Ministerial Intervention Grants Visitor Visa After Student Visa Refusal Caused by Incorrect Departmental Advice

Background

The applicant and her dependent arrived in Australia on an Electronic Travel Authority (ETA) intending to pursue further studies. She enrolled in a business course at TAFE NSW and paid the full fees for the first stage, intending to use the enrolment to support a student visa application. However, her ETA expired before TAFE finalised her enrolment and issued a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE). She applied for a Vocational Education and Training (Subclass 572) visa but was refused on the basis that she was not a holder of a substantive visa and that her last substantive visa was not one prescribed under cl. 572.211(3)(b), meaning the 28-day post-cessation period did not apply. She then appealed to the MRT, which affirmed the refusal — noting that the legislation did not grant the Tribunal power to consider these circumstances. The applicant submitted that a customer service officer at the Department had specifically told her she could apply within 28 days of her visa ceasing, and she had relied on that advice. TAFE's delayed processing compounded the problem, leaving her caught between an institution's administrative delays and her own reliance on incorrect government guidance.

Challenges

• Student visa refused because the applicant's last substantive visa was not a prescribed class under cl. 572.211(3)(b), leaving no valid 28-day application window
• Applicant had already paid full TAFE course fees but could not receive the CoE in time due to TAFE's delays
• Incorrect advice from a Departmental customer service officer led the applicant to believe she could validly apply after her visa ceased
• MRT had no legislative power to consider the equitable circumstances and affirmed the refusal