Ali (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 903

ALI (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 903 (3 APRIL 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Ahsan Ali
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2318540

Tribunal:General Member, J McLeod
Place:Melbourne
Date: 3 April 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 03 April 2025 at 9:30pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa – using the student visa programme to circumvent the migration programme – not a genuine student who intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily– significant period of time living in Australia – lack of meaningful knowledge of the intended course – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212
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 8 November 2023 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 30 August 2023.[1] 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 they were not satisfied the applicant’s intention was genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
[1] 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.
On 30 August 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal[2] to have this decision reviewed. On 5 March 2025, he appeared in a video hearing before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments. He was represented for part of the review but informed the Tribunal at the hearing that he did not have representation for the purpose of the hearing.
[2] 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), applications for review to the AAT that were not finalised before 14 October 2024 are taken to be an application for review to the Tribunal. The Transitional Act gives the Tribunal the authority to continue and finalise any aspect of the review not already completed by the AAT. This decision and statement of reasons is made by the Tribunal.
In addition to his evidence given at the Tribunal hearing, the Tribunal has considered the written documents, statements and other documentary evidence on the Tribunal and Department files. Set out below is the Tribunal’s analysis of the relevant evidence and its reasoning in reaching the finding that the applicant does not meet the criteria in issue. The Tribunal therefore considers the decision under review should be affirmed.
CRITERIA IN ISSUE
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. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl 500.212).
Cl 500.212 Genuine applicant for entry and stay, as a student
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
Cl 500.212(a): Intention to genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily as a student
The applicant is a 28 year old man from Lahore in Pakistan. He is married and living with his wife in Australia. His parents and sister reside in Lahore, Pakistan. His wife’s parents live 45 minutes from Islamabad, Pakistan.
The applicant completed high school. In 2016 he studied for around eight months in the United Kingdom (UK) in a course called ‘International Year One’ which he described as essentially a Diploma in Business Management with eight core units in that field.
The applicant has held two previous student visas between March 2017 and March 2020, and November 2021 and August 2023 during which he enrolled several times in a Bachelor of Arts majoring in International Relations and Politics and Policy Studies through Deakin University. However, the applicant confirmed to the Tribunal at the hearing that he has not yet completed this course. [3] He confirmed his enrolment had been cancelled several times for various reasons. He is in fact now re-enrolled and actively studying it again – though this time he is studying it is online and part time. As it is not full-time, the applicant submitted he cannot provide an active Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) for this course. The Tribunal is satisfied this is the case and notes that as the course is not considered a ‘full time registered course’ as per cl 500.211, it is therefore not a ‘course of study’ as required under cl 500.211 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations. The applicant submits that he is just trying to finish it because he feels like a failure and didn’t accomplish anything with it; he now just wants to get it done. As it is online, he acknowledges that he can complete this course from anywhere, including his home country, Pakistan. This course is not a subject of the current visa application however, the Tribunal considers it relevant to the applicant’s overall circumstances.
[3] The Tribunal notes that his PRISMS record marks the enrolment status as ‘Finished’ but the Tribunal considers this is because according to the PRISMS user guide, a CoE status changes to Finished in one of two circumstances: (1) when a Student Course Variation report is completed to report that a student has finished their course; or (2) after the course end date on the CoE has passed, It is the latter that occurred in the applicant’s case. The applicant confirmed at the Tribunal hearing that he has not in fact finished this course. Further, as it is a part time course, he would not have a CoE for which and therefore his active part time enrolment would not appear in PRISMS.
This visa application concerns his application for a third Australian student visa, lodged in August 2023. When the applicant applied for this visa, he proposed to study three courses: (1) Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology; (2) Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis; and (3) Diploma of Leadership and Management.
The applicant completed the Certificate III by June 2024, and is on track to complete the certificate IV in April 2025. The applicant was enrolled to then complete a Diploma in Leadership Management through the Sterling Business College commencing in May 2025, but this enrolment was cancelled in October 2024 because the provider is unable to deliver the course. However, it is of concern to the Tribunal that the applicant did not know about this cancellation until the Tribunal raised it with him at the hearing. He said his consultants had provided him with a CoE for the course a few days earlier, so they must also be unaware. Following the hearing, he provided evidence that he has now been approved to undertake a Diploma in Leadership Management through Polytechnic Victoria, commencing 27 April 2025 and with expected completion in April 2026. He now has an active CoE for this course (and also for the Certificate IV, although that course will conclude this month).
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant that his Bachelor studies (majoring in international and politics) and his automotive studies are in divergent fields. He agreed it does not reflect a logical flow of education and he said he has never achieved a logical flow. He has tried lots of different things. The international politics degree was something he decided to pursue when he was much younger, at 20 years old and he has changed a lot. While he initially just wanted a degree in something with a global mindset, he struggled while he was here studying and realised that he does not have a good chance in international relations; his peers were much better suited to the field. He said over the years he has realised that he wants to have his own business because he does not fit in in professional organised places. He submits he has realised he is more practical, and he needs to find his own way to do things. He said that during the COVID lockdowns he was driving an Uber with a car which had recurring problems, and he developed a relationship with the mechanics. He always liked cars and he enjoys automotive work and he sees that as a pathway to something that suits him. In addition to studying this he has provided evidence that he has been working at a mechanics workshop in Australia.
The applicant told the Tribunal that with his Certificate IV in Mechanical Diagnosis almost complete, he wants to study the Diploma in Leadership Management because it complements both his Bachelor degree studies and his automotive studies, providing him with greater job prospects, and providing him with the skills to one day set up his own automotive workshop. He has submitted that he wants to do this in his own community and has referred to his friend’s charity which motivates him to do something for his community which would offering affordable repairs. While there may be some merit in the course for running one’s own workshop and these motivations, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s explanation to be a loose one overall and there is no credible evidence of him having anything more than an idea for establishing any such business. Further, the linkage to the degree is unconvincing noting the applicant’s concession that he is ill suited to international relations or politics work. As for his future plans, as noted below, the applicant also floated the idea of doing further studies – a Masters, and fields of interest for him are management of space resources or project management. The Tribunal is not convinced the applicant has any realistic plan to return and open an automotive shop.
Of greater concern however, as flagged above, is the applicant’s lack of knowledge about the intended course of study and provider for his only remaining course after this month. When the Tribunal raised with the applicant at the hearing that his enrolment at Sterling Business College had been cancelled, the applicant said he didn’t know that was the College’s name. He said he thinks its in the city (CBD) and it was the location he was most concerned about. He said he didn’t know it had been cancelled and would have to ask his representative. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it was surprised he wouldn’t know about the cancellation. The Tribunal also expressed concern that he didn’t know what College he had been intending to study it through. The applicant indicated that he understood the concerns but the last time he did anything in relation to this College was in November or December 2023. He said it just hasn’t been on his mind because he has been more concerned with his Certificate IV and Deakin studies. He said that he was expecting that when he completes the Certificate IV, the consultant would give him the orientation information for this College, as he has done for the other courses.
The Tribunal raised with the applicant that as at that time (of the hearing), as his Sterling College Diploma enrolment had been cancelled, he only had an active CoE for the Certificate IV which he would complete by April 2024. It raised with him that enrolment in a registered course of study is a requirement of the visa. As above, since the hearing the applicant has enrolled in the course through a different provider and provided the CoE. It is unclear on the evidence whether it was this CoE that the applicant obtained from his consultant in the days prior to the hearing. Nevertheless, the issue for the Tribunal is the applicant’s total lack of awareness about his education provider and the next steps for his studies. It notes his comment about his present focus, but it is not satisfied he has demonstrated any meaningful knowledge of the intended course and provider for a course he would have been due to commence within the next few months.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his family ties and circumstances. He is living in Australia with his wife, whom he married in January 2025. His wife is also a national of Pakistan and is a PhD candidate at Monash University and has a visa until 2029. She is on a scholarship and performs a teaching role. He submits that their plan is to complete their education and that she is motivating him to complete his. As discussed below, he indicated he would go back to Pakistan after his courses are complete, and he would cope. However, he also indicated he wants to complete his Bachelor degree and to do a Masters if the opportunity arises. When asked what field he would want to do that in, he said he had been thinking about a Masters in management of space resources, or project management. The Tribunal acknowledges that this may not necessarily mean immediately after the Diploma, but the Tribunal considers it further signifies the applicant’s openness to remaining and changing plans at the conclusion of the Diploma.
The Tribunal clearly raised its concerns with the applicant. It put to the applicant some information that would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review. It put to the applicant that he has been in Australia almost eight years now, and his proposed course (Diploma of Leadership and Management) would take him to almost nine years, and that it was hard for the Tribunal to accept that he only intended to stay in Australia temporarily. It put to him that he had jumped around in his course direction between completely unrelated fields from academic studies from politics in international relations to mechanics and there was a very long period (with all the cancelled university enrolments) which appears from his PRISMS record that he wasn’t studying at all.
The applicant responded that the reason for the long gap in his studies was because Deakin let him go, and he was looking for other places to study and was being presented with options by education consultants that weren’t working out. On the jumping around different course fields, he said at school he had studied sciences, then business management and accounting in the UK, and then Arts and Politics in Australia including some units of psychology and sociology and now it is mechanics. And, he said, in his future might be space management or project management. He said he understands how it looks but he has been an explorer at heart. He said he doesn’t know what he wants to do but he still wants to complete those areas of studies.
The Tribunal explained that the relevance and consequence of all this is that it may find he is using the student visa program as a means of staying longer or maintaining his residence in Australia. It put to the applicant that a student visa applicant must be a genuine temporary entrant, not just a student. The Tribunal put to the applicant that along with the concerns raised above, he has already been here eight years and he is now married to a person who is in Australia and will presumably be living here for at least the next three years, and he has a job here. It noted that (as at the hearing date) there was a big question mark over his Diploma course (as his enrolment had been cancelled at the time this was discussed) and there is no reason he cannot complete his online university course from Pakistan. The applicant responded that he had not known about the cancelled Diploma course and that his consultants had provided him with a CoE for it days earlier so it seems they mustn’t know either. He said regarding his wife, he will have to cope if he has to return to Pakistan. He said he has been through things on his own and this time he has another person, so he will just have to bear it. Regarding staying eight years, he said he had only enjoyed the first seven days. He arrived here, then returned soon after as he broke up with his previous girlfriend and then came back again. He said it had been constant struggles in Australia since then and it wasn’t deliberate that he has stayed for so long.
The Tribunal discussed with the applicant his incentives to return to Pakistan. He said he does not have a choice about it. He is his parents’ son (though he has a sister) and his wife has two younger brothers. Their parents need them to return and take care of them as they are getting old.
The applicant’s evidence has been that he is not concerned about civil or political unrest in his part of Pakistan such that it acts as any disincentive to return and that he is not required to complete military service.
Findings
The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s evidence that he is not concerned about civil or political unrest and that he is not required to complete military service. As for his studies, to his credit, the applicant does appear to have turned a corner in terms of his ability to stick with a course and follow it through to its completion. It is to his credit that he has completed the Certificate III and is on track to complete the Certificate IV in automotive studies and that he now seems to have traction in progressing through his degree. However, the Tribunal have raised with the applicant various issues both pursuant to s395A and otherwise and while the Tribunal has considered his responses and all the other evidence, the Tribunal nonetheless has concerns about his evidence and intentions.

Clearly, the applicant has close family ties in Australia – his wife, in a new marriage. From the applicant’s evidence about her, the Tribunal accepts this is a genuine relationship and it considers that she does present a strong tie for him to try to stay in Australia at the conclusion of the Diploma. While the applicant claims he has responsibility to return and look after his parents, it is not satisfied this is a pressing concern for him. Nor does it accept he has economic incentives to return.
The Diploma itself is also of concern. While he now has a current CoE for one, albeit it at another institution, the Tribunal is not satisfied he has any meaningful knowledge of the intended course and provider – and this was true about Sterling College and it is also true of the course and provider, despite his having provided the CoE. The applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal he has reasonable reasons for not studying it in Pakistan. While a course in leadership and management would be of a certain amount of value to anyone, the Tribunal is not satisfied it is something this outweighs the Tribunal’s other concerns set out in this section, and in the discussion above.
The Tribunal has sympathy for the applicant’s circumstances, and it commends him for his persistence and achievements thus far. But having considered and weighed all the evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, as set out in cl 500.212 and as intended under Direction 108.
Conclusion on cl 500.212
Having regard to the applicants’ circumstances, his immigration history and other relevant matters discussed 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).
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: 5 March 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Dr Divya Kalia Sharma (MARN: 1911875)
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.