Bhamani (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5953

Bhamani (Migration) [2020] AATA 5953 (31 March 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Aafrin Bhamani
Mr Imran Anwar Ali Bhamani

CASE NUMBER:  1824543

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/2154345

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:31 March 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 31 March 2020 at 4:07pm

CATCHWORDS
Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – enrolment in short, inexpensive, vocational courses after completing master’s degree – no response to tribunal’s invitation to comment – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2), 359C, 360(3), 363A

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)

CASE

Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 15 August 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 18 May 2018. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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).

4. On 1 August 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information to the Tribunal in writing about the course(s) of study she is undertaking and her entry and stay in Australia as a student. The invitation was sent to the last email address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing within the prescribed period, ending 15 August 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant did not provide the information within the prescribed period and no extension of time was requested.  In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal.  The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if an applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

6. On 3 October 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited her to comment upon certain information which the Tribunal considered would, subject to the applicant’s comments or response, be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review.  The invitation set out particulars of the information in the following terms:

   Recent checks of the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) indicate that you have previously completed Masters level studies in Australia.

7. The invitation stated that the information is relevant to the review because, based on this information, the Tribunal may conclude that:

   a.a further Vocational Education and Training (VET) qualification is of marginal value to the applicant; and/or

   b.that the applicant is undertaking a series of short, inexpensive courses primarily to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

8. The applicant did not respond to the invitation within the requested period and no extension of time was requested.

9. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to a decision. The Tribunal has had regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

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

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.

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

2. The applicant is a 30-year-old Indian national who first arrived in Australia on 21 July 2012 as the holder of a Student (TU573) visa. 

3. The delegate’s decision record notes the following information:

   Departmental records indicate that since the applicant’s initial arrival onshore they have held either a student visa or associated bridging visa except for the period from 25 May 2016 to 25 May 2018 when they held a Temporary Skilled (Class VC subclass 485).

   In this application, the applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Student (subclass 500) visa on 18 May 2018. At time of application, the applicant was enrolled to undertake the following courses:

   ●   Diploma of Leaderships and Management

   ●   Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management

4. Accompanying the applicant’s application to the Department was a written statement addressing the ‘genuine temporary entrant’ criterion (GTE Statement).[4]  The GTE Statement can be summarised as follows:

   [4] See Department File, Folios 83 – 86.

   a.The applicant states that after completing her secondary education she found that she ‘loved’ accounting ‘as it was easy’ and she was good at it.  After finishing her qualification, however, she realised that her roles ‘would be ‘very confined’.

   b.She states that, ultimately, her career goal is to join her father’s business and that in order to do so she needs to study:

   …certain important courses like Work Health and Safety, Sustainability, Emotional Intelligence, Team Effectiveness, Human Resource, Organizational change and Innovation. These are the courses that I have never studie[d] in my Masters but are very important for management role.

   c.She states that, in her home country, not many businesses care about Work Health and Safety and that she learnt of its importance during her experiences working in Australia; and she wishes to ‘start a trend’ of emphasising the importance of the ‘health and life’ of employees.

   d.She states that during her time working in Australia she has seen ‘workplace politics’ and the ‘demotivating’ effect it can have on a workforce.  She states that studying ‘emotional intelligence’ will give her the knowledge required to avoid these situations, particularly some of the challenges unique to her father’s pharmacy business.

   e.She states that her proposed course will ‘bring innovation’ to the business ‘to deal with employees, safety issues, strategies etc’.

   f.She states that she is the eldest daughter ‘with no brothers’ and that she holds the responsibility to carry on the family business.  She states her intention to join the business ‘as a manager’ in January 2021 and that by that time she has to prove that she will be an asset to the business and was the skills to ‘carry it forward’.

   g.She states that she has been focussed on ensuring success in her studies rather than travelling home for holidays.

   h.She states that she has strong economic and financial ties to her family and that her father has given her family a ‘really good life’.  Further, she states that she was raised by her father’s aunt who she regards as her foster mother and who is now in her 70s.  She states that she wishes to spend quality time with her.

   i.She states that she is a ‘career-oriented’ person who likes to be ‘self-dependent’ and that the lifestyle she envisages will be achievable for her in India.

5. The second-named applicant, the applicant’s husband, also provided a statement addressing the ‘genuine temporary entrant’ criterion.[5]   In his statement, the second-named applicant, states that he promised to support his wife in pursuing her education dreams and that he intends to return to India with his wife at the conclusion of her studies.   Notably, the second-named applicant makes the following statement:

   We have our house in India.

   [5] See Department File, Folio 79.

6. The applicant’s Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record shows that since arriving onshore she has successfully completed the following courses:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
Master of Professional Accounting – Master of Business Administration	22/07/2013	12/11/2015
Diploma of Leadership and Management	14/05/2018	07/05/2019

1. PRISMS also records that the applicant is presently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management which she commenced on 23 September 2019 and is due to complete on 28 August 2020.

Analysis and findings

1. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

2. Save for brief periods, the applicant has been resident in Australia for over seven years, since July 2012.  In that time she has held a series Student visas and a Temporary Graduate visa and is currently onshore on a bridging visa pending the outcome of an application for a further Student visa. 

3. Although in her materials to the Department the applicant does not directly address her reasons for wanting to continue her studies in Australia in particular, the applicant has a long history of study and work in Australia and it is unsurprising that she would wish to continue any further studies here.  The Tribunal does not weigh this against the applicant.

4. Of concern to the Tribunal, however, is the level of study in which the applicant has enrolled.  On her own evidence the applicant has achieved two qualifications in the higher education sector, namely a ‘Bachelor of Commerce’ (before coming to Autralia)[6] and a ‘Master of Professional Accounting – Master of Business Administration’ at James Cook University.[7]  According to the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF)[8] these qualifications are at AQF Levels 7 (equivalent) and 9 respectively.  The applicant’s present study pathway, comprising a Diploma and an Advanced Diploma, are in the vocational education and training (VET) sector at AQF Levels 5 and 6 respectively. 

   [6] The applicant provided the Department with a copy of her qualification – see Dept. File, Folio 45.

   [7] The applicant provided the Department with a copy of her qualification – see Dept. File, Folio 40.

   [8] The Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) is the policy for regulated qualifications in the Australian education and training system. It is monitored and maintained by the Commonwealth Department of Education and Training, in consultation with the states and territories. It is made up of 10 levels as follows: 1 – Certificate I; 2 – Certificate II; 3 – Certificate III; 4 – Certificate IV; 5 – Diploma; 6 – Advanced Diploma, Associate Degree; 7 – Bachelor Degree; 8 – Bachelor Honours Degree, Graduate Certificate, Graduate Diploma; 9 – Masters Degree; 10 – Doctoral Degree. See: >

   Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant’s present study pathway is consistent with her current level of education.  The Tribunal raised this concern with the applicant in its invitation sent to the applicant on 3 October 2019, however no response or comments were forthcoming.

5. It appears from the applicant’s GTE Statement that her father owns a pharmacy business in Chhindwara, India and she seeks to justify her decision to undertake her current VET study pathway by reference to her expectation of working as a ‘manager’ in that business.  She states that she must prove to her father that she will be an asset to the business and that she is skilled enough to undertake the role of manager.  She states that, in order to undertake that role, she must study certain ‘important courses’ that she did not study in her Masters degree.  In support of this contention the applicant lists a number of subjects by way of example, but fails to provide any persuasive context as to how these subjects will assist her in this goal, relying instead of vague statements regarding the importance of safe business practices, employee welfare and the need to bring ‘innovation’ to the business.

6. The Tribunal does not find the applicant’s purported justifications persuasive.    Having regard to her circumstances, including her existing higher education qualifications, the Tribunal is not satisfied the study proposed will assist her to obtain employment or improve her employment prospects.  Nor is it satisfied as to the relevance of the VET courses to her proposed future employment in her father’s business. 

7. The applicant provided the Department with copies of her Confirmations of Enrolment (CoE)s for her present study pathway.[9]  From a review of the CoEs the Tribunal notes that each VET course is of approximately 12-months duration and each incurs relatively modest tuition fees.  Having failed to account for the significant drop in her courses’ AQF levels, or to establish the relevance of her courses to her proposed future employment, the Tribunal is persuaded that the applicant is proposing to undertake short, inexpensive courses in order to gain a student visa with the primary objective of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia.

   [9] See Department File, Folios 54 and 55.

8. 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.  The Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

9. It appears from the applicant’s GTE Statement (and other material provided to the Department) that her father and her extended family, including her father’s aunt (described by the applicant as her ‘foster mother’) reside in India.  The Tribunal also notes the second-named applicant’s reference in his GTE statement to the couple’s ‘house in India’.  The Tribunal accepts that these personal ties provide some incentive for the applicant to return there.  Balanced against this is her decision to reside in Australia, apart from her family, for seven years and to seek to extend her visit.  Overall, however, the Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in her favour.

10. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that 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. 

11. In her original application to the Department, the applicant declared travel to Thailand and the United Arab Emirates (the second-named applicant has also visited the United States). There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicants have experienced visa refusal or immigration issues in any of other country.

12. The Tribunal has had regard to all other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the Tribunal) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant. 

13. The little weight that the Tribunal places on the absence of civil unrest or military service commitments in the applicant’s home country, and her personal ties there, together with her compliance with previous visas and positive immigration history, is insufficient to dispel the Tribunal’s concern, for the reasons set out above, that the applicant has undertaken her current study or future study with the motive of using the student visa programme to maintain ongoing residence in Australia rather than for the purpose it is intended.  

14. Overall the Tribunal is persuaded that the student visa programme is being used by the applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme.  For the reasons outlined above the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is undertaking her current study or future study for the reasons she claims, but rather is using it as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.

1. 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).

2. 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.

3. 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.