1. I informed the applicant that student visa application was refused as the delegate was not satisfied that she had met the English language requirements for the student visa as required by cl 500.213.
2. She was informed that in order to meet English language requirements, she must provide evidence of a prescribed English language test result, with the requisite scores, in the 2 years immediately before lodging her student visa application, ir 2 years immediately before a decision is made on her student visa application, unless she is in a class of exempt persons. I then went through the list of exempt persons with the applicant. She did not meet any of these criteria.
3. The applicant stated she had 'zero English' on arriving in Australia and was asked to do the English language test after 2 months of study in the English language course. She said, 'it is not fair, I am here to study and you haven't asked me to prove my English or let me get enrolled in a course'. The applicant explained that she did not understand the process of the student visa as she assumed she had come to Australia to study business and not to directly study English and this requirement was confusing to her. I asked her about the course she wanted to study and if was taught wholly in English and if so, how did she intend to understand the course. She said that all the students use Google translate as most of them do not speak any English.
4. I spoke with the applicant about the English language test requirement and the applicant explained she had undertaken an English course. I asked her for the result of this course, she stated she did not think she finished the course as she 'missed the train to the exam' and did not get the certificate. I asked her to contact her study provider and check with them regarding this course and the certification after the hearing.
5. I then explained to the applicant she must undertake an English language test and provide the Tribunal with the result of this test after the hearing. The applicant again reiterated that she did not understand why this was necessary as she did not wish to study English but to study business management to assist her with her business in China.

1. On 18 September 2025 I issued the application with a direction pursuant to s 79 of the Administrative Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) to provide documents pertaining to her student visa. The applicant complied with this Direction. She asked for an extension of time to provide the evidence.
2. On 3 October 2025 the applicant provided the Tribunal with the following documents:

a) A certificate of attainment in General English from Sydney International Business College for study of English between 20 January and 20 December 2024 with a graduating level of upper intermediate English. > > b) Confirmation of enrolment in the Diploma of Leadership and Management commencing 6 October 2025 and finishing 4 October 2026. > > c) Confirmation of enrolment in the Advanced Leadership and Management course commencing 12 April 2027 finishing 8 October 2028.

3. The Tribunal further contacted the applicant on 9 October 2025 asking her to comply with the second part of the s 79 Direction regarding the English Language test results as the English course result needed to be packaged with this to be compliant.
4. On 17 October 2025 the applicant replied to this email request stating that 'providing the English test result is really hard right now. Could you give me more time to prepare for my PTE test?"
5. I denied this request for more time for the applicant to undertake the Pearson English Language test for the following reasons which I have explained in an email responding to the applicant:

a) You were first made aware of the need to provide a passing English Language Test by the delegate who assessed your Student Visa application in May 2024. You provided an English Language Test result at this time which was not considered a passing result as per clause 500.213 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations.

(1) If required to do so by the Minister, in writing or by use of a computer program available online, at any time, the applicant gives to the Minister evidence that the applicant has a level of English language proficiency that meets the requirements specified in an instrument under paragraph (3)(a).

b) You have been given now since the date of the hearing with the Tribunal which occurred on 15 September 2025 to provide this English Language test result; and

c) In your request for the extension of time you have not given any compelling detail for this request of time.

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.

1. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl 500.211 to cl 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the requirements specified in an instrument: cl 500.213(2) Migration (IMMI 18/015: English Language tests and evidence Exemptions for Subclass 500 (Student) Visa Instrument 2018 (the Instrument), which specifies the requirements for evidence of English language proficiency and classes of applicants to whom the requirement does not apply.
2. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant qualifies as a class of applicants to which subclause 500.213(2) of Schedule 2 of the regulations applies and are exempt from the requirement to demonstrate English language proficiency under the Instrument.
3. As a passport holder of China, the applicant does not meet the requirements of section 6(2)(a) of the Instrument.
4. The applicant has completed a Certificate of General English language (upper intermediate skill). However, she did not complete this course in the 2 years before applying for the visa under review. On the material before the Tribunal the highest level of study the applicant held prior to applying for the visa was completion of high school diploma which does not meet the threshold of being a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level as required by subsection 6(2)(d) of the Instrument.
5. The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant has successfully completed a minimum of 5 years study in English undertaken in Australia. The applicant has provided evidence she has successfully completed a course in General English over a one year period between January and December 2024. As such there is not sufficient evidence that the applicant has complied with the required 5 years required by subsection 6(2)(e) of the Instrument.
6. There is no other basis on which the evidence demonstrates that the applicant may be exempt from the English language requirement. She is therefore required to undertake one of the English language tests specified in the Instrument and achieve the specified score.
7. The applicant was first aware of this requirement when the delegate wrote to her on 23 April 2024 requesting under s56 of the Act further information regarding her application including her English Language proficiency result and how to undertake this requirement. She undertook the Pearson English Language proficiency test on 15 May 2024 and did not achieve a required score and was informed of this in the delegate's decision record dated 16 October 2024. When the applicant then applied to the Tribunal for a review of this decision, she was again requested on 18 November 2024 to provide results of the English Language Proficiency test to which she did not respond. The applicant was again advised of this requirement both at the hearing on 15 September 2025 and by the issuance of the s79 Direction on 9 October 2025. She has requested further time for this test result and this has been denied by the Tribunal as a more than adequate period of time has passed for the provision of the result also considering the applicant has undertaken a one year English language course and passed with a level of upper intermediate English.
8. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant meets cl 500.213 of Schedule 2 of the Regulations. The Tribunal acknowledges the confusion the applicant has faced in understanding the requirements for the student visa and her attempts at compliance with every step of the proceedings both with the delegate and the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes the applicant has assumed she was able to undertake a substantive course of study without an English language test requirement as she was told this by other students who use Google translate to complete their studies when they are conducted wholly in English. Sadly, this advice has been her downfall.
9. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590(Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

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