Bista (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5226

Bista (Migration) [2020] AATA 5226 (2 December 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Pukar Bista

CASE NUMBER:  1919694

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2813744

MEMBER:T. Quinn

DATE:2 December 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:

·clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 2 December 2020 at 6:37pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – visa and study history – application for student visa made a short time after arriving on tourist visa – difficulty with online learning during COVID-19 pandemic – resubmission of assessments and commencement of second course – forthright evidence and genuine desire to study – value of course to applicant’s future – reasonable change to study and career pathways – incentives to remain or return – sister and her family in Australia, elderly and infirm parents in home country – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 338, 347, 359

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

CASES

Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145

Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46

Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345

FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555

Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482

Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 1372

Khan v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 565

Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358

Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667

Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112

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 (‘the delegate’) on 9 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 31 May 2019 (‘the application’).   At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).  The applicant applied for the visa (being a Subclass 500 (Student) visa) to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. On 9 July 2019, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’), namely that the applicant was not considered to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicant’s review application.

4. On 19 July 2019, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.

5. More than 16 months have elapsed since the making of the delegate’s decision and the applicant’s application for review with the Tribunal. In coming to consider the merits of the application for review, the Tribunal recognises the applicant’s personal circumstances bearing upon their visa application may have changed during that time. The Tribunal considered that it would be beneficial for the applicant to provide updated and further information to the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the outcome of their application for review. To this end, on 8 May 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting them to provide information in writing about the course(s) of study the applicant was undertaking and their entry and stay in Australia as a student (‘the s359(2) letter’). The applicant provided the requested information on 18 May 2020 which was within the prescribed timeframe and has submitted further material since that time.

6. The appeared before the Tribunal on 2 December 2020 for a telephone hearing to give evidence and present arguments.  The applicant was represented by a migration agent in relation to this proceeding, but they did not attend the hearing.

7. The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the Department file and all material and evidence provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

8. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

9. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in clause 500.211 to clause 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant.

10. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

    (a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

    (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

    (iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    (iv)any other relevant matter; and

    (b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

    (i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

    (ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

    (c)of any other relevant matter.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

11. In considering whether the applicant satisfies clause 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’ (‘the Direction’), made under section 499 of the Act. The 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.

12. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist, but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

13. The Direction is a lawful direction of the Minister made in accordance with section 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent that its terms are relevant, apply it to the applicant’s case.[1]  Accordingly, the terms of the Direction and their application to the applicant’s case have been considered in relation to material before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body.  It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor in the Direction is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate.  In this regard, the Tribunal also notes the decision of Judge McNab in Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667 (at [44]-[47]), wherein his Honour referred to the decisions of Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1372 (at [49] and [51]) and Khan v Minister for Immigration & Another [2019] FCCA 565 (at [35]) in relation to the proper approach to the consideration of guidelines such as the Direction. Most pertinently, his Honour endorses the view espoused in those cases, that such guidelines may not be relevant where the matters raised by an applicant, either upon the application or at merits review, do not raise facts which engage particular matters identified by those guidelines.

    [1]FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555, [10], [34]; Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46, [29]; Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112, [60]-[73]; Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482, [8]; Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145, [10]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, [53] Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345, [27]-[28].

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

14. The applicant in this case is a 29-year-old female Nepalese citizen who first arrived in Australia on 8 March 2019 as the holder of a visitor visa.[2]  Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed a Bachelor of Tourism and Travel Studies in 2015 and then worked as an Assistant Manager in the retail field from March 2017-January 2019 earning 50,000 Nepalese Rupees per month and also worked as a part time chef from January 2016-March 2019 but did this more for interest and as a hobby and the profit was put back into the business so he only earned about 10-15,000 Nepalese Rupees per month in that role.[3]

    [2] See delegate’s decision and applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [3] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and evidence at hearing.

15. The applicant’s application which is the subject of this review was to undertake a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma of Hospitality Management with a cumulative completion date of July 2021.[4]  The applicant ought to have completed his Certificate IV course in September of this year, however, the documents he provided indicated he has eleven NYC (‘not yet competent’) grades in this course.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has otherwise made good course progress while on a bridging visa managing the uncertainty of the outcome of this application.  The Tribunal expressed concern about the eleven NYC grades at hearing and the applicant gave evidence that he had progressed well before and after the restrictions that came into place due to the COVID19 Pandemic (‘the Pandemic’) but that when the course moved to the online/remote learning platform during the Pandemic he found it unfamiliar and had considerable difficulty with achieving his competencies.  The Tribunal expressed concern about whether the applicant would still complete his courses in July 2021.  The applicant gave evidence that he has an eight-week break coming up and intends to re-submit his assessments for the NYC units. The applicant gave evidence that he has already resubmitted assessments for four of those units and that he has commenced his Diploma and is due to complete same in July 2021.  The applicant presented as authentic, forthright in his evidence and explanations and with a genuine desire to complete his study.

    [4] See delegate’s decision and applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

16. The applicant gave evidence that he wishes to obtain work as an executive chef in Nepal upon completion of his courses in Australia – this is consistent with his previous submissions.  The applicant anticipates earning between 90-100,000 Nepalese Rupees per month using the qualifications gained in that role but states that if he is able to run his own restaurant this could double or triple.[5]  The Tribunal accepts that these courses are relevant to and likely to assist and improve the applicant’s future career in this regard.  Although the applicant does have experience as a chef, he does not hold any formal qualification sin this regard and the Tribunal accepts that there is a significant difference between what he was doing prior to his arrival in Australia and what he plans to do upon his return.  The Tribunal allows for reasonable changes to study and career pathways but is concerned about the significant downgrade in study these courses represent for the applicant.

    [5]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

17. The applicant gave evidence that he is living with her sister and brother in law and their two children who he helps with the care of when he can.  The applicant initially arrived to visit his sister and her family and expressed deep gratitude and warmth towards them in his evidence at hearing.[6]  The applicant socialises with family friends, relatives and friends from his college and participates in BBQ Programs, farewells, dinners and other family functions.[7]  The Tribunal considers the applicant has strong ties to the Australian community, most particularly his sister and brother in law and their two children.  However, he has only been onshore for less than two years and has not been working and 2020 has created limitations due to the COVID19 Pandemic and associated restrictions.  Therefore, the Tribunal considers it does not have sufficient information before it to form any firm conclusions as to whether the applicant’s community ties to the Australian community are acting as a strong incentive for him to remain onshore.

    [6] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and evidence at hearing.

    [7] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

18. The applicant has not returned to Nepal since his arrival in early 2019.[8]   Both of his parents live in Nepal and he repeatedly expressed a desire and sense of responsibility to return to Nepal to take care of them, stated that they are elderly, retired and his mother can barely walk.  He speaks to his parents once a week or once a fortnight and is involved in a non-government, not for profit social organisation and has maintained contact with his volunteer community in Nepal since his arrival.[9]  Tribunal considers the applicant has ties to Nepal serving as an incentive for him to return but does not have sufficient information before it to form any firm conclusions about whether those ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return. 

    [8]           See evidence at hearing.

    [9] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and evidence at hearing.

19. The applicant is not working onshore and has expenses of AUD12,240 per annum.[10] He has listed assets worth AUD232,000 equivalent in Nepal in his response to the s359(2) letter but clarified at hearing that these are actually in his parents’ names but in his culture he has use of those assets. The Tribunal notes that the United Nations Human Development Index, which is a statistical comparison of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators by country, ranks Nepal as 147^th in the world as compared to Australia’s ranking of 6^th in the world.[11]  The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s economic circumstances onshore are acting as a significant incentive for him to remain onshore while he is not working.

    [10] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and evidence at hearing.

    [11]See Table 1 of United Nations’ Human Development Report 2019 commencing at page 300 <>

    The applicant stated that there are no similar courses available in his home country.[12]  The Tribunal this explanation is too brief to be considered a reasonable reason for not undertaking the study in his home country or region.

    [12] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

20. The applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter stated he was refused a student visa in Australia in 2017 because he had not undertaken enough research into his education options. This, in combination with the way in which the applicant arrived onshore raises concerns for the Tribunal. It is difficult for the Tribunal to accept that the applicant, in such a short space of time after their arrival onshore as a tourist, could have then promptly researched all study and living options and decided to remain onshore for a further two year period. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that an applicant may seek a change in plans or to further their skills for employment reasons and remuneration opportunities, but the Tribunal is puzzled when an applicant arrives on a visitor visa and then makes sudden changes to their plans within a short period of time. Particularly given his previous student visa application and his sister’s history as a student onshore.[13]  It seems unlikely to the Tribunal that a person travelling as a tourist would make such a significant change from their initial intentions to visit.  Such a significant change would necessarily include a greater level of planning and preparation before arriving in Australia considering the length of time (two years) that the applicant proposed to spend in Australia.

    [13] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

21. The applicant has otherwise had no travel, visa or immigration issues in the past.[14]

    [14] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

22. The applicant stated he does not have any potential military service obligations or civil unrest concerns in Nepal.[15]

    [15] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

23. The Tribunal considers the factors for and against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant for study in Australia are closely balanced in this case.  Ultimately, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant as he has made good course progress and is only months away from completion.  He gave evidence at hearing that upon completion of his Diploma in July (which he gave evidence he will finish on time), he will return to Nepal to put in place his future career plan and care for his parents.  The Tribunal notes that this course is due to finish in July 2021 and that the applicant is currently studying.  He is therefore close to completing the Diploma course.  Should the applicant make a further student visa application on the basis of his intention to undertake further study after this, the evidence he gave to the contrary in connection with this case will clearly be relevant to any assessment his intention to stay in Australia temporarily only to study.

24. Having had regard to the applicant’s circumstances, his immigration history and all other relevant matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily as required by clause 500.212. Accordingly, the applicant meets clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

25. Given the above findings, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

    DECISION

26. The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:

    ·Clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Member

    T. Quinn

    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.