ANKIT (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3153

ANKIT (Migration) [2020] AATA 3153 (24 June 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ankit

CASE NUMBER:  1834201

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3483654

MEMBER:Peter Haag

DATE:24 June 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne 

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

Statement made on 24 June 2020 at 2:30pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant as student – family ties to home country – limited incentive to return – no evidence of academic progress – several course changes – limited evidence of employment prospects – maintaining ongoing residence in Australia – decision under review affirmed   

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360; Direction No 69
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 31 October 2018 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 13 September 2018. 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) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

4. On 9 April 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information in writing about the Student visa and, in particular, sufficient information to satisfy the Tribunal that the applicant: is enrolled in a registered course of study; and, is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s registered migration agent and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the end of the prescribed period, being 23 April 2020, 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. On 23 April 2020 the applicant requested an extension of time and the Tribunal granted an extension until 7 May 2020. The applicant responded to the Tribunal’s s.359(2) request for Student visa information on 4 May 2020. In his response, the review applicant indicated that he consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the necessary consent has been given under s.360(2)(b) of the Act and that, pursuant to s.360(3), the review applicant is no longer entitled to appear before it. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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 temporarily in Australia as a student.

   Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. On 1 May 2020 the applicant enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Business, his current proposed course of study, starting on 22 June 2020 and ending on 20 June 2021. The applicant chose to study this course in Australia rather than India or the region, because the standard of education in Australia is high, and the reputation of Australian educational qualifications is high throughout the world. Additionally, the applicant feels comfortable living in Australia, and he finds Australian culture agreeable. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in his home country or the region.

12. The applicant’s parents, brother and other members of his family reside in India; the applicant claims he communicates with members of this family from time to time by social media. The applicant has not departed Australia to visit India since he first arrived in Australia on 22 June 2015. According to the applicant’s s.359(2) response to the Tribunal’s request for Student visa information, the applicant last saw his father in April 1973; he last saw his mother in March 1980; and he last saw his brother in India in November 2000. Having regard to the applicant’s date of birth, being 20 April 1995, it is evident the applicant inaccurately stated the dates on which he last saw his parents and brother in India. The Tribunal treats this apparent inaccuracy as an innocent mistake and gives it no weight in this decision. The Tribunal proceeds on the basis the applicant has a sound relationship with his parents and brother and that he communicates with them regularly via social media. The applicant also communicates regularly with friends in India. There is no evidence the applicant is involved in community organisations or groups in India. There is no evidence that the applicant owns property, personal assets or investments in India.

13. The applicant claims in vague, non-specific terms, that his father is a successful businessman of good standing in the business community in the area in which he lives, and that he will allow the applicant to take over his business after he completes his study and returns to India. The applicant, without explanation, provided no evidence such as email correspondence from his father to substantiate the claim.  Given the applicant is in regular contact with his father via social media, it is reasonable to expect written evidence from the applicant’s father would be readily available to the applicant to substantiate his claim that his father is an established businessman in India, and that he wants his son to return to India and take over his business. In the absence of supporting evidence, the applicant’s claim in relation to taking over his father’s business in India upon his return, amounts to a claim that is easy to make, but unsubstantiated by reasonable evidence that, in the circumstances of the applicant’s relationship with his father, ought to be readily available to the applicant. Accordingly, the Tribunal is unpersuaded by the applicant’s claim that his father is a successful businessman who plans to allow the applicant to take over his business, whatever that business may be, when the applicant returns to India.

14. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s relationship with his family and friends in India may provide a reason for him to visit India in the future. Nevertheless, the applicant has not visited India since he arrived in Australia on 22 June 2015, and there is no evidence the applicant owns any significant interest in property or personal assets in India; and considering the Tribunal is not persuaded the applicant’s claim in respect of taking over his father’s business in India is credible, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to India would serve as a significant incentive to return to India.

15. The evidence relevant to the applicant’s economic circumstances in India is vague. The high point of that evidence is the applicant’s unsubstantiated claim that his father is a successful businessman, and that he will allow him to take over his business when he completes the Advanced Diploma course and returns to India. The vague, non-specific evidence concerning the applicant’s father’s business in India and the applicant’s future role in it, and the applicant’s economic circumstances in India is insufficient to enable the Tribunal to satisfactorily determine the extent of the applicant’s economic circumstances in India relative to Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in this decision.

16. There is no evidence of military service commitments that would present as significant incentive for the applicant not to return to his home country; and, there is no evidence of political and civil unrest in India that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa as a means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in this decision.

17. There is no evidence that members of the applicant’s family reside in Australia. The Tribunal notes the applicant has established social friendships in Australia. Since the applicant arrived in Australia in June 2015, he has secured and maintained employment for significant periods of time; and established a residence(s), friendships and a pattern of life in Australia. The Tribunal infers from this evidence, and the fact that the applicant has not departed Australia to visit family and friends in India since his arrival in June 2015, that the applicant has established for himself a pattern of life in Australia that he regards as satisfactory.

18. Having regard to the well-known disparity in general living standards in Australia relative to India, and the length of time the applicant has resided in Australia without visiting India, as well as the applicant’s well-established pattern of life in Australia, the fact that the applicant has no history of employment in India and that the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s personal ties to India would serve as a significant incentive to return to India, the Tribunal is concerned the applicant’s ties with Australia would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia.

19. The Tribunal is satisfied the applicant possesses a realistic level of knowledge of living in Australia. The applicant has provided evidence that he has a reasonable level of knowledge of the intended course of study, his previous study and the various associated education providers.

20. Currently the applicant is proposing to undertake the Advanced Diploma of Business. To date, the applicant has completed two business related causes in the vocational sector in Australia; accordingly, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant’s current course of study is consistent with his current level of education.

21. In the application for the Student visa the applicant lodged with the Department on 13 September 2018, the applicant declared he had not been offered a job at the completion of his course. According to the Genuine Temporary Entrant Statement (GTE1) that accompanied the application, the relevant course at that time was the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology starting on 9 September 2018 and ending on 25 August 2019, followed by enrolments in the Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis starting on 26 August 2019 and ending on 23 February 2020, and the Diploma of Automotive Technology starting on 9 March 2020 and ending on 7 March 2021. The applicant claimed he was passionate about repairing cars and the qualifications would provide him with career opportunities in the automotive sector in India. The applicant changed his study and career pathway from business studies to automotive studies because mates of his who were changing their courses persuaded him to make the change, and the applicant, according to the GTE statement (GTE2) he provided to the Tribunal, now regrets the change. He claims he is embarrassed by his mistake. Consequently, the applicant has again enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Business, which is the course he left in September 2018[1] to undertake the studies in motor vehicle repairs. After considering the relevant evidence, the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant has reasonable reasons for changing his study pathway from business studies to motor vehicle repairs and then, on 1 May 2020, back to the current business course.

    [1] Confirmation of Enrolment document for the Certificate III Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, created September 2018: Department file, p49

22. The applicant claimed in his GTE1 that he would have career opportunities in the automotive sector when he completed the course. The applicant provided no supporting evidence, such as evidence of relevant market research or communication with any potential employer that would provide some reasonable basis for the applicant to claim that his studies in automotive technology will assist him to obtain employment or improve his employment prospects in India. This is a matter of concern to the Tribunal. Additionally, the applicant has claimed his father will allow him to take over his business when the applicant completes the course of study in business. The applicant has provided no evidence of the existence of a business in India owned by father, or that if such a business existed, his father would allow the applicant to take over the business. The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s previous course of study relating to motor mechanics and the vocational sector business course are relevant to or will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve his employment prospects in his home country, because the Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant’s claims in relation to his employment prospects in India are credible.

23. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that establishes the remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in India or another country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study. Accordingly, the Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in this decision.

24. There is no evidence that the applicant has previously applied for an Australian visa that was refused, and there is no evidence the applicant has previously applied for a visa to another country that was refused. The Tribunal gives these considerations neutral weight in this decision.

25. There is no evidence that satisfies the Tribunal that the applicant previously travelled to Australia and failed to comply with a condition of his visa, and, there is no evidence the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation. The Tribunal gives these considerations neutral weight in this decision.

26. The applicant arrived in Australia on 22 June 2015. Between July 2015 and August 2016, the applicant successfully completed the Certificate IV in Business, and in July 2017 he completed the Diploma of Business. Between July 2017 and July 2018, the applicant was enrolled in the Advanced Diploma of Business. The applicant did not complete the course of study, instead for the reasons previously discussed in this decision, the applicant enrolled in the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology on 11 September 2018 and two additional motor vehicle repair courses that were scheduled to end on 7 March 2021. There is no evidence, such as academic transcripts, that establishes the applicant completed any of the motor vehicle repair courses in which he was enrolled between September 2018 to 22 June 2020, which was the commencement date of the Advanced Diploma of Business.

27. Between July 2017, the end date of the Diploma of Business, and 22 June 2020, the start date of the Advanced Diploma of Business, the course in which the applicant is currently enrolled, there is no evidence the applicant completed any qualifications. During that time the applicant was enrolled in a series of short, inexpensive courses. The applicant provided no detailed evidence of what he was doing with his time in Australia between July 2017 and June 2020, apart from working between July 2017 and June 2018[2]. Considering the amount of time the applicant spent in Australia, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant’s study history in Australia is inconsistent with the study history of a genuine student and it is evidence that the Student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.

    [2] Tribunal file, s.359(2) response

28. On balance, the Tribunal is satisfied the evidence relevant to the applicant’s circumstances, and his potential circumstances in Australia is evidence the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme and to maintain ongoing residence.

29. There is no evidence the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia and whether the applicant complied with the migration laws of that country. The Tribunal gives this consideration neutral weight in this decision.

30. After considering the totality of the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal is satisfied it has given regard to all the available information relevant to assessing the applicant’s intention to stay temporarily in Australia, and that there is no other information provided by the applicant that is relevant to this issue that has not been considered by the Tribunal.

31. Based on the above, considered as a whole, 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).

32. 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.

1. 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

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

   Peter Haag
   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.