Alghizzawi (Migration)

[2021] AATA 3464

Alghizzawi (Migration) [2021] AATA 3464 (25 August 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Mahmoud Ahmad Mahmoud Alghizzawi

CASE NUMBER:  1935145

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/4498185

MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno

DATE:25 August 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 25 August 2021 at 12:55pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa –– proposed courses have minimal relevance to future work – six band members all submitted applications for student visas at around the same time – not a genuine temporary entrant –  – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360, 363, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 500.212

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 Home Affairs on 26 November 2019 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 for the visa on 9 September 2019. 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.

3. 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 (the Regulations). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirement for the grant of a student visa.

4. On 1 July 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information about his enrolment and the genuine temporary entrant criteria in writing. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s email address, which he had provided to the Tribunal, and advised that if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 15 July 2021, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The review applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and instead wrote to the Tribunal requesting an extension of time.  He said that the Tribunal’s letter “went to the other”, which the Tribunal assumes meant it went to another email address, but he attached a screen shot of the email sent by the Tribunal attaching its letter dated 1 July 2021.  He requested an additional 3 – 7 days to provide the requested information.  On 26 July 2021, the Tribunal sent a letter to the applicant refusing to grant the requested extension of time.  The Tribunal considers that the request for information was sent to the correct email address for the applicant and he clearly received the email, as demonstrated by the screenshot he sent to the Tribunal. 

6. On 19 August 2021, the applicant sent the Tribunal a s.359(2) form containing the requested student visa application information.  In it, he stated that he consented to the Tribunal making a decision without conducting a hearing. 

7. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. 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.

10. 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.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

11. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘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.

12. 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.

13. The Tribunal has had regard to all of the documents submitted to it by the applicant and also to the contents of the Department’s file.

14. The applicant is a 29 year old man from Jordan.  On 4 June 2019, he was granted a temporary activity entertainment (class CG) (subclass 408) visa.  He was a flute player in a band who came to Australia with his band members, arriving in Australia on 18 June 2019.  His visa remained valid for 3 months, however his work agreement specified that he was required in Australia from 18 June 2019 until only 30 June 2019.  Instead of returning to Jordan, he and his band mates enrolled in the following courses:

    ·     English for General Purpose – commencing on 26 August 2019 and ending on 9 February 2020;

    ·     Certificate IV in Human Resources – commencing on 17 February 2020 and ending on 14 February 2021;

    ·     Diploma of Human Resources Management – commencing on 23 August 2021 and ending on  19 February 2023; and

    ·     Advanced Diploma of Management (Human Resources) – commencing on 27 February 2023 and ending on 25 August 2024.

    (“the proposed courses”)

15. The applicant explained in his s.359(2) written response that the reason why he was not studying human resources in his home country was because of the following:

    Initially I had a plan to perform some activity as per Subclass 408 visa.  While going to Australia I did not have an intention to study straight away.  However, as many specialists of my professional and educational background, was considering going abroad for study in the future.  While being there I met many people, who introduced me to some education providers and explained me benefits of education in Australia.  You have noticed that I am undertaking a study which has a lower level than master’s degree.  However, vocational education in Australia provides handful skills which cannot be substituted by either bachelor or master in my country.  Master’s degree in Jordan is a mix of lectures and book studies.  After possible completion of master’s degree, I would be gained academic knowledge, which are useful to teach the same subject or to lead large HR department.  But these positions required some previously accrued knowledge and experience.  Master certificate will not allow me to work on entry level position in HR as I will be considered as overqualified.  Therefore, I believe that additional chosen education can help me to work using my bachelor’s degree in administrative science with additional duties as HR manager or HR assistant.  In addition, I would like to note that I am not changing my field significantly, Many subjects from my bachelor’s degree are relating to HR.  For example, I studied Management, Economics, Organisational Behaviour and so on.  The university provided with excellent theoretical knowledge.  But they did not teach, for example, how to create Job Ad, various reports and other practical skills which can be gained o [sic] undergraduate courses only.  I am interested to work in Qatar as it is multinational country which accept both, Jordanian and Australian education.  Good knowledge of how to manage human resources will help me to get managerial position in large international companies.  Using the same skills and degree in Australia will not give me such straight forward career chances as I would need to gain Australian bachelor.  I see Qatar or my home country Jordan as more appropriate to use both of my education experience.  This is an intensive for me to leave Australia after completion of my study.

16. As understood by the Tribunal, the applicant is not studying human resources in his home country because vocational courses are not taught in Jordan and he would have to study a Bachelor or Master degree, which is a mixture of lecture and book study, which is suitable for teaching roles or leading a large human resource department.  A Bachelor of Master degree would lead to higher level human resource positions and he would be considered overqualified for lower entry level positions.  The Tribunal does not consider these are sound reasons for not studying such courses in his home country.  For a start,  Bachelor or Master degrees are usually completed in two or three years.  The proposed courses require the applicant to study for five years, a much longer period of study.  Second, the Tribunal finds it curious that the applicant would be interested in entry level jobs after studying for such a long time and would want a high level and therefore higher paying role.  In the Tribunal’s experience, most students coming before it express an interest in going into middle or upper management upon the completion of their studies.  The Tribunal considers the applicant has a fundamental misunderstanding of what the benefits are of a Bachelor or Master degree.  Therefore, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has sound reasons for not undertaking similar courses to the proposed courses in his home country when there are Bachelor and Master degrees in human resources taught in Jordan.

17. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s personal ties to his home country and also his economic circumstances.  Both of parents and a brother reside in Jordan.  He also has a brother and sister living in the United Arab Emirates.  He said that he calls his family on a daily basis by Facetime and also speaks to them by a WhatsApp chat group.  He said they also stay in contact by Facebook and Instagram so they can see what he has been up to in Australia and he can keep updated about their activities where they are.  He said he was in a “flok bank” (which the Tribunal understands is a band) and he used to perform at special events.  He also said that he had a job which allowed him to “meet and get to know many people” in his community.  He wrote in his response that he was employed as a digital marketing employee for marketing agency from May 2015 until June 2019 when he travelled to Australia.  He said he was earning the equivalent of around AUS $19,680 per annum.  No reference letter, payslips, tax records or other such evidence was provided which would have confirmed this employment.

18. In a two page undated statement from the applicant, he stated:

    I do not agree with your assumption that I have no close ties to my country and that the ties I have are not enough of an incentive to return to Jordan. This is not true because my whole family is in Jordan, my whole life is there.  I would not be able to stay away from my home, my parents and everything that I know and love.  I want to improve my life and create opportunities for myself to increase my quality of life and therefore that of my family… I do not want to remain in Australia permanently, my life is in Jordan, I want to live and build my future there.  Studying here in Australia simply helps to secure a successful future in my country.

19. The Tribunal might have been persuaded by this statement, were it not for other claims made by the applicant.  It is not correct that his whole family lives in Jordan.  His brother and sister live in the UAE.  In his s.359(2) response, he said that he wants to concentrate on finding work in either Qatar or the UAE.  While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant does have family in Jordan, which means he does have personal ties to the country, it does not accept that having family in Jordan is a strong incentive for him to return there.  He has been left his life in Jordan and has now been living in Australia for the last two years.  He has a further three years of study planned in Australia.  He claims that he did not have any intention of studying here in Australia when he arrived.  However, he was able to quickly change plans from a short two week stay into a five year stay.  This demonstrates that he is able to stay away from his home country, his parents and “everything he knows and loves” for a significantly long period of time. 

20. In relation to his economic circumstances, as noted above there is no supporting evidence with regards to his employment in Jordan prior to coming to Australia.  He now has employment as a cashier and he earns around $19,500, which appears to be sufficient to cover his living expenses.  He stated that owns land in Jordan but provided no documents supporting this claim.  He also said that his father has the capacity to fund his time studying in Australia but has not provided any documents detailing this financial support to the Tribunal.  Taking all of these matters into account, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s economic circumstances would be an incentive for him to return to Jordan.

21. There is no evidence that the applicant is using the student visa to avoid military service commitments or because of any political or civil unrest in his home country.

22. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.  As noted above, he has been employed in Australia since May 2020 as a cashier and is earning around $19,500 per annum, which covers his living expenses.  It is not known if he lives alone, with local Australians, or with some or all of his six band mates.  But what the Tribunal does know from Department records is that the applicant did not make the decision alone to remain in Australia after the initial agreement period of performance ended.  The other six members of his band also applied for student visas and enrolled in the same courses at the same education provider as the applicant.  Since arriving in Australia, the applicant has made connections and ties with the Jordanian community association here.  He has friends from college in addition to his band members, and he used to volunteer to perform before the Covid-19 pandemic restrictions came into force. 

23. The Tribunal considers that the abovementioned matters demonstrate that the applicant does have ties to Australia and that having employment, friends and ties to the community are all matters that would be an incentive for the applicant to want to remain in.  The circumstances in which the applicant arrived in Australia the courses that he and his band members have all enrolled suggest that there is another reason beyond study that is motivating the applicant to want to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant is using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence in Australia and that in doing so, he is attempting to circumvent the intentions of the migration program. 

24. The Tribunal has also had regard to the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future.  In 2014, the applicant completed a Bachelor degree in Administrative Sciences.  He said that this course included subjects relating to human resources such as management, economics and organisational behaviour.  But the course did not teach matters such as creating job ads, report writing and “other practical skills”.  The Tribunal considers that the proposed courses are not consistent with the applicant’s current level of education.  He has studied at the Bachelor level and has now moved down to studying at the vocational level. 

25. The applicant said that he wants to find work in Qatar working for a large international company in a managerial position.  He said that a Bachelor or Master degree in human resources obtained from his home country would lead to a teaching job or leading a large human resources department.  But these qualifications would mean he would be overqualified for entry level positions.  In his undated statement to the Tribunal, the applicant discussed why he was studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management.  This is not simply a typographical error.  He referred to the leadership and management course on three occasions.  He said this course would allow him to become team leader, branch manager and operations manager. 

26. The applicant also said that he wants to concentrate no on being a flute player but rather on business, administrative, human resources and other “standard processes” of businesses in Qatar or the UAE. After completing the proposed courses, he anticipates he would earn the equivalent of AUS $30,000 to $40,000 in Jordan or between $60,000 to $100,000 working in a gulf country such as Qatar. 

27. The Tribunal is not convinced that the proposed courses will assist the applicant in obtaining work in Qatar, the UAE or Jordan any more than his current qualification and work experience would.  As stated by the applicant, his Bachelor degree contained much of what is currently learning about in the proposed courses.  The lack of teaching how to post job advertisements, writing reports or practical skills are skills that can be easily and quickly learnt in the work force and are not likely to be taught in a course of study.  Indeed, the applicant did not provide any evidence about the course structure and components of any of the proposed courses.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed courses are relevant to his previous employment in Jordan but would be a relevant to future work in human resources.

28. In relation to remuneration, the Tribunal has difficulty accepting the assertions of the applicant about this.  It is unclear why his remuneration would more than double with the addition of the proposed courses, all of which are at a level lower than the Bachelor degree the applicant already possesses. For example, there were no job advertisements setting out the qualifications required and salaries, which would corroborate the applicant’s assertions.

1. Lastly, the Tribunal has considered the applicant’s immigration history.  There is no evidence suggesting he has ever been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled by Australia or any other country.  Nor is there evidence suggesting he has not complied with the conditions of his visas whilst residing in Australia.  However, the Tribunal is concerned with the circumstances in which he arrived and then decided to remain here.  It is concerning that it was not just the applicant who decided to remain and study here.  Department records indicate that it was the applicant together with his six band members who all submitted applications for student visas at around the same time for the purpose of them all studying the same courses at the same education provider.  No explanation about this has been provided by the applicant.  These circumstances are suspicious and lead the Tribunal to suspect that the applicant’s stated intentions are not genuine and that there is reason other than study that he and his six fellow band members have remained in Australia.

2. There were no other relevant matters raised by the applicant for consideration. 

3. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Therefore, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

4. 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.

5. 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

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

   Elizabeth Tueno
   Member

   
   

   Attachment – Direction No.69

   DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS

   (Section 499)

   I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

   Dated: 18 April 2016

   Peter Dutton

   
   

   Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

   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 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary

   Name of Direction

   This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.

   It may be cited as Direction No. 69.

   Commencement

   This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.

   Interpretation

   Act means the Migration Act 1958.

   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’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

   This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.

   The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.

   Preamble

   The Australian Government operates a student visa programme 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 programme 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 of Direction No. 69 - 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.

   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 Subclass 500 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;

   dwhether 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.

   b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:

   i.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;

   ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

   iii.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

   iv.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 Subclass 500 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.