1506996 (Migration)

[2016] AATA 4453

1506996 (Migration) [2016] AATA 4453 (28 September 2016)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Tatsalak Siriruang

CASE NUMBER:  1506996

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2015/1012164

MEMBER:Miriam Holmes

DATE:28 September 2016

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

Statement made on 28 September 2016 at 9:33am

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 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 for the visa on 1 April 2015. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 12 May 2015. 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 Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted depends upon: the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course (Subclass 570 - 575); for certain applications made on or after 24 March 2012, whether the applicant is an ‘eligible higher degree student’ (Subclass 573 – 574) or ‘eligible university exchange student’ or ‘eligible non-award student’ (Subclass 575); whether the applicant has the support of the relevant Minister (Subclass 576); or whether the applicant has applied on the basis of being a Student Guardian (Subclass 580).

3. The delegate refused to grant the visa because the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.572.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.  

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 2 September 2016 to give evidence and present arguments. 

5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. Having regard to the applicant’s current proposed course of study, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 572.

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the time of decision criterion in cl.572.223. Clause 572.223(1)(a) relevantly states:

   (1)The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

   (a)      the Minister is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

   (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

   (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

   (iii)if the applicant is a minor – the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   (iv)any other relevant matter; and

   (b)     …

9. In considering whether the applicant satisfies this criterion, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.53, Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

   ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

   ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

   ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

10. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended to guide decision makers to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

11. The Tribunal had regard to the following matters and Direction 53 in assessing whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

12. The applicant was born in Thailand in 1982, and she is a citizen of Thailand and aged 32 years.

13. The applicant’s parents are married and they live in Thailand. Until 2015 the applicant’s father worked in a sugar factory and then he retired in 2015.  The applicant’s mother undertakes home duties.

14. The applicant has one sister, aged 39 years, who is married and working as a nurse and living in Thailand. The applicant has one brother living in Thailand who is aged 33 years, single and working as an engineer.

15. The applicant currently is living with a friend in suburban Melbourne. She has lived with her friend for approximately 3 years in a rental property and they have an annual lease. The applicant and her friend both contribute to the rental payments.

16. The applicant does not have any family in Australia.

17. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s education and studies in Thailand and Australia as set out below.

18. The applicant undertook her secondary schooling in Thailand, although she could not remember when she finished school. After leaving school the applicant undertook and completed a Bachelor of Business Administration course (majoring in International Business) at university in Thailand over a period of four years. She completed this course in 2005. The applicant told the Tribunal that she undertook this course because her mother preferred that she undertook study in international business as her mother believed that business in Thailand would be worldwide. The applicant states that her mother chose the course.

19. After completing the course, the applicant stayed home for a year between 2005 and 2006 with her father’s permission.

20. On 4 January 2008 the applicant was granted a student (subclass 570) visa for the purposes of studying English in Australia. In total, the applicant has been granted six onshore student visas. The current application for a student visa under consideration by the Tribunal was lodged on 1 April 2015 and is the applicant’s seventh student visa application.

21. The applicant told the Tribunal that her plan in leaving Thailand and travelling to Australia was to learn English. She stated that she had attended university in Thailand and been living together with her friend in Thailand, when her friend made arrangements to travel to Australia. Her friend asked if she would like to come to Australia to learn English. So the applicant spoke with her parents and then she decided to travel to Australia for the purposes of studying English.  Between February and December 2008 the applicant held two onshore student subclass 570 visas. It appears the applicant arrived in Australia on 4 February 2008, although she did not commence her English language course until June 2008.

22. In the period between 16 June 2008 and 28 November 2008 the applicant undertook a General English from beginner to advanced course at Hales Institute.

23. On or about 31 December 2008 the applicant was granted a student subclass 572 visa to study a Certificate III in Hospitality (patisserie) course and a Diploma of Hospitality course. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she pursued studies in patisserie and she replied that she thought it was a good course and that if she returned back to Thailand then she could set up a cafe business. She stated that she studied patisserie so she could learn how to make cakes. The applicant stated that she had not worked in a cafe before and had no previous work experience in the hospitality industry.

24. Between February 2009 and December 2009 the applicant undertook and completed a Certificate III in Hospitality (patisserie). Between February 2010 and December 2010 the applicant undertook and completed a Diploma of Hospitality. Both of these courses were undertaken at Ozford College of Business.

25. In about February 2011 the applicant undertook a short English for IELTS Preparation course for 11 days at Academia International.

26. In April 2011 the applicant was granted a student subclass 573 visa.

27. Between March 2011 and November 2012 the applicant successfully undertook and completed a Graduate Diploma of Management at Central Queensland University. Between August 2012 and November 2012 the applicant also undertook and successfully completed a Master of Management (International Business) at Central Queensland University.

28. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she commenced undertaking management courses in 2011. The applicant stated that she thought that she wanted to pursue short courses in tourism at that time. However, after speaking with her father, he indicated that he preferred that she undertook a Masters course rather than a Diploma level course. The applicant stated that in Thai culture education was very important and so she pursued the Masters level course. The Tribunal queried why the applicant pursued a course pertaining to international business and the applicant replied that it was a continuation from her earlier Bachelor of Business Administration studies, when she learnt about business. She also indicated that it was relevant to her previous work experience in Thailand when she had worked as a secretary at an export and import business. She stated that she had learnt about business, and that the export and import business had a foreign owner and she appreciated the importance of worldwide business.

29. In November 2012 the applicant was granted a further student subclass 573 visa.

30. Between November 2012 and December 2012 the applicant undertook another IELTS English language course at Impact English College.

31. In March 2013 the applicant commenced a Master of Business (Marketing) at Victoria University. The applicant stated that she only undertook the Masters of Business (Marketing) course for semester one of 2013. The applicant commenced the course because she believed it was related to her international business studies and that it would be useful to her. However after commencing the course she realised that she was repeating subject matter that she had already covered in her previous international business course and consequently chose to change course to a human relations course.

32. On or about August 2013 the applicant commenced a Master of Management (Human Resources) at Central Queensland University. The applicant stated that she chose this course after speaking with her uncle. She stated that every time she started to study she spoke with her uncle as he knew more than her father. She said that when speaking with her uncle he said to her that if she returns to Thailand that she could work with him. She chose the human relations course because it was useful to his business and human relations is most important when running a business.

33. On or about 15 September 2014 the applicant was granted a third student subclass 573 visa.

34. In 2015 the applicant completed her Master of Management (Human Resources) course and the degree was conferred on 9 March 2015.

35. On or about 6 April 2015 the applicant’s subclass 573 visa was due to expire. At that point the applicant had completed her Masters of Business (Human Resources) at Central Queensland University.

36. The Tribunal queried why the applicant did not return to Thailand after completing her second Master’s degree in 2015. The applicant stated that during the time that she was undertaking her Master studies her uncle commenced a new restaurant and resort business in Thailand. She stated that every time she returned to Thailand she always stayed with her uncle, and helped him with the resort and restaurant business. She stated that she learnt many things when staying with him at the restaurant and resort, such as the background to the business and the area in which the business was situated. She stated that she did not return to Thailand because she had not undertaken any studies in tourism and she believed that she needed to learn more, she had to learn about tourism and travel, about international customers, where they go to attractions and international travel arrangements.

37. On 30 March 2015 the applicant enrolled in a Certificate IV in Travel and Tourism, a Diploma of Travel and Tourism and an Advanced Diploma of Travel and Tourism at Universal Institute of Technology. On 1 April 2015 the applicant lodged her seventh application for a student visa. This is the student visa application under consideration by the Tribunal. On 15 October 2015 the applicant was awarded her Certificate Iv in Travel and Tourism.

38. The Tribunal queried why she required these additional qualifications, given that she already had hospitality qualifications, management qualifications and business qualifications. The applicant stated that she needed to study these particular courses to be able to assist her uncle organise his resort and restaurant business. She stated that she needed to develop her knowledge and skills further, so she was able to understand finance, accounting and developing marketing. The Tribunal noted that she had already previously covered marketing and that is why she ceased studying the Masters of Business (marketing) course and she replied that she needed to learn marketing specific to tourism. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she needed to pursue an Advanced Diploma of Travel and Tourism and she replied that she had to study in order to develop her knowledge in addition to the information she received from a Diploma course. She stated that she had to understand about cultural tourism and needed to be able to assist her uncle in order to grow his business to become bigger and to have international tourists stay at the resort. She stated that she also needed to learn about maintaining health and safety requirements associated with the facility. The Tribunal noted that the resort only had accommodation facilities of six villas and therefore the business had limitations in being able to provide facilities for many international guests. At this point in the hearing, the applicant then stated that her uncle had a connection with another resort in the same area and she could assist in finding customers.

39. In the applicant’s statement dated 22 April 2015 the applicant stated that when choosing to undertake the travel and tourism course it is “my personal interest. As I have been and travelled in Australia for many years, I found the opportunity to open a new business in Thailand which could fulfil my dreams since I was young.”  She goes on state that she plans to open a new travel company in Thailand which is her ideal job and will also support her uncle’s business greatly.

40. During the review process the applicant provided a letter from her uncle dated 15 August 2016, in his capacity as Director of the Prang Riverside resort and restaurant. He states that he has been managing the resort restaurant since October 2012 and the resort can accommodate over 50 guests in a combination of private villas and a large group big villa. He noted that they also have a seminar and function room with a restaurant of more than  300 seats. He noted that there were 20 to 25 employees in the business. He also goes on to state that he would like to expand the business and target foreigners. He notes that he offered the applicant the position as a co -manager upon her return to Thailand. He states that once the applicant completes her Advanced Diploma course in 2017 she will return to Thailand to undertake the challenge with him. At the hearing, the Tribunal noted its concern as to whether it was a genuine offer of employment given it was from a relative, and given her limited work experience in management. The applicant replied that her uncle has been financially supporting her, and that they are close, and he sees her like his daughter. She confirmed that he has supported her financially for her previous visas. She stated her uncle was 61 years of age and needs someone else to assist him to look after the business. In relation to the applicant’s previous management experience she confirmed that she has no management experience, although she has undertaken management studies and her education will assist her. She stated that she will go back and assist in developing the business particularly for obtaining international customers and she will also assist in arranging various tourist activities for international customers. She also indicated that she might operate her own tourism agency in Thailand to connect and book persons to the resort and other tourist facilities in Thailand.

41. The Tribunal noted that the applicant applied for the visa approximately 7 days before her existing student visa was due to expire. The applicant stated that she relied on the assistance of a migration agent to lodge her student visa application. She spoke with him about the need to learn about tourism and he said he would assist her in applying to the college and to lodge another visa application. She stated that she did not know how the system works and she left it to her agent to make the student visa application for her. She stated she relied on the migration agent to tell her what documentation she needed to supply to support the visa application. She stated that the agent was not a good agent and she did offer to provide at the time all her information and he replied no, and said he would ask for her information later.

42. The Tribunal had regard to the applicant’s economic ties to Thailand and Australia, in addition to the job offer described above.

43. In 2007 the applicant commenced working as a secretary for a logistics business in Thailand. She undertook this work for a year and was paid 14,000 Baht per month which is approximately AUD$500-$550 per month. She stated that she worked with another girl as a secretary to a manager in the business. She subsequently travelled to Australia.

44. The applicant has no assets in Australia and her savings are in the vicinity of $500.

45. The applicant has no assets in Thailand.

46. The applicant has been employed in a number of positions during her time in Australia. The applicant worked as a waitress in a Thai restaurant. Although the applicant only held this position for a short period.

47. For the last four years the applicant has worked as a receptionist at a Thai spa. She worked 12 hour shifts, two days a week earning $10 per hour in cash. The Tribunal calculated the applicant earned in the vicinity of $120 per day. The applicant states that she did work there for 4 years regularly however now she only works on an on-call basis.

48. More recently, the applicant has commenced working at a hotel three or four days a week, working five hours per day. The applicant states that she earns approximately $20 per hour (after tax) or roughly AUD$300-$400 per week. The applicant works at the hotel undertaking either cleaning work or filling the minibar in the hotel rooms.

49. Since arriving in Australia in 2008, the applicant has returned to Thailand two or three times a year to visit her family. The Tribunal notes this evidence is consistent with the Department’s movement records which indicate that the applicant has returned each year on two or three occasions.

50. The applicant told the Tribunal that she would like the chance to finish her course. She stated that she has completed 50% of her tourism and travel course and has only one year left and she would like to be given a student visa so that she can complete this course. She stated she will return to Thailand because her parents are there and she has a boyfriend in Thailand.

51. The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that the Tribunal may not be satisfied the applicant has an intention genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily in light of the number of courses she has undertaken, her course history and the time that she has spent in Australia and the various reasons she has given for changing courses. In response, the applicant stated that she was a good student and she had completed her courses and she liked to study and she does not have a bad academic record. She said in Thai culture they are encouraged to study more to assist them to find a good job. She stated that she has been studying to assist her to open her mind. She stated she had no problems studying and advancing in her education and she has no problem with attendance. The Tribunal indicated that it was unclear how these new courses would enhance her career prospects and/or lead to a skilled visa given her previous studies. The applicant replied that she likes to study and wants to study and it will be useful for her in the future. She has not applied for a skilled visa. She also indicated that she liked the subject matter. The applicant stated that she is not like others students who had wanted to study accounting and she did not pursue that course, she has studied subjects that involved subject matter that she was interested in and wanted to know about.

1. The representative made various submissions. He submitted that it is not uncommon for Thai students to have pressure from family and friends as to what courses they should study. The representative stated that there has been pressure on the applicant about her  studies and she has been supported financially the whole time in relation to her studies. He stated that she has no family in Australia but does have family in Thailand. The representative submitted that the applicant will go back and assist her uncle operating the business as a co -manager and she will have an understanding of Western culture that would be part of a succession plan in relation to her uncle’s restaurant and resort business. The representative submitted that the location of the resort and restaurant is in a tourist area where Western tourists do attend and that the subject units she has completed and the subjects units she is due to cover would assist. The representative stated that he could provide the course outline and he handed up a document to the Tribunal. The Tribunal notes that the document provided to the Tribunal was a document headed term planner from Universal Institute of Technology which listed the subject units the applicant was undertaking in the period January through to December 2016 and did not list the 2017 subjects. The most recent subjects the applicant is due to commence in September 2016 are co-ordinate production of brochures and marketing materials, develop and use  complex spread sheets, coordinate and operate sustainable tourism activities, source and use information on the tourism and travel industry. He also noted that the subject matter of a tourism course was not subject matter that led to an occupation on the relevant visas skilled list which would lead to an application for an Australian skilled visa.

2. The Tribunal noted its concern that the applicant had taken many courses whilst in Australia and that this may be for the purpose of maintaining residence in Australia. In response the applicant’s representative stated that the courses that the applicant had undertaken were not cheap courses, and if the applicant was seeking to try and stay in Australia the applicant has gone to considerable expense, and there are cheaper courses available.

3. After the hearing, the Tribunal received a further written submission from the applicant dated 8 September 2016. In the submissions she explains the relevance of her course to the job offer from her uncle and how she has assisted her uncle in the business – such as developing a marketing plan, creating brochures and creating a facebook page and given advice about health and safety and staff training. There was no other evidence produced to the Tribunal in relation to these activities. The applicant also refers to other future activities she may undertake in connection with the business. The applicant notes that she strongly believes that she can generate new business, develop marketing strategies and build good relations with stakeholders. The applicant also refers to launching a new business to be linked to the resort business.

4. After carefully considering the matters above the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

5. The applicant has family in Thailand, she grew up in Thailand and has regularly returned to Thailand between 2008 and 2016 to visit her family. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has strong family ties in Thailand. In addition she told the Tribunal that she has a boyfriend in Thailand. The applicant’s family ties to Thailand are an incentive to return to Thailand.

6. Between 2008 and 2016 the applicant has undertaken studies in a range of courses and she has successfully completed all courses, except the that she withdrew from one course after Semester 1 of 2013. The applicant’s ongoing commitment to her studies, by successfully completing her studies and maintaining enrolment at all times from 2008 to 2016 are an indication that the applicant is committed to complying with her student visa conditions and to enhancing her career prospects.

7. The Tribunal also had regard to a number of other matters which the Tribunal considers indicate that the applicant does not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and these factors outweigh the factors above.

8. The applicant arrived in Australia in 2008 with a view to only undertaking English language studies. The applicant completed those studies in 2008 and since then the applicant has remained in Australia for eight years and she has essentially settled in Australia since 2008. She has been living with friends and working in Australia and established a life in Australia.

9. The applicant has held six student visas and is now seeking a seventh student visa. The applicant has now had eight years in Australia studying multiple courses to enhance her career options and ambitions. The applicant is now seeking a further year until the end of 2017 taking her total residence in Australia to 9 years for the purposes of study. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s duration of stay in Australia since 2008 for eight years on student visas strongly indicates that the applicant does not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

10. The Tribunal also considers that the applicant’s ongoing pursuit of studies in multiple courses at various levels in various subject matter, along with the number of student visas is indicative that the applicant is using the student visa program to remain resident in Australia.

11. The applicant completed a Bachelor of Business Administration studies in Thailand. The applicant stated she travelled to Australia for the purposes of studying English which she successfully completed at the end of 2008. Since that time she has undertaken studies in hospitality (patisserie), hospitality, two further English for IELTS courses, management, management (international business) studies, business (marketing) studies, human resources studies and is now undertaking travel and tourism studies. The applicant has given various reasons as to why she has chosen different courses with different subject matter. Initially she stated she just came to Australia to improve her English language skills. However at the completion of that student visa the applicant then enrolled in hospitality courses and stated that it was with a view to opening her own cafe business in Thailand. In light of the evidence regarding the applicant’s reasons for travelling to Australia, her previous studies, her evidence regarding her parents influence in her course choices and work history the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant undertook hospitality studies with a view to opening a café in Thailand.

12. Once the hospitality studies were completed then the applicant pursued management courses at Masters level indicating to the Tribunal that these studies were relevant to her previous studies in Thailand in the Bachelor of Business Administration and her previous work in Thailand in logistics business. She also stated that she pursued these studies at the urging of her parents, rather than her preferred course of travel and tourism. After completing the first Masters studies, the applicant then undertook her marketing studies and then changed to a further human resources course at Masters level, the applicant states this change was based on the advice of her uncle. The human resources course commenced August 2013. In evidence the applicant stated she started this Masters course after speaking with her uncle and the human resources course would be useful to his business. She made similar statements in her written statement dated 22 April 2015. The Tribunal notes that the uncle states in his letter to the Tribunal that he commenced his business in the resort and restaurant in October 2012. The Tribunal has serious reservations that the applicant sought her uncle’s advice and he recommended she pursue a human resources course to assist in operating a resort and restaurant business. In the documentary evidence provided from the uncle, he makes no mention of the human resource studies or advising the applicant about the benefits of pursuing the human resources studies. The Tribunal has serious reservations that the applicant pursued a human resources course for a period from August 2013 to March 2015 at Masters level with a view to working for her uncle at the resort and restaurant business, and then to pursue studying three more courses for period of March 2015 to October 2017 in tourism, a total period of four years, so that she could return to work in her uncle’s business. The Tribunal did not accept that her uncle advised her to pursue human resources studies at Masters level for 2 years to work in his business and then she has sought to pursue travel and tourism studies for a further two years to work in his business.

13. The Tribunal formed the view that the applicant has undertaken a range of courses at various levels at different times with no clear career planning and with no view to enhancing her career prospects in a particular field. The Tribunal did not consider that the applicant has given cogent reasons for her constant changes in course direction and level of study in Australia. The Tribunal considered the range of courses and the lack of cogent reasons in choosing these courses are indicative that the applicant is using the student visa program to remain resident in Australia.

14. In addition the Tribunal notes the applicant has undertaken studies at various levels. She completed bachelor level studies in Thailand before travelling to Australia to undertake English language studies. Thereafter she completed vocational educational training in hospitality. She subsequently went into higher education courses at Masters level with qualifications from Central Queensland University. However for the purposes of this most recent visa application the applicant has returned back to study at the vocational educational training level, which are qualifications lower than bachelor and lower than Masters level. It appears that for the purposes of this last student visa application the applicant has returned to vocational education courses despite previous having higher education qualifications, including two Masters qualifications. The Tribunal considers that after having completed a bachelor level course, two Masters courses, the conduct of the applicant enrolling in and studying at the vocational training level is indicative of the applicant using the student visa program to remain resident in Australia.

15. The applicant has provided a letter of offer from her uncle stating that he will employ her on her return to Thailand as a co-manager of his restaurant and resort business. The Tribunal has significant reservations regarding the letter of offer of employment for a number of reasons. Firstly, the uncle is related to the applicant, and is not an independent employer. The applicant herself stated that he sees her as his daughter. Further as the applicant’s uncle he has been prepared to provide financial support to the applicant for the previous student visa applications. Further the Tribunal had regard to the size of the resort which has six villas and a group villa and restaurant. The size of the resort is not indicative of being able to cater for a significant number of international tourists, although the restaurant has larger capacity for guests to attend for dinner. The Tribunal also took into account that the business currently employs 20 to 25 persons, and whilst the representative suggested that it was part of succession planning, there is no indication in the letter from the uncle that he is planning to hand over the business and in this regard the Tribunal notes the management rights are only until 2022. Further the Tribunal was not persuaded that the additional studies being pursued by the applicant was such that they would enhance significantly her skills in order to manage the resort and restaurant. The Tribunal had regard to the subject matter in the course term planner and notes a number of these matters would be subject matter she would have covered in other courses, including her management course and hospitality course. In addition the Tribunal noted that the applicant has had no management experience in her work career and the Tribunal has some reservations that her uncle in such circumstances would offer her a genuine management position in his business. In the circumstances the Tribunal placed limited weight on the letter of offer of employment as an incentive to return to Thailand.

16. The applicant has economic ties to Australia in that she has been employed for the last four years as a receptionist earning an income, and more recently has found work in a hotel environment earning a regular income of $300 to $400 per week. This regular income is higher than the income the applicant earned when she previously worked in Thailand. This regular income is an incentive to remain in Australia. 

17. On balance, after considering all the matters above, theTribunal is not satisfied the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

18. On the basis of the above, and having considered the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history, and other matters it considers relevant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.572.223(1)(a).

19. The Tribunal has found the applicant does not meet an essential requirement of cl.572.223. With the exception of Subclass 580, the other subclasses within visa Class TU all contain an identical requirement. For reasons given above, the Tribunal also finds that the applicant does not meet the requirements of these subclasses. In respect of Subclass 580 (Student Guardian) visa, there is no material before the Tribunal that suggests the applicant meets the prescribed criteria for that subclass. As the Tribunal has found that the applicant does not meet a criterion for the grant of a student visa, it must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

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

    Miriam Holmes
    Senior Member