Arriyapperuma Ramanayake (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3562

Arriyapperuma Ramanayake (Migration) [2020] AATA 3562 (30 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Dileepa Arriyapperuma Ramanayake

CASE NUMBER:  1832163

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/2973780

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:30 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 30 July 2020 at 3:34pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – Direction No.69 – employment plans – personal ties to home country – positive immigration history – motive in seeking a further Student visa – COVID-19 pandemic – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212

CASES
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2020] FCAFC 16

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 22 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 8 August 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(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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 satisfies cl.500.212(a).

2. 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?

1. 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.

2. 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.

3. In Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection[1] the Full Court of the Federal Court held that the Direction requires that, in reaching the state of satisfaction required by cl 500.212(a), the decision maker should turn his or her attention to each factor during the decision-making process and consider whether and how that factor should be brought to bear in reaching that decision.[2]  The Court went on to note that:

   [The Direction] does not impose a jurisdictional obligation to make a finding in respect of each factor irrespective of its materiality to the particular case.  Less still is there an obligation, after forming the view that a factor was not material to the particular case, to express that conclusion in the statement of reasons.[3]

   [1] [2020] FCAFC 16 (24 February 2020).

   [2] Kumar, Para [82].

   [3] Kumar, Para [96].

Overview of evidence

1. The applicant is a 33-year-old Sri Lankan national who first arrived in Australia on 2 August 2008 as the holder of a Student (TU573) visa.

2. The Tribunal had before it a copy of both the delegate’s decision, which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and the Department’s file in relation to the application.

3. According to the evidence submitted by the applicant, including his response to the Tribunal's s.359(2) invitation, since arriving onshore he has successfully completed the following courses:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
Academic English Course	08/2008	09/2008
Certificate IV in University Foundation Studies	02/2009	06/2010
Diploma of Engineering-Technical	01/2011	06/2011
Diploma of Engineering-Technical (Mechanical)	06/2011	01/2012
Diploma of Civil Construction Design	07/2012	12/2012
Advanced Diploma of Civil Construction Design	01/2013	12/2013
Certificate IV in Work Health and Safety	04/2014	04/2015
Diploma of Work Health and Safety (Business Services)	07/2015	07/2016

1. The applicant first appeared before the Tribunal on 22 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments (First Hearing).  At that time the applicant was enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management which commenced on 8 October 2018 and was scheduled for completion on 3 April 2020.[4]

   [4] The applicant provided an ‘Overseas Student Confirmation-of-Enrolment’ (CoE) (Ref No. A05C3384).

1. On 8 April 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359A of the Act, inviting him to comment on or respond to certain information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to his comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.  The information was particularised in the following terms:

   Recent checks of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicate that you do not hold a current Confirmation of Enrolment.

2. The invitation went on to state:

   We note that this is consistent with the submission filed on your behalf on 18 October 2019 where you indicated that you intended to return to your home country upon completion of your most recent course of study. We assume that your intentions remain unchanged in this regard.

3. On 20 April 2020 the applicant sought and was granted an extension of 14 days within which to provide his comments or response.

4. On 6 May 2020 the applicant responded to the invitation, providing, inter alia, an ‘International Student Offer and Acceptance Agreement’ for a Bachelor of Business (Leadership and Management) with a scheduled course start date of 20 July 2020 and a scheduled course end date of 23 June 2023 (Offer).  Describing his decision to undertake further studies, the applicant’s agent provided the following submissions on the applicant’s behalf:

   The Applicant has decided to further his studies by enrolling in a degree of Bachelor of Business (Leadership and Management) at Academies Australasia Polytechnic in Victoria. The length of the course is slated to take 3 years to complete or in 6 semesters. The applicant has revisited his current options in his home country of Sri Lanka and he is convinced that getting a Bachelor’s Degree is the right pathway for him to ensure that he stands out amongst the candidates when he enters the job market or when he establishes a business when he goes back to Sri Lanka.

   Our client also maintains the position he stated in his submission of 18 October 2019 that he will return to his home country upon his completion of his course of study. Since he is convinced that a Bachelor degree rather than a Diploma would be more suitable for his future plans, he had to withdraw from his course of Diploma of Leadership and Management. With his future prospects in Sri Lanka foremost in mind, he thus enrolled for a Bachelor Degree in the same field.

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal for a second time on 24 June 2020 to give evidence and present arguments (Second Hearing).  In connection with this hearing the applicant provided the Tribunal with a valid CoE for a Diploma of Leadership and Management[5] rather than for the bachelor’s degree the subject of the Offer.

   [5] With a scheduled start date of 15 June 2020 and a completion date of 21 February 2021.

6. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.

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

Analysis and findings

Evidence at the First Hearing

1. At the First Hearing the applicant confirmed to the Tribunal that he was (then) enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management that he had commenced in October 2018 and was (then) scheduled to complete in April 2020.

2. At the hearing the Tribunal discussed with the applicant his motive for undertaking study in Australia and his history as a student here.  The applicant stated that he had completed his ‘O’ level studies in Sri Lanka and had worked for approximately 12 months for Sri Lanka Airlines before deciding to study in Australia.  When asked by the Tribunal what he wished to achieve in his studies in Australia the applicant stated that he came to Australia to undertake ‘engineering studies’.  When pressed by the Tribunal as to whether he intended to undertake bachelors-level studies, the applicant stated that he could achieve what we wished with diploma-level studies and that he did not see the need to ‘push’ himself to achieve a bachelor’s degree.

3. In respect of his career objectives, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal was that his father runs two ‘gem’ mines in Sri Lanka, the first of which was acquired some 15 years ago.  The applicant stated that he anticipated obtaining appropriate qualifications in Australia so as to work in that business with his father.  He stated to the effect that the second mine was acquired by his father as the applicant’s own project.  To corroborate his claims in this regard, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a number of documents, including photographs and geological data, detailing the mine sites. 

4. The applicant stated that each of the courses he had undertaken, up to the Diploma of Work Health and Safety (Business Services), were targeted to improve his prospects of successfully running and managing a mining business in Sri Lanka.  The applicant stated that he was on a ‘graduate visa’ between July 2016 before commencing further studies in October 2018.  When pressed by the Tribunal on his reasons for undertaking a Diploma of Leadership and Management at the conclusion of his ‘graduate visa’ the applicant stated that he required management qualifications because he ‘wants to change the whole system’ under which the mines are run.  When pressed by the Tribunal the applicant stated to the effect that the regulations in Sri Lanka required gems mined in the country to be ‘value added’ there before export and that his plan related to implementing a ‘value adding’ process in his business.  He stated to the effect that the Diploma of Leadership and Management would assist him in this process.

5. Overall, the applicant was able to provide details of the mining business, including particulars of the mine sites, their operation and the business model underlying the operation with sufficient particularity to persuade the Tribunal of the veracity of his claims in this regard.  Although vague at times, the applicant was also able to provide sufficient evidence of his plans for the future, including his aspiration to ‘scale up’ his mining operation.  The Tribunal accepts that his courses of study are relevant to his proposed employment and would enhance his prospects in his home country.

Evidence at the Second Hearing

1. At the Second Hearing the applicant stated to the effect that his situation had changed since the First Hearing in two respects: firstly, the Sri Lankan government had made changes to the mining industry and that mines such as the applicant’s were ‘getting shut down’; and secondly, the COVID-19 pandemic had impacted Sri Lanka and had negatively affected his ability to operate his business there and would be a threat to his health if he returned there.  When pressed as to the impact on his business, the applicant stated that international travel transport to and from Sri Lanka had ceased and that consequently his business would suffer.  When further pressed, the applicant stated that his belief that the Sri Lankan government was ‘hiding’ the severity of the impact of COVID-19 on Sri Lanka for political purposes.  The applicant stated that he wanted to stay in Australia because of the ‘conditions’ in his home country, until the pandemic is ‘sorted’ and he can safely recommence his mining business.

2. In respect of his course enrolment, the applicant stated that he had not completed the Diploma of Leadership and Management that he had been enrolled in at the time of the First Hearing and that he had decided to return to Sri Lanka before completing that course.  He stated that with the change in the Sri Lankan government’s attitude to mining and particularly the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on his business his parents had encouraged him to stay in Australia.  He stated that he then decided to move to Melbourne but was unable to obtain a CoE for a bachelor’s degree (and so the Offer was not taken up) and that he then decided to stay in Perth and re-enrol in a Diploma of Leadership and Management. 

3. The applicant stated that he and his family had made the decision that it is better for him to remain in Australia until the ‘pandemic situation’ in Sri Lanka is normalised.

Personal circumstances

1. The applicant stated in evidence that his parents are resident in Sri Lanka that his sister is an Australian citizen.  The applicant asserted that these are significant ties for him to his home country which the Tribunal accepts.  Overall the Tribunal weighs these factors in the applicant’s favour.

2. As to the applicant’s present circumstances in Australia, his evidence is that he is presently employed as a ‘Guest Services Agent’ at a Perth Hotel on an annual salary of approximately AUD$23,000.  There was no evidence to raise any concerns in Tribunal's mind that the applicant is seeking to build a career in Australia; and there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has sought to establish relationships in Australia inconsistent with those of a genuine student.  The Tribunal weighs these factors in the applicant’s favour.

3. There is no evidence or information before the Tribunal of any military service or civil or political incidents that would act as a clear incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.  There is also no evidence that the applicant, or a relative of the applicant, has not complied with previous visas or previously held visas that were refused, cancelled or considered for cancellation.  The applicant’s immigration history does not raise concerns for the Tribunal. 

Analysis

1. The Tribunal has had the benefit of speaking to the applicant which has enabled it to obtain more information regarding his circumstances and genuineness in the presentation of his evidence.  In the giving of his evidence the applicant was able to corroborate the existence of the family gem mines with documentary evidence and, when pressed, he was able explain their operation with enough detail to persuade the Tribunal of the veracity of his evidence.

2. The applicant also has strong personal ties to his home country, particularly in his family, but also in his business interests there.  The Tribunal accepts that these ties provide a significant incentive for the applicant to return to his home country.  The Tribunal also acknowledges the applicant’s positive immigration history.

3. Balanced against these factors, however, is the applicant’s evidence regarding his decision in respect of his foreseeable future.  In this the applicant has been explicit: his decision is based upon his, and his family’s, assessment of the COVID-19 pandemic and its relative impact on Australia and Sri Lanka, both from a health and an economic perspective.  He stated expressly in evidence that, whereas he had intended to return to Sri Lanka prior to the impact of COVID-19 becoming apparent, he had now formed the view that it is better for him to remain in Australia “until the ‘pandemic situation’ in Sri Lanka is normalised”.

4. Having made that decision the applicant has then re-enrolled in the Diploma of Leadership and Management that he had previously abandoned.  

5. The Tribunal concludes from this evidence that the prospect of undertaking further studies is not the applicant’s motive in seeking to remain onshore; rather his motive is his assessment of his relative situation in Australia versus his home country during the global response to the COVID-19 pandemic. 

6. The applicant’s evidence as to the value to his future of the particular course he is now proposing to undertake is, therefore, to be taken as a post-hoc rationalisation in support of his decision to remain onshore due to the COVID-19 pandemic.  Consequently, the Tribunal ascribes minimal weight to it.

7. Clause 8 of Direction No.69 mandates that:

   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.

8. In this case that weight, as against the applicant’s reasonable study history, recent academic achievement, strong personal ties to his home country, positive immigration history and the other matters the Tribunal has weighed in his favour, is decisive. 

9. The Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant’s motive in seeking a further Student visa is not that of genuine academic pursuit; rather, for the reasons set out above, the Tribunal considers that the student visa programme is being used by the applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme. 

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

11. 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.

12. 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

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

Damian Creedon
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

1. Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

2. For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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

1. An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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.