AustLII [Home] [Databases] [WorldLII] [Search] [Feedback]

Migration Review Tribunal of Australia
You are here:  AustLII >> Databases >> Migration Review Tribunal of Australia >> 2013 >> [2013] MRTA 2202

[Database Search] [Name Search] [Recent Decisions] [Noteup] [Download] [Context] [No Context] [Help]

1105201 [2013] MRTA  2202  (13 September 2013)

Last Updated: 27 September 2013

1105201  [2013] MRTA 2202  (13 September 2013)


DECISION RECORD

APPLICANT: Mr Pranavkumar Gordhandas Bagthariya

MRT CASE NUMBER: 1105201

DIAC REFERENCE(S): CLF2011/35535

TRIBUNAL MEMBER: David Dobell

DATE: 13 September 2013

PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the application for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa:

• cl.572.223(2)(a)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

• cl.572.223(2)(a)(iii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

  1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
  2. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Citizenship for the visa on 3 March 2011. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 17 May 2011 on the basis that the applicant was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because he did not satisfy the requirements of cl.572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
  3. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 31 May 2011 for review of the delegate’s decision.

RELEVANT LAW

  1. At the time the visa application was lodged, the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa contained a number of subclasses: Item 1222 of Schedule 1 to the Regulations. With limited exceptions not relevant to this case, the subclass that can be granted to an applicant who applies as a student depends upon the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course, and the subclass for which that type of course was specified by the Minister under r.1.40A (see cl.570.232, 571.232, 572.231, 573.231, 574.231 and 575.231 of Schedule 2). Under r.1.40A, the Minister must specify by instrument the types of courses for each subclass of student visa, except Subclass 576 (AusAID or Defence Sector). For this Subclass the applicant must have the support of the AusAID Minister or the Defence Minister: cl.576.229.
  2. Having regard to the applicant’s current offer of enrolment, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector.
  3. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 572 visa are set out in Part 572 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criterion in cl.572.223. So far as relevant to the present matter, that criterion requires that at the time of the decision, the Minister be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because the applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2). Clause 572.223 relevantly states:

572.223 (1) The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because the applicant meets the requirements of subclause (2).

(2) An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:

(a) for an applicant who is not a person designated under regulation 2.07AO:

(i) the applicant gives the Minister evidence in accordance with the requirements mentioned in Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level for the applicant; and

(ii) the Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to:

(A) the stated intention of the applicant to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted; and

(B) any other relevant matter; and

(iii) the Minister is satisfied that while the applicant holds the visa, the applicant will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the requirements in Schedule 5A relating to the applicant’s financial capacity; or

(b) for an applicant who is a person designated under regulation 2.07AO - the Minister is satisfied that:

...

  1. The first of these requirements is that the applicant must provide evidence in accordance with the requirements in Schedule 5A to the Regulations. The relevant clause in Schedule 5A is dictated by the assessment level to which the applicant is subject.
  2. The second is that, while the applicant holds the visa, he or she will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the Schedule 5A requirements relating to financial capacity.
  3. In addition to the above, depending on the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal may determine whether it is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, having regard to the stated intention of the applicant to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, and any other relevant matter.

Applicable Assessment Level

  1. ‘Assessment level’, for a student visa, means the level of assessment (being level 1, 2, 3, 4 or 5) specified for a kind of eligible passport for the student visa under r.1.41: r.1.03 of the Regulations. Regulation 1.41 relevantly provides that the Minister must specify by written instrument an assessment level for a kind of eligible passport, in relation to each subclass of student visa, to which an applicant for a student visa will be subject.
  2. With exceptions not relevant to this case, an applicant’s assessment level is governed by r.1.42(1) which provides that an applicant for a student visa is subject to the highest assessment level at the time of application for the relevant course of study for the subclass of student visa. ‘Highest assessment level’ and ‘relevant course’ are defined in r.1.03. ‘Highest assessment level’ is defined to mean for an applicant who proposes to undertake:

(a) a single course of study that is a registered course, the assessment level for that course of study; or

(b) 2 or more courses of study that are registered courses and that do not include an ELICOS, the assessment level for those courses which is the highest number from 1 to 5; or

(c) 2 or more courses of study that are registered courses and that include an ELICOS, the assessment level for those courses which is the highest number from 1 to 5, not including the ELICOS course.

  1. ‘Relevant course of study’ is defined to mean a type of course for the subclass of student visa that the Minister has specified in a legislative instrument made under r.1.40A.
  2. For reasons set out below, the highest assessment level for the applicant in the present case is Assessment Level 4.

Schedule 5A requirements for Assessment Level 4

  1. Schedule 5A to the Regulations specifies the requirements for Assessment Level 4 for Subclass 572. Relevantly, it provides:

Clause 5A404. English language proficiency

5A404 The applicant must give evidence that one of the following applies:

...

(iii) as the holder of a student visa — successfully completed a substantial part of a course (other than a foundation course) that:

(A) was conducted in English; and

(B) was leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; or


Clause 5A405. Financial capacity

5A405 (1) The applicant must give, in accordance with this clause:

(a) evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet the following expenses for the first 36 months:

(i) course fees;

(ii) living costs;

(iii) school costs; and

(aa) a declaration by the applicant stating that he or she has access to funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet course fees, living costs and school costs for the remainder of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia after the first 36 months; and

(b) evidence that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet travel costs; and

(c) evidence that the regular income of any individual (including the applicant) providing funds to the applicant was sufficient to accumulate the level of funding being provided by that individual.

...

(2) In this clause:

acceptable individual

means one or more of the following:

(a) the applicant;

(b) the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner;

(c) the applicant’s parents;

(d) the applicant’s grandparents;

(e) the applicant's brothers and sisters;

(f) an uncle or aunt of the applicant who is:

(i) an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident or an eligible New Zealand citizen; and

(ii) usually resident in Australia.

...

funds from an acceptable source

means one or more of the following:

(a) if the applicant:

(i) has successfully completed at least 75% of the requirements for his or her principal course; and

(ii) has applied for the visa in order to complete the course; and

(iii) does not propose to undertake any further course;

a money deposit held by an acceptable individual;

(aa) if paragraph (a) does not apply — a money deposit that an acceptable individual has held for at least the 6 months immediately before the date of the application;

(b) financial support from:

(i) the applicant’s proposed education provider; or

(ii) the Commonwealth Government, or the government of a State or Territory; or

(iii) the government of a foreign country; or

(iv) a corporation that:

(A) conducts commercial activities outside the country in which it is based; and

(B) employs the applicant in a role in relation to which the applicant’s principal course is of direct relevance; or

(v) a multilateral agency; or

(vi) a provincial or state government in a foreign country, provided with the written support of the government of that country; or

(vii) an organisation specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or

(viii) an acceptable non-profit organisation;

(c) a loan from a financial institution that is made to, and held in the name of, an acceptable individual;

(d) a loan from the government of the applicant’s home country


Clause 5A406 Other requirements


(1) The applicant must give evidence:

(a) that he or she has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 12 level (or its equivalent); and


(b) that:

(i) he or she is enrolled in a vocational education and training course;

...

CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

  1. The Tribunal has before it the Department’s file relating to the applicant.
  2. From the Department’s movement records, the applicant arrived in Australia in May 2008 on a subclass 573 visa ceasing in June 2008. He was granted a further subclass 573 visa in June 2008 ceasing on 15 March 2011.
  3. On 3 March 2011 the applicant lodged the student visa application the subject of this review. The following relevant documents are on the Department file:
  4. On 17 May 2011 the Department refused to grant the student visa, as the applicant did not satisfy cl.572.223(2)(a)(i)(B). The decision record states that the Department contacted the Punjab National Bank about the loan and he stated that the loan document was a forgery as there is no sanctioned loan. Thus the applicant did not have the required financial capacity.
  5. On 31 May 2011 the applicant lodged his review application, appointing migration agent, Ramneek Madahar, as his authorised recipient and representative. A copy of the Department decision was provided with the review application.
  6. On 19 June 2013 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, sending the letter to his authorised recipient and representative, inviting him to provide enrolment information by 17 July 2013.
  7. On 16 July 2013 the applicant’s representative provided the following:
  8. On 2 August 2013 the applicant was then invited to a hearing on 29 August 2013.
  9. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 29 August 2013 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages. The applicant’s representative did not attend.
  10. The following documentary evidence was given to the Tribunal at the hearing:
  11. The applicant said he arrived in Australia on 31 May 2008 and has completed a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, and a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Business in 2012. He gave the Tribunal documentary evidence of the last two and was not sure when he finished the certificate. The Tribunal said it needed to see documentary evidence of this.
  12. As to financial support, the applicant explained that his uncle has been assisting his mother since his father died and that he helped with the loan. He said his mother is still assisting him and gave him money in 2012.
  13. The Tribunal asked about the Department’s finding of fraudulent documents being provided. The applicant said that it was a mistake, as the bank had searched under his name rather than his uncle’s name, and nothing had come up.
  14. The applicant said he obtained documentary evidence concerning this and provided it to the Tribunal when he sought a review. The Tribunal said there was no evidence concerning this on the file. The Tribunal said it needed to see documentary evidence of this.
  15. The Tribunal went through the financial capacity calculations with the applicant, based on the letters of offer provided, and he did not dispute these.
  16. The Tribunal asked as to the applicant’s present financial capacity. The applicant gave the Tribunal a loan document and fixed deposit in his mother’s name, and his savings account details. The loan was for 23,00,000 rupees (approximately $40,855).
  17. As to the source of funds for the fixed deposits, the applicant explained that after his father died, his family ‘split up’. He meant that he was living with 3 uncles and the families separated, and sorted out the assets. He said this was the source of the fixed deposit. When asked, he said his father died in 1998 and the houses separated in 2010. He said his mother was not working, and had not worked for a long time. However, she lives with his sister, who is working. He confirmed that the families had separated when he lodged the student visa application.
  18. The Tribunal discussed access to funds with the applicant. He gave the Tribunal evidence of $20,000 being transferred to him by his mother in June 2012. He said he has not needed more money, as he has a part-time job, and has about $4,500 left from that $20,000 now. The Tribunal said it needed to see documentary evidence of this bank balance to be satisfied that funds from his mother remain available.
  19. The Tribunal noted that he may meet the English requirements if he has done a substantial part of his Certificate IV course by March 2011. He said he had done an IELTS test too. The Tribunal said it needed to see documentary evidence of these.
  20. As to the ‘Other’ requirements, the Tribunal noted it had senior secondary results but there was no enrolment yet. The Tribunal said it needed to see documentary evidence of this enrolment.
  21. The Tribunal gave the applicant one week, until 5 September 2013 to provide the documentary evidence.

After the hearing

  1. On 4 September 2013 the applicant’s representative advised that he was no longer representing him, and a signed withdrawal form was provided. The following documents were also provided:
  2. Also on 4 September 2013 the applicant provided the Tribunal with the following:

FINDINGS AND REASONS

  1. The delegate found that the applicant had failed to demonstrate financial capacity and thus did not meet cl.572.223(2)(a)(i)(B). The Tribunal considers the decision was made under the wrong subclause, as the one used by the delegate did not exist at the date of visa application.
  2. It should have been made under cl.572.223(2)(a)(i), which is the provision concerned with financial capacity, and also English and ‘Other’ The Tribunal will first determine whether the applicant meets this clause. If so it will then consider whether the applicant satisfies cl.572.223(2)(a)(iii): access to funds.
  3. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the course in which the applicant is enrolled as the principal course is the Diploma of Accounting, which was specified for Subclass 572 by the Minister in the relevant instrument under r.1.40A of the Regulations.
  4. Accordingly, the relevant subclass for this review is Subclass 572. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not a person designated under r.2.07AO of the Regulations and that they hold an eligible passport of India.
  5. According to IMMI 10/003, issued 16 March 2010, valid from 27 March 2010 to 1 April 2011, the instrument for r.1.41 that was in force at the time of application, the assessment level for the applicant’s Subclass and passport, and that to which the applicant is subject, is Assessment Level 4.

The Schedule 5A requirements for Assessment Level 4

Schedule 5A405(1)(a) –what is ‘the first 36 months’ here?

  1. The applicant is required to give evidence of funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet his course fees and living costs for ‘the first 36 months’ This is defined in Schedule 5A as follows:

‘The first 36 months’ in this context for an applicant, means the period that:


first 36 months,

for an applicant, means the period that:

(a) begins:

(i) if the application is made outside Australia — on the day of the applicant’s expected arrival in Australia; or

(ii) if the application is made in Australia — on the day that the student visa is expected to be granted to the applicant; and

(b) ends on the earlier of the following:

(i) the day 36 months after the beginning of the period;

(ii) the last day of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia.

  1. In this case the ‘first 36 months’ begins on the expected date of visa grant, which the Tribunal takes to be 6 October 2013. The ‘first 36 months’ ends on the earlier date of either 36 months later or the last date of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia.
  2. The CoE for the Diploma finishes on 6 April 2015, a period of 18 months from 6 October 2013. Allowing one month to arrange departure from Australia, the Tribunal determines the ‘first 36 months’ in this case to be 19 months.

What is the total amount required by the applicant?

(1)(a)(i)-Course fees

  1. Course fees are defined in Schedule 5A101 as follows:

course fees,

for an applicant in relation to a period, means the fees for each course proposed to be undertaken by the applicant in the period, as indicated by the proposed education providers in a letter or other document.

  1. The CoEs show that total fees are $11,200 and that $1,000 has been paid. This leaves $10,200 outstanding.

(1)(a)(ii) -Living costs

  1. Living costs at the date of application were $18,000 per year for the applicant (Schedule 5A104 and IMMI 09/138). As the Tribunal has determined the relevant period to be 19 months, the Tribunal finds the applicant’s living costs to be $28,500.

(1)(b) -Travel costs

  1. Travel costs are defined in Schedule 5A101 as:

travel costs,

for an applicant, means the sum of costs for each of the applicant and any family applicant:

(a) if the applicant or family applicant is not in Australia when the application is made — of travelling to Australia; and

(b) of returning to the applicant’s home country at the end of his or her stay.

  1. The applicant is from India. The cost for one economy one way ticket from Sydney to there varies but is approximately $1,000. The applicant does not dispute this. (see zuji.com.au).
  2. Thus, in accordance with Schedule 5A, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s total amount required for costs is as follows:

Course fees $10,200

Living costs for 19 months $28,500

Travel costs $ 1,000

Total $ 39,700

  1. The applicant is therefore required to give evidence of funds sufficient to meet expenses totalling $39,700.

Are there sufficient ‘funds from an acceptable source’?

  1. The applicant has only recently commenced studying so (a) under the definition would not apply. In this case, “funds from an acceptable source” would have to be either:
  2. The applicant has provided documentary evidence of a Punjab National Bank education loan dated 27 August 2013, to his mother, Jyotsnaben Gordhanbhai Bagthariya, for him for 23,00,000 rupees ($38,960, xe.com, as at 12 September 2013), secured by fixed deposit of 25,60,000 rupees, and letter of disbursement.
  3. In relation to the Punjab National Bank, the term “financial institution” is defined in cl.5A101 as:

financial institution

means a body corporate that, as part of its normal activities:

(a) takes money on deposit and makes advances of money; and

(b) does so under a regulatory regime, governed by the central bank (or its equivalent) of the country in which it operates, that the Minister is satisfied provides effective prudential assurance.

  1. The Tribunal noted that Departmental policy PAM3 Schedule 5A Financial Capacity at 62.4 states that a list of acceptable financial institutions is maintained on the Australia Embassy’s website. This in turn provides that the Punjab National Bank is an acceptable financial institution (see http://www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_studyloans.htmlhttp://www.india.embassy.gov.au/ndli/vm_studyloans.html, accessed 30 August 2013).
  2. The Tribunal thus finds that this bank is a ‘financial institution’ for the purposes of the regulations. The Tribunal also finds that the applicant’s mother is an acceptable individual under the relevant definition and is satisfied as to the family relationship.
  3. The Tribunal observes that an uncle who resides in India would not have been an ‘acceptable individual’ under the law in terms of financial capacity.
  4. The applicant requires $39,700 and has access to approximately $38,960. Allowing for current currency fluctuations, the Tribunal accepts that this loan is sufficient financial capacity.
  5. The Tribunal then considered whether this loan was genuine. It must be satisfied that it has not been created merely for the purpose of satisfying the student visa grant criteria, meaning the Tribunal needs to be satisfied that once this has occurred it will not be cancelled and the fixed deposits removed, for whatever reason.
  6. The Tribunal notes that the Department decision record of 2011 states that the Department contacted the Punjab National Bank about the loan and the bank stated that the loan document was a forgery, as there is no sanctioned loan, and thus the applicant did not have the required financial capacity.
  7. At the hearing, the applicant said he had already provided the Tribunal with documentary evidence to dispute this, but it noted there was no evidence on file. After the hearing, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter from the bank dated 24 May 2011, around a week after the decision was made and a week before the review application was lodged.
  8. The Tribunal notes that this letter, signed by the Senior Manager, Mr Parmar, states a loan of 13,80,000 rupees was made to the applicant’s uncle, Gopaibhal V Bagthariya as the applicant was not resident in India. The uncle’s bank statement from the loan grant period was also provided.
  9. The Tribunal notes that there was no mention of the uncle by name on the loan documents provided by the applicant in 2011. Hence, it appears the bank was only asked about a loan in the name of the applicant and not the uncle.
  10. Further, from the Department file, the Tribunal notes that this information was not put to the applicant for comment before the decision was made.
  11. Whilst it has some doubts, the Tribunal will accept that the 2011 loan was genuine, and that an error had been made by the bank in not noting the uncle’s name on the loan documents, and that this was why the Department was advised that there was no loan, as they only asked about one in relation to the applicant.
  12. Hence the Tribunal’s concerns as to the genuineness of the current loan have been addressed.
  13. The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the applicant has funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet expenses for course fees, living costs for the first 36 months and travel costs.

Schedule 5A405(1)(aa) –declaration by applicant

  1. The applicant is required to provide a declaration concerning access to funds from an acceptable source that are sufficient to meet course fees, living costs and school costs for the remainder of the applicant’s proposed stay in Australia after the first 36 months.
  2. The applicant’s visa application contains a declaration to this effect. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that cl.5A405(1)(aa) is met.

Schedule 5A405(1)(b) – travel costs

  1. As noted earlier, the applicant has sufficient funds from an acceptable source to meet the return travel costs to their home country and thus meets cl.5A405(1)(b).

Schedule 5A405(1)(c) –regular income sufficient to accumulate funding

  1. This does not apply here as the funds are being provided by a loan from a financial institution, not an individual, and the Tribunal assumes that the bank has made all necessary enquiries.

Summary of financial capacity

  1. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has given evidence, in accordance with the requirements in Schedule 5A for Subclass 572 and Assessment Level 4 to which they are subject to, in relation to the necessary financial capacity. Accordingly, the applicant satisfies the financial capacity requirements of Schedule 5A405.

English language proficiency- Schedule 5A404

  1. Schedule 5A404(d)(iii) is relevant here. This states:

(iii) as the holder of a student visa — successfully completed a substantial part of a course (other than a foundation course) that:

(A) was conducted in English; and

(B) was leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher; or

  1. The Tribunal notes the Holmes Institute printout for a Certificate IV in Hospitality, start 1 June 2009, and printed 22 February 2011, which the applicant also showed it at the hearing, suggesting that he had done a substantial part of a Certificate IV course by March 2011. However, he has not since provided the Tribunal with any further documentary evidence to support this claim.
  2. The Tribunal considers from this printout that the applicant had done a substantial part of this course at the time his student visa expired in March 2011.
  3. The Tribunal is thus satisfied that the applicant had successfully completed a substantial part of a course leading to a qualification from the Australian Qualifications Framework at the Certificate IV level or higher while the holder of a student visa, and that this was conducted in English. Hence the applicant satisfies the English language proficiency requirements.

Other requirements- Schedule 5A406

  1. This relevantly states:

5A406 (1) The applicant must give evidence:

(a) that he or she has successfully completed secondary schooling to the year 12 level (or its equivalent); and

(b) that:

(ii) he or she is enrolled in a vocational education and training course;

...

  1. From the Gujarat Secondary Education Board Award to the applicant dated March 2000, and the CoEs provided, the Tribunal is therefore satisfied that Schedule 5A406(1)(a) and (b) have been met and thus the applicant satisfies cl.5A406.

Does the applicant meet the requirements of cl.572.223(2)(a)(i)?

  1. Yes. The applicant, not being a person designated under regulation 2.07AO and, having given the Tribunal evidence in accordance with the requirements mentioned in Schedule 5A for the highest assessment level, meets the requirements of cl.572.223(2)(a)(i).

Will the applicant have access to these funds – cl.572.223(2)(a)(iii)?

  1. Yes, for the reasons that follow.
  2. The Tribunal must be satisfied that, while holding the visa, the applicant will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the Schedule 5A requirements relating to financial capacity.
  3. In assessing whether this will occur in a future period, the Tribunal will take into account documentary evidence as to access to his mother’s funds, as well as the applicant’s oral and written evidence on this, and any other documentary evidence provided.
  4. The documentary evidence before the Tribunal is that $4,500 was paid from the uncle’s original loan, for school fees in March 2011. However, as this money came from his uncle, not his mother, it is not relevant to the issue of future access to his mother’s funds as required by this provision.
  5. There is also a 19 March 2009 deposit of $4,985, titled “RTGS high value payment, ....Jyotsnaben Gordha study fees”, and a Westpac 13 June 2012 money deposit for $19,700, titled 'proceeds overseas telegraphic transfer... Jyotsna G Bagthariya'.
  6. The Tribunal accepts these as genuine money transfers from his mother. However, it was concerned that the applicant had not received any money from his mother since 13 June 2012, well over a year ago, and raised this with the applicant at the hearing. He stated he still had around $4,500 left of that money.
  7. After the hearing the applicant provided documentary evidence showing his Westpac bank balance was $3,478 on 4 September 2013. However, that statement showed that there was a deposit made into his account on 3 September for $4,500 and there was an outgoing of $1,000 paid on that day. This would suggest that his balance was close to zero prior to the above deposit. The source of the deposit is not clear, but there is no evidence to suggest it came from his mother.
  8. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant currently has any money left from the money transfer from his mother in June 2012, as claimed. However, given that the money transfer in 2012 was substantial, despite some doubts the Tribunal will accept that he will have access to the funds of his mother in the future.
  9. Based on the above evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant, while holding the visa, will have access to the funds demonstrated or declared in accordance with the Schedule 5A requirements relating to financial capacity. Accordingly, the applicant does satisfy cl.572.223(2)(a)(iii).

DECISION

  1. The Tribunal remits the application for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector visa:

David Dobell
Member

AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback
URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2013/ 2202 .html