Akepakinwijit (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Akepakinwijit, a Thai citizen seeking a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant's previous student visas had been granted, but the delegate had refused the current application, a decision the applicant sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criterion for the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by the GTE criterion, and whether the applicant had provided forthright information regarding their study history. The Tribunal was bound to consider and apply Direction No. 69, issued by the Minister under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958, which provides guidance on assessing the GTE criterion. This involved evaluating the applicant's circumstances in their home country and in Australia, the value of the proposed course to their future, and their immigration history.

The Tribunal noted the applicant's extensive history of enrolling in various courses, including English language certificates, commercial cookery, beauty therapy, massage therapy, and hospitality diplomas, with a significant number of these courses not being completed. The Tribunal was particularly troubled by the applicant's failure to mention the commercial cookery courses in their response to a section 359(2) letter, especially given a previous statement of purpose indicating an intention to open a restaurant in Bangkok and a subsequent statement that they found cooking difficult and did not wish to study it. This omission raised concerns about the applicant's candour. While acknowledging that career and study pathways can change, the Tribunal found that the applicant's overall study history and the lack of transparency regarding certain courses cast doubt on their genuine intention to be a temporary entrant.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. As the applicant did not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the visa.