2406666 (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 2010

2406666 (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 2010 (26 AUGUST 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2406666

Tribunal:General Member J Lock
Place:Adelaide
Date: 26 August 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 26 August 2025 at 11:20am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – applied after arriving on tourist visa – previous higher education and professional employment – work stress, mental health and arrangement with employer to travel for relaxation – enrolment in English language courses relevant to employment – change of subject area and enrolment in vocational certificate and diploma courses – general reasons for not studying in home country, basic knowledge of course and subjects, and course progress – now resigned from previous employment – business plan – no evidence supporting financial estimates – parents and one sibling in home country, one in Australia and one in third country – accommodation and financial and personal support by sister and brother-in-law – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)
Any references appearing in square brackets indicate that information has been omitted from this decision pursuant to an order under section 70 of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 and replaced with generic information.
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 18 March 2024 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 22 September 2023. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
The applicant applied for a review of that decision to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) on 28 March 2024.
On 14 October 2024, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) became the Administrative Review Tribunal (the Tribunal). Under the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (the Transitional Act), proceedings in the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are to be continued and finalised by the Tribunal. Anything done in relation to the proceeding before 14 October 2024 is taken to have been done by the Tribunal.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 July 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by a representative Ms Thi Ngoc Anh Nguyen. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing. The applicant provided further submissions to the Tribunal on 16 July 2025.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.
BACKGROUND
The applicant is a 34-year-old woman born in Quang Ngai, Vietnam in 1990. She studied for a bachelor’s degree in medicine from the Ho Chi Minh City University of Medicine and Pharmacy in Vietnam from 2008 and graduated in 2015. She undertook a preliminary specialisation course in obstetrics and gynaecology at Tu Du Hospital in 2016. She was employed as a physician at the Trung Vuong Hospital in Ho Chi Minh City from 2019 to 2023. She had a contract of employment as a doctor in the emergency department of Trung Vuong Hospital from 1 March 2022 to 1 March 2025.
The applicant’s parents live in Vietnam. The applicant has three siblings consisting of two sisters and one brother. One sister lives in Japan, one sister lives in Australia and her younger brother lives in Vietnam and is currently studying in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC).
The applicant travelled to Australia for a holiday in November 2022 on a tourist visa (subclass FA-600) and stayed for 3 months. The applicant arrived in Australia on 25 June 2023 as the holder of a tourist visa (subclass FA-600). She lodged her application for a student visa (subclass 500) on 22 September 2023. She was granted a Bridging Visa B (subclass (WB-020) on 22 September 2023 with condition 8101 imposed on the visa that she not engage in work. The applicant returned to Vietnam in May 2024 for a visit of 8 days.
The applicant enrolled in, and completed the following courses in English:
a.   General English Course undertaken from October 2023 – March 2024
b.   Cambridge B1 Preliminary Course undertaken from March 2024 – June 2024
c.   Cambridge B2 First Preparation Course undertaken from June 2024 – August 2024
d.   IELTS Preparation Course undertaken from September 2024 – November 2024
The applicant is currently enrolled in a Certificate III of Patisserie at [Institute 1 in Australia] from January 2025 – January 2026. She has enrolment approved for a Certificate IV in Patisserie and a Diploma of Hospitality Management at [Institute 1] (the proposed courses). The applicant intends to complete the proposed courses in January 2027.
The information above was provided by the applicant in her student visa application and accompanying statement of purpose, information provided by the applicant to the Tribunal in pre-hearing and post-hearing submissions and in evidence at the hearing. The information is consistent with the applicant’s PRISMS record[1] and movement records obtained from the Department of Immigration and Citizenship[2] (the Department). The Tribunal accepts this information as true.
[1] PRISMS is a computer system developed by the Department of Education, Skills and Employment, which is responsible for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students, and is used by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship as evidence of enrolment for the purposes of assessing the grant of student visas.
[2] Formerly the Department of Home Affairs
RELEVANT LEGISLATION AND MANDATORY CONSIDERATIONS
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 intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl 500.212)
Clause 500.212 requires as follows:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)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)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c)of any other relevant matter.
In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl 500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No 108, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s 499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, 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.
The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The Department provided a copy of the applicant’s file to the Tribunal which contained the following relevant documents:
a.applicant’s student visa applicant lodged on 22 September 2023 together with the applicant’s statement of purpose addressing the genuine temporary entry (GTE) criteria (the 2023 GTE statement)
b.the delegate’s decision dated 18 March 2024
The applicant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal prior to the hearing:
a.a completed Student Visa Information form signed 1 April 2025 (SVI form)
b.Statutory declaration declared by [Mr A] on 27 June 2025
c.Statutory declaration declared by [Ms B] on 27 June 2025
d.Certificates of Attainment and Attendance issued by Greenwich College for:
i.General English Course (Intermediate level) on 29 February 2024
ii.Cambridge B1 Preliminary Preparation Course on 5 June 2024
iii.Cambridge B2 First Preparation Course on 29 August 2024
iv.IELTS Preparation Course on 6 January 2025
e.Confirmation of Enrolment for:
i.Certificate III in Patisserie for 27 January 2025 – 9 January 2026
ii.Certificate IV in Patisserie for 26 January 2026 – 10 July 2026
iii.Diploma of Hospitality Management for 13 July 2026 – 22 January 2027
f.Continuing Training Certificate issued by Tu Du Hospital, HCMC on 23 December 2016 for completion of the course “Orientation Program for Obstetrics and Gynecology Specialization, Academic Year 2015 – 2016” (original and English translation)
g.Labor contract between the applicant and the Trung Vuong Hospital dated 1 March 2002 (original and English translation)
h.Employment confirmation letter from the Deputy Director, Trung Vuong Hospital dated 21 February 2023 (original and English translation)
i.“GTE Rebuttal Statement for AAT Review” signed by the applicant on 26 June 2025 (the 2025 GTE statement)
j.Business plan prepared by the applicant for La Viennoiserie Saigon – A European-Style Bakery and Café in Ho Chi Minh City (undated)
Submissions were received from the applicant’s representative, Ms Nguyen, prior to the hearing by email on 2 July 2025. The applicant gave oral evidence to the Tribunal at the hearing on 8 July 2025. The applicant provided the following evidence to the Tribunal following the hearing:
a.Letter from [Institute 1] dated 3 July 2025
b.Notices of Assessment from the Australian Taxation Office for the year ended 30 June 2024 for [Ms B] and [Mr A]
c.Copy of the applicant’s Degree of Doctor of Medicine conferred by the University of Medicine and Pharmacy HCM City on 3 December 2015 (original and English translation)
Further submissions were received from the applicant’s representative, Ms Nguyen, by email on 16 July 2025.
The evidence and submissions are discussed below, to the extent that it is relevant to the genuine temporary entrant criteria.
Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?
Circumstances in Vietnam
The applicant’s parents live in Quang Ngai, in central Vietnam. The applicant has three siblings consisting of two sisters and one brother. One sister lives in Japan, one sister lives in Australia and her younger brother lives in Vietnam and is currently studying in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC).
The applicant referred to remaining emotionally and socially connected to her parents in Qhang Ngai and brother in Ho Chi Minh City and that this gives her strong reasons to return to Vietnam.[3] She stated she communicates frequently with them via video calls and messaging and she looks forward to returning to them once her study is completed. The applicant has returned to Vietnam once for a period of 8 days in May 2024 since being in Australia. The Tribunal notes that the applicant lived and worked in Trung Vuong, near HCMC, for over three years from 2019 until leaving Vietnam in June 2023. This is approximately 750 kilometres from Qhang Ngai and indicates the applicant was living independently from her parents for an extended period prior to leaving Vietnam.
[3] 2025 GTE statement
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant’s parents’ state of health or economic circumstances. The applicant is not working in Australia as a condition of her visa. There is no evidence that the applicant is currently providing her family in Vietnam with financial support. The applicant is receiving financial support from her sister and brother-in-law in Australia. There is no evidence that the applicant’s family in Vietnam are providing her with financial support while she is Australia. The applicant was living independently from her family prior to leaving Vietnam. While accepting the applicant maintains a close relationship with her parents and brother in Vietnam, the Tribunal is not satisfied this represents a strong incentive to return to Vietnam at this time.
Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant was employed as a doctor in the emergency department in Trung Vuong Hospital. She gave evidence that she was earning approximately 15,000,000 Vietnamese dong (VND) ($885AUD) a month.[4] The applicant left that position in 2023 to come to Australia. For reasons discussed below, she has now resigned from that position and does not currently have a job in Vietnam.
[4] The Tribunal has applied the current exchange rate of the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) as at 22 August 2025 in this decision, specifically $1 Australian dollar (AUD) being worth 16,956 Vietnamese Dong (VND): Exchange Rates | RBA. Using this exchange rate 15,000,000 VND = $885AUD.
The applicant does not personally own any assets in Vietnam. She gave evidence that there is a property in her parents’ names in Quang Ngai which she effectively owns. She stated the property was put in her parents’ names to avoid a dispute over property if she were to marry and there was a dispute if she separated. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has any legal claim to a property owned in her parents’ names in Quang Ngai, Vietnam.
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that she had savings of approximately 1 billion VND (approximately $58,976AUD)[5] in Vietnam from her work as a doctor. She stated that she has loaned these savings out to friends to maintain good relationships with them. She does not charge them interest and they are not currently making repayments. She stated there is no written loan agreement, no security for the loan and no evidence of the loans available. The loans have been made in good faith and the applicant stated the amounts would be returned to her when she requests it. The applicant stated that she has made loans to two friends and that one friend intended to buy land and another intended to open a café business. The Tribunal has not been provided with any documents to support the existence of these loans. Even if the Tribunal were to accept the existence of the loan, without any written agreement or security, there is a risk the loans would not be repaid to the applicant on her request, if at all. On the basis of the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has savings of 1 billion VND in Vietnam that she could access on her request.
Having regard to the applicant’s economic circumstances in Vietnam, specifically that the applicant does not have current employment, does not own assets and does not have access to savings, the Tribunal is not satisfied these circumstances are a significant incentive for the applicant to return to Vietnam.
The applicant now proposes to study patisserie and hospitality courses in Australia. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s reasons for not undertaking this course of study in Vietnam. The reasons given by the applicant are general and lack specific details. The applicant has stated that a degree from Australia is more valuable to international communities than a degree from Vietnam.[6] The Tribunal notes that the applicant is proposing to obtain vocational qualifications in Australia rather than a degree. The applicant stated a hope to gain experience at every level of patisserie and hospitality and improve her English skills. She referred to learning more from the diversity of cultures in Australia and a desire to travel and work in other countries such as Thailand, China or some European countries, such as Britain and France.
[6] SVI form signed 1 April 2025
The applicant conceded that similar patisserie or hospitality courses may exist in Vietnam.[7] Given the French influence in Vietnam as a legacy of French rule, at that patisseries originate from France, the Tribunal accepts the applicant’s assessment. However, the applicant states that such courses in Vietnam do not offer internationally recognised qualifications, structured practical training or access to modern commercial kitchens. The applicant further states the training is theoretical and lacks workplace integration. The applicant has not provided any further evidence to support these assertions. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence that she did not contemplate studying patisserie when she was living in Vietnam and did not explore options for study there. On the evidence available to it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant would not be able to access suitable vocational training in baking and hospitality in Vietnam.
[7] 2025 GTE statement
The applicant gave evidence that she does not have any commitment to perform military service in Vietnam, not any concerns of political or civil unrest in Vietnam. The Tribunal is satisfied that these factors to not present a disincentive for the applicant to return to Vietnam.
Circumstances in Australia
The Tribunal has considered the circumstances that led to the applicant leaving Vietnam and travelling to Australia. The applicant gave evidence of the stress of working in the emergency department during the COVID-19 pandemic during 2020-2022. She stated she witnessed many patients dying and felt helpless to save them. She had concerns about falling ill herself and dying. She was uncertain about what the future would hold for her. She travelled to Australia in November 2022 in order to visit her older sister and to relax and recover.
In January 2023 the applicant returned to Vietnam and her work in the hospital. She again experienced depression. She did not seek medical attention because she felt, as a doctor, she could recognise the signs for herself. She did not seek counselling or take medication. She tried to relax herself but felt the strategy did not work well. She did not feel ready to return to work and planned to take more leave.

The applicant travelled to Australia again on a tourist visa (subclass FA-600) arriving on 25 June 2023. She gave evidence that her initial intention was to visit her sister and brother-in-law and the return to her job. This is at odds with the applicant’s intention expressed in her 2023 GTE statement as:
I presented to my dean about my decision to temporarily stop my current job to improve the shortcomings that are barriers on my career path. He agreed and supported me in upgrading myself, for which I feel very grateful.
The Tribunal accepts this as evidence of the applicant forming an intention to study English in Australia and negotiating with her employer prior to leaving Vietnam to keep her position at the hospital open until her return. This is supported by the fact that the applicant lodged the student visa application on 22 September 2023, just prior to the expiry of her tourist visa, and commenced her studies in English in October 2023. The Tribunal finds the applicant formed an intention to study English in Australia prior to leaving Vietnam. Given this, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant intended to visit her family in Australia and return to Vietnam in 2023.
In her application for a student visa, the applicant stated an intention to study English to complement her qualifications and training as a doctor in Vietnam.[8] The applicant gave compelling reasons for wishing to study English and the relevance of the English courses to her employment as a doctor and future plans to work in international hospitals in Vietnam.[9] In her 2023 GTE statement, the applicant stated that having qualifications in English would enable her to apply to work in international hospitals in Vietnam and potentially double her salary.
[8] 2023 GTE statement
[9] 2023 GTE statement
Since lodging the student visa application, the applicant has completed several English courses. The qualifications attained by the applicant are set out at paragraph 13 above. The applicant completed her studies in English in November 2024 but did not return to Vietnam. The applicant enrolled in the proposed courses in patisserie and hospitality for the period January 2025 – January 2027 which require her to remain in Australia for a further two years. The applicant now expresses an intention to study patisserie and hospitality and open a patisserie in Vietnam. This intention was stated for the first time in the applicant’s SVI form signed on 1 April 2025.
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that she decided to change her career path while studying English and now intends to study patisserie. She stated when she decided this she notified the Trung Vuong hospital and cancelled her employment contract. She maintained that she would change her career path to pursue another type of business even if she has to return to Vietnam.
In the 2025 GTE statement, the applicant stated she experienced a sense of comfort and joy from baking and with the support of her sister and brother-in-law in Australia, decided to formally study patisserie and hospitality management. She stated her goal is to return to Vietnam and open a warm and welcoming bakery café. She states this is not an impulsive decision, rather a meaningful and carefully planned career transition based on personal experience, mental health recovery and a long-term vision.
In the 2025 GTE statement, the applicant strongly reaffirmed her sole purpose in coming to Australia is to pursue a quality education in hospitality and patisserie. She stated she cannot acquire these skills in Vietnam with the same quality, structure and international recognition. This is not consistent with the applicant’s earlier statement in the 2023 GTE statement, which the Tribunal accepts, that her intention in coming to Australia was to study English. It is also not consistent with the applicant’s evidence at the hearing that she decided to study patisserie while she was studying English in Australia. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s assertion that her sole purpose in coming to Australia was to study patisserie and hospitality.
The Tribunal raised concern at the hearing that the applicant’s intention to study patisserie and hospitality and return to Vietnam to open a patisserie is very different from the applicant’s initial stated intention to study English and return to her position as a doctor in Vietnam. The applicant explained at the hearing that prior to COVID-19 she enjoyed her job in the hospital, but during COVID-19 it was chaotic working on the frontline and seeing patients dying on a daily basis. Her initial goal in medicine was to save lives and she became hopeless and helpless when she could not achieve this and developed a new aspiration. The applicant stated she considered exploring a different field of medicine, such as pathology or testing, but did not pursue it as she had not received training in those fields. The Tribunal does not accept that an undergraduate medical degree would not cover the topic of pathology. The Tribunal accepts that it would been very difficult for the applicant working as a doctor in the emergency department of Trung Vuong Hospital during the COVID-19.
The Tribunal has concerns that the applicant did not refer to any of these difficulties or to experiencing depression and needing to have a break from her job in her 2023 GTE statement. The applicant instead referred to her position in the hospital as a “blessing” and “a job I love since childhood”. The Tribunal is unable to reconcile the applicant’s conflicting evidence that she loved her job in the hospital and intended to return to it, and her later evidence that she could no longer work in her job and intends to change her career path.
The Tribunal accepts that there is a potential for an applicant’s intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period. The Tribunal’s task is to assess the applicant’s current intentions and whether the applicant genuinely intends to remain in Australia temporarily.
The applicant’s representative submitted that “it is common and professionally reasonable for individuals to pursue vocational pathways aligned with personal interests and clearly defined entrepreneurial ambitions”. Further, it was submitted that the applicant has explained her rationale for changing her career path, citing a longstanding passion for hospitality. It is submitted that the applicant’s career shift is both rational and rehabilitative, reflecting a thoughtful transition from clinical service to creative and customer-focused hospitality.
The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has provided any evidence of a longstanding passion for hospitality. For the first time, in her 2025 GTE statement, the applicant stated she discovered that baking gave her a sense of comfort and joy and became a therapeutic outlet that enabled her to regain emotional balance. At the hearing, the applicant stated she formed the intention to study bakery while in Australia and did not have any intention to pursue such a course while living in Vietnam. She further stated that making cakes makes her happy and it is a personal interest. This speaks more to baking as a personal interest or hobby rather than a vocational calling. There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant having any prior interest or experience in the hospitality sector either in Vietnam or Australia.
In post-hearing submissions, the applicant’s representative characterised the applicant’s decision to undertake studies in patisserie and hospitality as a rehabilitative step toward building a new, sustainable future for herself back in Vietnam.
The Tribunal has concerns about the genuineness of the applicant’s proposed change in career path. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence, corroborated by evidence of a degree in medicine, that she had invested eight years of her life to study medicine and become a doctor, a job she had dreamed of since childhood.[10] The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence, corroborated by a letter from Trung Vuong Hospital, that the applicant had worked as a doctor in the emergency department there for over four years. The Tribunal also accepts the applicant’s evidence, corroborated by an employment contract from Trung Vuong Hospital, that she had a three-year contact of employment from March 2022 – March 2025 that her employer had agreed to put on hold while she was studying English in Australia. The Tribunal finds the applicant was establishing a career as a doctor in Vietnam, having devoted many years of study to become a doctor and enjoyed secure employment prior to leaving Vietnam.
[10] 2023 GTE statement
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has been diagnosed with depression or sought professional treatment for her mental health. The first time the applicant has raised her mental health condition was in the 2025 GTE statement in June 2025, where she claims to have experienced symptoms of depression since 2022. The Tribunal would expect that a medically trained person would seek assistance and treatment for a common and treatable mental health condition before leaving a career in the medical professional that they have dreamed of since childhood. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that she felt able to identify and manage her symptoms herself. On the basis of the applicant’s evidence, the Tribunal accepts the applicant experienced stress and symptoms of depression while working in the emergency department of Trung Vuong hospital during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is diagnosed with a mental health condition that means she is no longer able to continue working as a doctor or in the medical field.
There is no evidence of the applicant exploring other jobs in the medical field in Vietnam that would not have the same degree of stress as an emergency department, such as in research. The applicant noted in her 2023 GTE statement her pride in graduating from the University of Medicine and Pharmacy in HCMC because it is a prestigious school in Vietnam for medical research and belongs to the Vietnamese National University. In the absence of any information to the contrary, the Tribunal accepts the applicant holds a medical degree from an institution respected for its research and finds the applicant could obtain employment in other areas of medicine in Vietnam should she wish to do so.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal of the applicant exploring a change in career path from medicine to bakery in Vietnam, either by undertaking any work in the hospitality sector or exploring options for studying patisserie in Vietnam.
On the applicant’s evidence, she has left secure employment as a doctor in Vietnam in order to study patisserie in Australia. The Tribunal finds that resigning from secure employment in Vietnam is indicative of an intention to remain in Australia on an on-going basis.
On the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s intention to study patisserie is a step toward a genuine intention to pursue a new career path. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s intention to study patisserie is primarily for the purposes of maintaining on-going residence in Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s ties to family and community in Australia. The applicant states that she is fully supported in Australia by her sister and brother-in-law who are Australian citizens.[11] They provide her with accommodation, living expenses and moral support during her studies. She does not pay rent and they cover her tuition fees and she lives with them in a stable and supportive environment. This is supported by the statutory declarations provided by the applicant’s sister, [Ms B] and brother-in-law, [Mr A]. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing that her sister has an 8-year-old son and the applicant is close to both her sister and her nephew.
[11] 2025 GTE statement
In a statutory declaration provided to the Tribunal, the applicant’s brother-in-law, [Mr A], declared that the applicant resides with his family and he and his wife provide financial support to the applicant. He stated he is willing and able to continue to support her until she completes her studies. He further stated that he supports the applicant’s career transition to hospitality and long-term vision to open a bakery business in Vietnam. He declared the applicant maintains strong family ties in Vietnam and her return after study is certain. A Notice of Assessment from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the period ending 30 June 2024, confirms [Mr A]’s taxable income of $[Amount] per annum. A summary of earnings dated 28 April 2025 provided by [Mr A]’s employer confirms his basic salary of $[Amount] per annum. The Tribunal accepts [Mr A] is willing and able to support the applicant while she is studying in Australia.
The applicant’s sister, [Ms B], provided a statutory declaration declared on 27 June 2025 to the Tribunal. [Ms B]’s declaration is in similar terms to her husband’s and confirms the support they are giving and are willing to give the applicant while she is studying in Australia. [Ms B] also states that she fully supports the applicant’s study plans in Patisserie and Hospitality Management as it aligns with her interests and future career goals to establish a bakery business in Vietnam. A Notice of Assessment from the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the period ending 30 June 2024, confirms [Ms B]’s taxable income of $[Amount] per annum.
The Tribunal accepts [Mr and Ms A/B] are willing and able to financially support the applicant while she is studying in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s close and supportive relationship with her sister, brother-in-law and nephew, who are Australian citizens, is a strong incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s knowledge of Australia and the proposed courses. The Tribunal notes the applicant has now been in Australia for over two years and has gained knowledge of living and studying in Australia through her studies in English. In the SVI form signed on 1 April 2025, the applicant stated that she chose [Institute 1] to study the proposed courses in patisserie and hospitality because of their wonderful student services, comfortable buildings, modern study equipment and location in Melbourne.
At the hearing, the applicant was able to demonstrate a basic knowledge of the Certificate III in Patisserie and the subjects she is undertaking. The applicant stated she chose to study in Australia rather than Vietnam as she intends to open a chain of bakeries in Vietnam in accordance with European standards. She did not feel that Vietnamese standards are up to European standards.
Following the hearing, the applicant provided a letter dated 3 July 2025 from the Manager of Compliance and Academic Support at [Institute 1] confirming the applicant commenced the Certificate III in Patisserie on 27 January 2025 and has completed six out of 21 units.
The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has a basic knowledge of the proposed courses and is currently progressing in the Certificate III in Patisserie at [Institute 1].
Future plans
The Tribunal has considered the value of course to applicant’s future. The Tribunal has concerns that the proposed courses are vocational and not consistent with the applicant’s previous level of study, having been awarded a degree in medicine and engaged in a 12-month training programme in obstetrics and gynaecology. In her 2023 GTE statement, the applicant stated that having qualifications in English would enable her to apply to work in international hospitals in Vietnam and potentially double her salary. The Tribunal accepts this and is satisfied that the applicant’s studies in English would assist the applicant to improve her employment as a doctor in Vietnam. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s proposed courses in patisserie and hospitality are relevant to her previous qualifications and experience in medicine or will improve her employment prospects as a doctor in Vietnam.
The applicant now states her future plan is to open a patisserie in Vietnam. In the SVI form signed 1 April 2025, the applicant expressed an intention to return to Vietnam upon completion of her studies to apply the knowledge and skills acquired in Australia. She stated her goal is to contribute to the growth and development of the hospitality industry in Vietnam and to open a small European bakery in her hometown. She estimated she could earn $500-$800AUD per week ($2,000 - $3,200 per month) in Vietnam after obtaining qualifications from the proposed courses. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s evidence that she was earning $885AUD per month working as an emergency doctor in Vietnam. This would mean the applicant, working self-employed in a patisserie with no previous experience in the sector, would be earning two to three times more than she was earning as a doctor with four years experience. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s income estimates are accurate or reliable. There has been no evidence provided to the Tribunal of income levels in Vietnam for a person operating a patisserie with similar qualifications and experience to the applicant.
The applicant provided to the Tribunal a business plan (undated) for LaViennoiserie Saigon – A European-Style Bakery and Café in Ho Chi Minh City (HCMC), with a launch of early 2028 in District 1 or 3 of HCMC. The plan proposes that the business will be a premium European-style bakery offering authentic French and Austrian pastries. The target market is young urban professionals, returning Vietnamese expatriates, international tourists and boutique event organisers. In the business plan, the applicant identifies a market gap, stating:
Most bakeries in HCMC offer fusion or commercialised French-style items. No local cafés specialise in plated desserts or seasonal dessert degustation menus. Growing demand for “luxury café culture” like that in Melbourne, Paris or Tokyo.
The applicant’s representative submitted that this is evidence of credible and specific business intentions that integrate international baking techniques with Vietnamese culinary traditions. It is submitted that this represents a solid personal career plan but also contributes economically and culturally to Vietnam. In post-hearing submissions, the applicant’s representative states the business plan demonstrates the applicant has conducted thorough market analysis and identified a gap. The Tribunal is not satisfied the analysis extracted above represents a thorough market analysis. There is no reference to comparable businesses or socio-economic data.
At the hearing, the applicant estimated that she would require six months rent in advance for premises (120 – 600 million VND) and equipment (150 – 200 million VND) as start-up costs for a patisserie in District 1 or 3 in HCMC. This would require 270 – 800 million VND[12] in start-up costs. She stated she would expect to break even in the first stage of setting the business, but after one or two years would expect to earn 30 - 40 million VND[13] per month. The applicant planned to employ staff in the business and estimated that the cost of employing two bakers and 3 salespeople would be about 20 – 30 million VND[14] per month. On the applicant’s evidence, she would be earning more per month than five employees in total within two to three years of operation. The Tribunal does not accept this is realistic. In the absence of any comparative information to substantiate these estimates, the Tribunal is not prepared to accept the applicant’s estimate of her future earnings from running a patisserie.
[12] Approximately $16,000 - $47,000AUD
[13] $1,770 -$2,360AUD
[14] $1,180 - $1,770AUD
The applicant stated that she would be able to fund the establishment of a chain of bakeries in Vietnam from her savings as a doctor and financial support from family members if she requires it. As discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has access to 1 billion VND in savings upon request in Vietnam. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has a legally enforceable interest in a property owned by her parents and finds it unlikely she would sell her parents’ property in any event. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s sister and brother-in-law are willing and able to financially support the applicant until she completes her studies in Australia. They have not indicated they would provide funds to assist her to establish a patisserie in Vietnam. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant would have access to sufficient funds to open a patisserie on her return to Vietnam.

Having considered each of the factors outlined above, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s future plan to open a patisserie in Vietnam is realistic or genuine.
Immigration history
The applicant first travelled to Australia for a holiday on a tourist visa (subclass FA-600) arriving on 1 November 2022 and returning to Vietnam on 30 January 2023. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant complied with the conditions of this visa.
The applicant returned to Australia on a further tourist visa (subclass FA-600) on 25 June 2023. The applicant lodged the student visa application on 22 September 2023.
The applicant has now been in Australia on a bridging visa for nearly two years undertaking a series of short courses in English and now in patisserie. There is a condition attached to the visa that the applicant not work (condition 8101). There is no evidence that the applicant has worked while in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has complied with this condition.
In the 2025 GTE statement that applicant stated that she has complied with all visa conditions and has not breached any immigration laws. The Tribunal notes that the applicant initially arrived in Australia on a tourist visa (subclass FA-600) on 25 June 2023. The Tribunal has found that the applicant formed an intention to study English in Australia prior to leaving Vietnam, which is not consistent with a person travelling to Australia for a short stay for the purposes of tourism.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has applied for or been refused any other visas in Australia or in another country.
Conclusion
Having weighed all the factors discussed above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s stated intention to change her career path from the field of medicine to opening her own patisserie is genuine. As such, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s intention to study patisserie and hospitality in order to pursue this future plan to open a patisserie is genuine.
On balance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has strong ties to her family in Australia, who are Australian residents, and this currently operates as more of an incentive to remain in Australia that her ties to her family in Vietnam.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant is engaging in further study in order to maintain on-going residence in Australia. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant intends to return to Vietnam at the conclusion of her studies.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl 500.212(a).
Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl 500.212.
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.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Dates of hearing(s): 8 July 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Ms THI NGOC ANH NGUYEN (MARN: 1791946)
Attachment – Direction No 108
DIRECTION NUMBER 108 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, CLARE O’NEIL, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated:
Clare O’Neil

Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security
Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.
Part 1 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 108 – Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 108.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 23 March 2024.
Revocation
Direction No. 69, given under section 499 of the Act, is revoked.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Finally determined has the same meaning as is set out in subsections 5(9) and (9A) of the Act.
Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.
Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.
Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.
Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa
Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
Application
This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant against the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications (as applicable).
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application.
This Direction applies in relation to Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made before 23 March 2024 but not finally determined on that date, including such visa applications that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for a Student visa and seek to satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, or an application for a Student Guardian visa and seek to satisfy the primary criteria.
Note: Direction No. 106 applies in relation to Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made on or after 23 March 2024, including visa applications made on or after that date that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa program that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa program must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia. A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.
An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
a) the applicant’s circumstances; and
b)the applicant’s immigration history; and
c)if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
d)any other relevant matter
This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a) to d), to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
Part 2 – Directions
Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion
1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:
a)considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and
b)considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker)
3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.
4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:
a)information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;
b)the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;
c)the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and
d)apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application or Student Guardian visa application.
5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances
6.Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.
7.For primary applicants of Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances in their home country
9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a)whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;
b)the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;
c)economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;
d)military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and
e)political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.
10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.
The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia
11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a)The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;
b)evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;
c)whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;
d)whether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and
e)the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.
Value of the course to the applicant’s future
12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:
a)whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and
b)relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and
c)remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.
The applicant's immigration history
13.An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.
14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a)Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and
ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.
iii.b. Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
iv.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;
v.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
vi.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and
vii.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance.
If the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant
15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.
Any other relevant matters
16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.