Cao (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an applicant for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa against a decision to affirm the refusal of her visa application. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and to comply with visa conditions, having regard to her circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters. In assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion, the Tribunal was bound to consider Direction No. 69, which outlines various factors to guide decision-makers, including the applicant's circumstances in her home country and Australia, the value of the course to her future, her immigration history, and any other available information.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence was often vague, imprecise, and discursive, making it difficult to follow. While the applicant asserted that her poor academic progress was due to her course providers ceasing to trade and mental health issues, she failed to provide corroborative evidence for these claims. The Tribunal noted that even if these assertions were accepted, they did not fully explain her overall poor study history, which included multiple changes in her direction of study and a lengthy period of onshore stay with limited academic achievement. The applicant's lack of assets in China and the vague details regarding her future employment intentions were also considered relevant factors.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the criteria for a genuine temporary entrant. Consequently, the decision under review, which affirmed the refusal of the visa application, was affirmed.