Bui (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3216

Bui (Migration) [2019] AATA 3216 (11 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Phan Ba Tuan Bui

CASE NUMBER:  1718532

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/952863

MEMBER:Douglas Shirrefs

DATE:11 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 April 2019 at 2:44pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant – multiple incomplete courses – lack of academic progress – mental health issues – immigration and travel history – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 15 August 2017 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 10 March 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

4. The Tribunal sent the applicant an invitation to provide information (the s. 359(2) request) pursuant to s. 359(2) of the Act, on 17 January 2019.  The applicant provided a response to the s.359(2) request on 14 February 2019 (the s.359(2) response), including a number of supporting documents. 

5. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 18 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.  The applicant was represented at the hearing by Mrs Susan Chandy, Migration Agent, who was authorised to act on his behalf.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

8. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

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

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

   (i)the applicant’s circumstances; and

   (ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and

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

   (iv)any other relevant matter; and

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

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

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

   (c)of any other relevant matter.

   Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

9. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

   ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

   ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

   ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

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

    Background and applicant’s immigration history

11. The Tribunal has considered clause 13 and 14 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant’s immigration and travel history.

12. The department’s decision states that the applicant first arrived in Australia on 23 June 2008 on a Visitor (Class TR subclass 676) visa, that he was granted his initial Student (Class TU subclass 573) visa on 20 January 2009 and that he was granted a further Student (Class TU subclass 573) visa on 11 January 2013, which was valid until 14 March 2017.  The s.359(2) response from the applicant concords with this.  In the application under review the applicant applied for a Student (Class TU subclass 500) visa on 10 March 2017.  The evidence of the applicant’s past history of visas and the current application is accepted.

13. The applicant gave evidence that he had no other current applications for an Australian visa under consideration.  The applicant’s s.359(2) response stated that the applicant has never been refused a visa to any country or held a visa that has been cancelled or considered for cancellation.  The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant in this regard.

14. The applicant’s s.359(2) response indicated that he had travelled back to Vietnam on 6 occasions between December 2009 and December 2015.  The applicant told the Tribunal he had returned to Vietnam many times to visit his family since he had arrived in Australia and that he had not returned since December 2015.  The periods of stay in Vietnam on his return visits varied form 3 weeks to 2 ½ months and typically occurred during non-study periods.  The Tribunal accepts this evidence as to the applicant’s travel during his period of stay in Australia.

15. The applicant has now been in Australia for 10 ¾ years.  He gave inconsistent evidence regarding his future intentions saying that he intends to go home after completing his current course, expected to finish in May 2019, but also that he wanted to stay in Australia for approximately three more years.  He also said he wants to get a degree.  By the time he completes the course he is currently enrolled in he will have extended his time in Australia to almost 11 years and, on one view of his plans, he would like to stay here for approximately 14 years before returning to his home country. 

16. Although the regular travel he has undertaking to Vietnam suggests a connection to his family there, the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia is difficult to reconcile with the applicant’s claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.  Further, the Tribunal is concerned that, at the time of this decision, the applicant has not returned to his home country for more than three years.  

17. The applicant spoke only of future visits to Vietnam.  The preponderance of his evidence was that he contemplated further future studies at the degree level in Australia prior to returning to his home country.

18. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s immigration and travel history is more consistent with an intention to use the temporary visa as a means for maintaining ongoing residence. 

19. The applicant described his career goal in various ways, including as becoming a qualified naturopath/nutritionist in future and also that he wanted to return to Vietnam to work as a naturopath.  The applicant’s evidence as to his current prospects was that he could go back and that he could find work in Vietnam but maybe not as a naturopath.

20. On balance, and after regarding these matters carefully, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant’s immigration and travel history support a finding that the applicant is using the student visa program to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme.

    The applicant’s circumstances in their home country

21. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 9 and 10 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

22. The applicant came to Australia from Vietnam after completing his high school diploma.  He has studied a range of courses, successfully completing foundational level studies in English at the Trinity College during 2009 and a three month Certificate IV in teaching English to speakers of other languages (Tesol) in 2012.  He has commenced but not completed a Bachelor of Science, a Bachelor of Health Science in Naturopathy, and a Diploma of Nursing.  The applicant told the Tribunal that he founds studying at the Bachelor level very challenging.  He is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Health Science at Southern School of Natural Therapies and has been since mid-September 2017.  He described his progress as poor saying he was not going as well as he expected and that he has three subjects to go. 

23. The applicant told the Tribunal he was unable to find similar courses in the field of natural health in his country or region.  The Tribunal does not weigh the explanation of the applicant’s motivation against him.

24. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has commenced three previous courses of study that would support his career aspiration. 

25. The applicant gave evidence that he had a mother and father in Vietnam and that they owned a house, and apartment and some land in Ho Chi Minh City.  They live in the apartment and rent the house.  The applicant knew little about the land. These assets are confirmed in documents submitted with the applicant’s s.359(2) response (AAT folio 30 to 34).  The applicant claimed in his s.359(2) response that he is in regular contact with his parents through phone calls and video chat on a weekly basis.  He also communicates with them through emails once every month or two.  This evidence is accepted.

26. The applicant gave evidence of marital disharmony between his parents.  He did not give evidence of whether this was a significant incentive to return to his home country.  The Tribunal does not weigh this against the applicant in consideration of the factor in clause 9(b) of Direction 69.

27. The applicant gave evidence of the stresses studying in Australia had caused him, including by way of a psychological assessment report prepared for the Tribunal by Edwyn Kleynhans, psychologist (AAT Folio 77).  That report was dated 9 February 2019, and was based on a 1.5 hour consultation session with the applicant on 31 January 2019.  The report concluded the applicant was predisposed to stress and has generalised anxiety. 

28. When the Tribunal asked the applicant how the conclusion of the report could be reconciled with his aspiration that he wanted to get a degree in Australia, his evidence was that the matters the subject of Mr Kleynhans’ report concerned the applicant’s previous circumstances and he did not suggest they were preventing him from achieving his current goal.     

29. The Tribunal notes the timing of the consultation with Mr Kleynhans, which took place after the s. 359(2) request was sent to the applicant.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if the consultation with Mr Kleynhans was in response to the review by the Tribunal.  The applicant answered no, proceeding to say it was in response to his progress in his current course.  He elaborated by saying that he had been advised by the college in January 2019 that his progress was unsatisfactory.  The applicant volunteered in relation to his state of wellbeing that he had determination in himself, wanted to complete and felt he was in a better mental state to complete.

30. Having carefully considered all the evidence in relation to the applicant’s mental health the Tribunal accepts that it is relevant to his previous lack of progression in his studies.  The Tribunal also accepts that is a relevant factor in explaining the applicant’s period of non-enrolment during 2016 to 2017 (AAT Folio 81).  The Tribunal gives the applicant’s changes in study direction and the period of non-enrolment no weight against him in relation to the factors in clauses 9 and 10 of Direction 69.

31. The applicant’s evidence was that he has never worked since being in Australia.  He gave evidence that his parents send him money for living expenses and for course fees.  He said the amount of money sent depends.  He said that during studies it was about $30,000.00 and that it comprised about $15,000.00 to $20,000.00 for him and also course fees. 

32. Mrs Chandy informed the Tribunal that the applicant’s parents were aware of the applicant’s circumstances in Australia, including his progress with his studies.

33. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s evidence and Direction 69.  Weighing the evidence and considering his personal circumstances and the circumstances of the case, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s personal ties to his home country do not serve as a significant incentive to return to Vietnam. 

34. There is no relevant evidence regarding the applicant’s circumstance in the home country relative to others in that country and the Tribunal makes no finding in this regard.

    The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

35. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 11 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

36. The applicant told the Tribunal he had no family in Australia.  This is accepted.

37. The applicant said in his s.359(2) response that he lived in share accommodation in west St Kilda and paid about $600.00 per month plus bills.

38. The applicant spoke of a difficult period during 2016 to 2017 when he was not enrolled for a period due to being confused about his future.  During this time he visited the ISKON temple in South Melbourne regularly even daily.  It is not clear whether this connection to the temple persists.  The Tribunal accepts the evidence of the applicant in this regard.

39. The applicant gave evidence that his desired area of study had evolved over the time he had been in Australia.  The Tribunal finds that the applicant has spent time researching different areas of study and accepts that the applicant’s career objectives have evolved over time.  The applicant was familiar with, and had a favourable view of the Southern School of Natural Therapies. 

40. As noted in paragraph 15 above, by the time the applicant completes the course he is currently enrolled in he will have been in Australia almost 11 years.  Although it is reasonable to conclude that a student’s areas of interest and career aspirations can change over time, the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia is difficult to reconcile with the applicant’s claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.  Other than a course in Foundation Studies and a Tesol completed in 2012, the applicant has failed to succeed in his studies.   He has regressed, having previously commenced two bachelor degrees and a Diploma of Nursing.   By his own admission he is struggling to some extent in his current Diploma level course; a relatively lower level course than that he aspires to in future.

41. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant states an intention to remain in Australia for a further three years, when he also gave evidence that he can find work in Vietnam, although maybe not as a naturopath.  That evidence is not consistent with an intention to return to his home country.

42. On balance, and having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that the student visa programme is being used by the applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme and that the student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.    

    Value of the course to the applicant’s future       

43. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 12 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

44. The applicant gave evidence that the purpose of the current study was to acquire skills for working as a naturopath/nutritionist in Ho Chi Minh City, Vietnam (AAT Folio 81).  His current course of study is related to, consistent with and relevant for that purpose.

45. The applicant stated in his s.359(2) response that he has done research into his job prospects of someone on the verge of completing the course he is enrolled in.  He states (AAT Folio 79) that his prospects would provide him with a salary in the range of 46,302,900 to 60,330,000 VND per month.  He states that “This is a salary I did not envision myself to have to provide my parents after their years of toil to pay for my education in Australia”.  He further states that if he obtained a bachelor degree in Health Science he would stand to earn an average salary of 150,484,425 VND per month.

46. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has already had the opportunity of studying a bachelor degree in Health Science in 2013 and that he did not complete the course.   Accepting, and allowing for, the challenges the applicant has experienced during his time in Australia, and weighing them carefully, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s reason for wanting to remain in Australia is that his proposed course of study would improve his prospects on return to Vietnam.  Having weighed the evidence of the applicant and the whole circumstances of the case, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is using the current course of study primarily to maintain residence in Australia.

47. As part of its considerations, the Tribunal has considered all of the supporting documents attached to the applicant’s s.359(2) response (AAT Folio 29 to 77) and the statements of Mrs Chandy on behalf of the applicant.

48. In addition to the submission discussed at paragraph 32 hereof, Mrs Chandy agreed that the Tribunal had considered the documents provided by the applicant and asked for sympathetic consideration of the application.

49. The applicant confirmed to the Tribunal at the hearing and in his s.359(2) response that he has no military service commitments or concerns about political or civil unrest in his home country of Vietnam.

50. 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).

51. 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.

52. 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

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

    Douglas Shirrefs
    Member

    
    

    Attachment – Direction No.69

    DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS

    (Section 499)

    I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

    Dated: 18 April 2016

    Peter Dutton

    
    

    Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

    Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.

    Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary

    Name of Direction

    This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.

    It may be cited as Direction No. 69.

    Commencement

    This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.

    Interpretation

    Act means the Migration Act 1958.

    Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.

    Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

    Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.

    Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

    Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.

    Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa

    Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

    Application

    This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.

    The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.

    Preamble

    The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia.  A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.

    An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.

    The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    a.the applicant’s circumstances; and

    b.the applicant’s immigration history; and

    c.if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    d.any other relevant matter.

    This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.

    Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily

    Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions

    Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion

    1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

    2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:

    a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and

    b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).

    3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.

    4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:

    a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;

    b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;

    c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and

    d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.

    5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.

    The applicant’s circumstances

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

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

    8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.

    The applicant’s circumstances in their home country

    9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;

    b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;

    c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;

    d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and

    e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.

    10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.

    The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

    11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;

    b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;

    c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;

    dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and

    e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.

    Value of the course to the applicant’s future

    12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:

    a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and

    b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and

    c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.

    The applicant's immigration history

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

    14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:

    i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and

    ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.

    b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:

    i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;

    ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

    iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and

    iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance

    If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant

    15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.

    Any other relevant matters

    16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.