 22 February 2023 and 26 August 2024. Accordingly, the applicant has not complied with condition 8202(2)(a).
5. It follows that the Tribunal is satisfied that the ground for cancellation in s 116(1)(b) exists.

Consideration of the discretion to cancel the visa

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.

1. 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.
2. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that any written certificate has been issued to the applicant by a certifying government entity or a certifying non-government entity in respect of a workplace exploitation matter as prescribed under reg 2.43A(2)(a) or (b). The applicant confirmed at the hearing that he has not been involved in any workplace exploitation and that no written certificate in this regard has been issued to him by anyone. Therefore, the prescribed matters in regs 2.43A(2)(a), (b), (c), (e) and (f) do not apply in this case.

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 (reg 2.43A(2)(d))

1. As found above, the applicant did not comply with condition 8202(2)(a) from 22 February 2023 to 26 August 2024. This is a period of 18 months which the Tribunal considers to be very significant. The purpose of the student visa is to permit the visa holder to remain temporarily in Australia while they engage in and complete an approved course of study in Australia. The requirement to be enrolled in a fulltime registered course of study as prescribed in condition 8202(2)(a) goes to this core purpose of the visa.
2. At the hearing, the applicant maintained that he did not know he had to be enrolled in a course at all times on a student visa. He blamed his agent who helped him with the visa application at the time for not telling him about the visa conditions but accepted that it was his own responsibility. He claimed that when his father's health issues came up, he did not enrol because the tuition fees were not cheap and he returned to China to look after his father. After he came back to Australia, he looked for hospitals and treatments in Australia for his father's medical condition but could not find anything. Because the living costs in Australia was too expensive, he went back to China and returned to Australia in September 2023. He claimed that he thought his course would be automatically deferred when he did not enrol in Term 1 2023 and it would be okay to wait 2 years and go back to school. He claimed that he spoke with his study consultant at UNSW in an online meeting in around February 2023 when he was in China, but he was unable to provide any further details such as the name of the consultant and what exactly they discussed. His general response was that they discussed about his course and his father's health issues and the consultant advised him to go back to study in Term 2 (May-August 2023). When asked why he did not re-enrol and resume his study in May as advised, the applicant claimed that he 'attended in May' but his father did not get better so he was in denial, shock and fear and he did not want to think or face what could happen. He repeated throughout the hearing that he was in denial and avoidance, his mind was in a 'runaway' state and he did not seek counselling or speak to anyone about his concerns and issues out of fear.
3. Throughout the hearing, the applicant's oral evidence was vague and scattered, requiring multiple prompts and repetition of the questions. He did not raise any interpretation issues and appeared to understand some English, but he often seemed genuinely confused by the questions even when it was broken down into segments and explained in plain terms. He was overall not an articulate communicator. It was evident to the Tribunal from his presentation throughout the hearing that his inability to clearly communicate or appropriately address the questions were partly attributable to his lack of preparation for the hearing and experiences of being interviewed, and stress of being questioned at a hearing. The Tribunal has considered these factors in assessing the applicant's oral evidence. Although his deficient oral evidence is concerning, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant was deliberately evasive for the most part. Having regard to his relatively young age and limited life experiences, it is plausible that the applicant genuinely struggled to comprehend and address the questions squarely at the hearing under pressure and stress. The Tribunal also notes that upon extended probing to clarify his confusing responses, the applicant readily conceded his shortcomings and accepted matters that were unfavourable to his case.
4. The applicant's evidence after extensive clarifications at the hearing were as follows. He failed his first term (Term 3 2022) at UNSW because he missed some of the exams. He was too ashamed to speak to anyone and as he was alone in Australia for the first time, he felt really helpless. He returned home to China in January 2023 and tried to cut off the outside world. He contracted COVID on return to China and there was another lockdown, so he lost all motivation. In February 2023, he eventually told his father that he had failed his subjects and his father advised him to contact the school. That's when the applicant had the online meeting with the school counsellor, who advised that he should resume his studies in Term 2 commencing in May. When he returned to Australia in May 2023, the applicant planned to resume his study, but he only checked the university websites and did not further action, follow up or re-enrol. He admitted that he was not actively trying to solve his problems or reach out to his school. He really thought that his enrolment had been automatically deferred, but he never thought to check with the university.
5. He could not convincingly explain what he did in Australia from May to July 2023 other than vaguely claim that he called hospitals for his father's potential treatment in Australia and checked his university website. He gave confusing and unpersuasive evidence that he consulted a hospital close to his university and another near Rhodes. Upon probing, he admitted that he did not speak to any doctors, receive any referrals or consult with the hospitals, but rather he had found these 2 hospitals through recommendations by his Facebook acquaintances who were Chinese.
6. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that the medical documents he submitted show that his father was admitted to the hospital for his heart condition in late June 2023 and discharged in July 2023 and the applicant was not present in China during this time. The medical documents also indicate that his father's heart conditions improved with no obvious abnormalities by January 2024. The applicant returned to China 3 times until February 2024 for 2-4 months each stay, but on each return to Australia, he did not seek to re-enrol in his university course. The Tribunal raised that his confusing timeline and unpersuasive explanation for what he was doing exactly for this significant period of non-enrolment was concerning. The applicant claimed that his father's health issues had commenced in around March 2023 with early signs of deterioration and when the sudden heart attack occurred, he was in shock and denial. He was afraid for his father and the family's future. He returned to China in late July to look after his father by driving him to hospitals and treatments. He also had to help his father with his business. When he returned to China in November 2023 and stayed until February 2024, his father found him a job at the local police and the applicant worked there. Throughout this period, it did not occur to the applicant that he had to inform his university or the Department about his circumstances. The Tribunal has considered these responses but finds that there is still no reasonable explanation for his inactivity from February 2024 to September 2024.
7. The Tribunal finds on the available information that the applicant was clearly not complying with the purpose of his student visa, being that he must be enrolled in a fulltime registered course of study and engage in his studies in Australia, for a significant period of 18 months between February 2023 and September 2024. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant has not satisfactorily explained his activities during this period and his evidence indicating ignorance of his own circumstances and legal responsibilities as a student visa holder particularly concerning. However, having had the opportunity to observe the applicant's nervous and somewhat timid conduct during the hearing and the difficulties in obtaining direct relevant evidence from the applicant, the Tribunal considers the applicant's claimed denial and avoidance behaviour during this lengthy period plausible. Given his relatively young age at the time (19/20 years), the Tribunal acknowledges that arriving and living in a new country alone and adjusting to the university environment and teaching style for the first time can be overwhelming. Further, the Tribunal considers it plausible that the applicant was ashamed to disclose his poor academic performance in the first term, particularly given the expensive tuition fees and living expenses as an international student. The Tribunal also considers it plausible that his avoidance in resolving his problems and facing the reality was compounded by fear for his father's health and uncertainties about his and his family's future. While these factors do not fully explain his inaction for the entire 18 months period, including from February 2024 when he last returned to Australia, to September 2024 when he sought to re-enrol upon receiving the Department's NOICC, in the particular personal circumstances of this applicant, the Tribunal is prepared to give him the benefit of the doubt that his hesitant, indecisive and somewhat unassured personality and low self-esteem impacted his motivation to take action to resolve his enrolment and visa issues.
8. In reaching this assessment, the Tribunal has given significant weight to the independent evidence from UNSW demonstrating that the applicant has been consistently studying the originally intended course since being re-admitted to the program in September 2024. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that the applicant has made efforts to comply with the purpose of the student visa to date. Further, the Tribunal notes that this is his first student visa and first, albeit serious, infraction, his residence in Australia to date has not been lengthy, he has not sought to change his intended study program, but rather, he has achieved satisfactory course progress for a year since being readmitted to the program. The Tribunal considers that the applicant's recent study record demonstrates a purpose consistent with the purpose of a student visa.
9. In his latest personal statement of 11 September 2025, the applicant reiterated his commitment to completing his double degree in Australia. At the hearing, the applicant frankly spoke about the recent difficult personal experiences leading him to rethink his suitability in law as a career and that he is unsure about his future plans because everything is up in the air with his current visa cancellation. He maintained however that he would still like to finish his double degree in Australia as it will be attractive for any future in China. He also claimed that his commerce degree would be helpful if he were to take over his father's pharmaceutical business. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant does not presently have a clear plan for his future career but he has learnt from these experiences and is committed to keeping on track to finish his degree.
10. Considering the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, while the Tribunal finds that there is evidence of the applicant's non-compliance and the duration of the applicant's non-compliance without meaningful efforts to remedy the situation very concerning, the Tribunal places more weight on the applicant's recent consistent study efforts for a year, in the original study program for which he came to Australia. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal find that the applicant has been and is genuinely seeking to comply with the purpose of the student visa. The Tribunal gives this matter weight against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.

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, s 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 visa holder's travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia

1. This consideration is similar in part to the prescribed consideration in reg 2.43(2)(d) discussed above.
2. The applicant arrived in Australia in September 2022 to study an undergraduate double degree program in Bachelor of Commerce / Bachelor of Laws at UNSW, which was scheduled to end in September 2027. As discussed with and accepted by the applicant, the applicant failed his first term and failed to enrol in the program for 18 months from February 2023 to September 2024. However, as found above, the applicant has resumed his study in the UNSW program since being readmitted in September 2024 and has satisfactorily progressed in the program to date. The evidence indicates that his current engagement in the course is scheduled to complete in September 2029. Although the applicant's intended stay in Australia now appears to be extended by 2 years, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant's purpose for travel and stay in Australia remains unchanged, that he wishes to complete his double degree in Commerce and Law at a prestigious Australian university. The Tribunal accepts that this is the applicant's only reason, purpose and compelling need to remain in Australia. As this is consistent with the purpose of a student visa, the Tribunal gives this matter considerable weight against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.

1. As found above, the applicant did not comply with condition 8202 for a significant period of 18 months. There is no other information available in the Department file about the applicant's non-compliance with other visa conditions whilst the holder of a student visa.
2. The applicant displayed a concerning lack of knowledge about his previous and current visa conditions. As already noted above, he had claimed that he did not know that his student visa condition included maintaining an enrolment in a fulltime registered course until now. When asked whether he now knew of the other visa conditions attached to a student visa, the applicant concede that he did not know. When asked about his current visa and the conditions attached, he was unable to answer. It was then evident that the applicant was accessing his Bridging E visa grant notice during the hearing, and he was permitted to read the conditions as stated in the notice including the 8207 no study condition. The applicant claimed that he did not know about this condition until he read the notice at the hearing. Given the applicant's above-identified general ignorance about his enrolment and visa issues, the Tribunal does not find this unawareness of visa conditions surprising. However, it is concerning that his representative also appears to have not clearly advised the applicant about his current visa conditions and the consequences of breaching them. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the representative's assistance at the hearing was unsatisfactory as he was unable to explain the various inconsistencies in the applicant's current circumstances including his ability to continue studying for a year despite the cancelled CoE and that they applied to remove the work limitation condition on the BVE but did not consider removing the no study condition.
3. The Tribunal finds on the evidence that the applicant has not complied with the visa condition 8207 on his Bridging E visa since 23 November 2024. This significant period of non-compliance, being his second extended breach of a visa condition, reinforces to the Tribunal the applicant's general disregard of his legal responsibilities as a temporary visa holder in Australia. When this concern was put to the applicant at the hearing, the applicant accepted that he now understands that he was again in breach of the visa condition and he will comply in the future as he thinks it is very important to abide by them, but he also stated that he does not know what else he should do in Australia if he cannot study.
4. In his post-hearing personal statement, the applicant again acknowledged and apologised for his breach but claimed that it was not a disregard for Australian law but his poor judgement under pressure as a young student anxious about failing and losing his academic progress. He claimed that since the hearing he has fully realised and accepted the seriousness and importance of strictly complying with visa conditions and legal requirements and undertakes to strictly comply with all visa conditions without exception and will seek official confirmation and professional advice if in doubt. He reiterated his strong desire and commitment to completing his studies and acquiring the Australian degree in a lawful and responsible manner.
5. The evidence before the Tribunal is that the applicant has repeatedly breached his visa conditions for significant periods. These instances of non-compliance and the applicant's complete lack of knowledge about his visa conditions and the fact of his breach are very concerning and raise a doubt about his future compliance. However, the Tribunal also notes that his current breach of the no study condition is mitigated by the fact that he was earnestly seeking to comply with the purpose of his student visa which he is seeking reinstatement. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant's representative is partly responsible for not advising the applicant about his current visa conditions.
6. Considering the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, including the applicant's post-hearing statement, the Tribunal is prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and to accept that his current failure to comply with the no study condition was due to his genuine attempt to demonstrate his commitment to studying in Australia, being his reason for requesting the reinstatement of his student visa. The Tribunal is also willing to accept the applicant's undertaking that he will ensure strict compliance with all visa conditions in future. On this basis, the Tribunal gives this matter limited weight in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.

The degree of hardship that may be caused to the visa holder and any family members (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

1. The applicant claimed that if his visa remains cancelled, he would not know what to do, where to study, his future plans will not exist and he would really let down his father and his expectations. He pleaded for another chance to continue his study at UNSW. Although the applicant has not made any specific or express claims relevant to this matter, the Tribunal acknowledges that he may experience psychological and emotional hardship if his visa remains cancelled and he is unable to complete his study. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant's father may be impacted financially and emotionally as his son's failure to complete his studies would mean the financial investment in fees and living expenses would have gone to waste and he may be disappointed in his son. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that this matter weighs against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.

The circumstances in which ground for cancellation arose

1. The ground for cancellation arose as a result of the applicant's breach of condition 8202, due to his non-enrolment in a course of study from 22 February 2023 to 26 August 2024.
2. As detailed above, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant has provided a reasonable explanation to account for his failure to enrol for the significantly lengthy period of 18 months. His medical evidence relating to his father's health issues only relate to June 2023 onwards, and despite the repeated and persistent questioning at the hearing, the applicant was unable to expand beyond his claimed denial and avoidance behaviour at the time. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have faced personal challenges and struggled emotionally and mentally, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose in this case were outside the applicant's control. Therefore, the Tribunal weighs this matter strongly in favour of exercising the discretion to cancel the visa.

The past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the Department

1. The applicant claimed at the hearing that he has responded to the Department's communications appropriately at all times. The evidence before the Tribunal indicates that he responded to the NOICC and there is no evidence to suggest that he has not been cooperative in his dealings with the Department.
2. The Tribunal gives this matter neutral weight.

Whether there are persons in Australia whose visas would, or may, be consequentially cancelled under s 140

1. There are no dependent family members included with the grant of the applicant's visa. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that there will not be any consequential cancellation if the applicant's visa is to remain cancelled.
2. There is no weight attributed to this matter.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences to cancellation, such as: indefinite detention if the person cannot be removed consistently with Australia's non-refoulement obligations; whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister personally intervening; and whether the person would become an unlawful non-citizen and liable to detention and removal

1. There are mandatory legal consequences to visa cancellations including detention and removal from Australia and difficulties in obtaining a further visa. If the visa remains cancelled, the applicant may be subject to s 48 of the Act, restricting him to a limited class of visas that he can apply onshore. Further, Public Interest Criterion 4013 may prevent a further visa grant for 3 years from the date of cancellation. These are intended and legitimate legal consequences of a visa cancellation.
2. The Tribunal explained these mandatory legal consequences to the applicant at the hearing and asked whether they would impact him differently. The applicant accepted that he will comply with the Department's directions if he exhausts all legal options of review, even though it is really important for him to stay in Australia and finish his study at UNSW. He added that he is now mature and ready to face any legal consequences. He also misses his family very much and would like to visit them in China but has been unable to do so on his current visa status. The Tribunal is satisfied on the available material that the likelihood of the applicant being detained indefinitely is remote.
3. The applicant claimed that the mandatory legal consequences relating to the restrictions on applying for and obtaining another visa would dramatically affect his life, goal and planning, because he does not have any other choice if he cannot study in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept this general claim as it is not supported by any independent evidence that the applicant cannot study anywhere other than Australia. While the Tribunal acknowledges that the visa cancellation and the consequential stop to his current course progression would have some negative impact to his life goals and plans, it notes that the applicant did not clearly articulate any such future plans or career goals for the Tribunal to be satisfied of the claimed 'dramatic impact' and 'disproportionate harm' to him. Accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied that the mandatory legal consequences of the visa cancellation would not impact the applicant unintentionally or exceptionally.
4. The Tribunal gives this matter neutral weight.

Whether any 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 applicant did not raise, and the Tribunal does not find on the evidence before it, that Australia's international obligations would be breached as a result of the applicant's visa cancellation. Accordingly, there is no weight attributed to this matter.

1. The applicant confirmed that he did not have any other relevant matters for the Tribunal to consider in its exercise of the discretion to cancel his visa.

1. The Tribunal has considered all of the applicant's evidence, claims and circumstances individually and cumulatively. The Tribunal considers that there are matters in this applicant's specific circumstances which weigh against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa. In particular, the Tribunal has given considerable weight to the applicant's evidence demonstrating his compliance with the purpose of the student visa since September 2024 and commitment to continuing and completing his intended study at UNSW, that purpose being at the core of his original purpose of travel to Australia in September 2022 and compelling need to remain here. The Tribunal is satisfied that this outweighs the circumstances in which the ground for cancellation arose in this case and the significant periods of non-compliance. Overall, the Tribunal is satisfied that the relevant matters and considerations cumulatively weigh against the exercise of the discretion to cancel the visa.
2. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should not be cancelled.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision not to cancel the applicant's Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Hao Zhang (MARN: 1807690)

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.