Chan (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5667

Chan (Migration) [2019] AATA 5667 (13 December 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Yeang Hoe Chan

CASE NUMBER:  1801235

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4031083

MEMBER:Peter Booth

DATE:13 December 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 13 December 2019 at 11:30am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – previous visas and extended stays – application for student visa a few days prior to expiry of tourist visa – incentives to stay or return – family, social and financial ties to home country – business partnership with uncles and mother – relevance and value of study to future employment – application for student visa and enrolment in course for purpose of maintaining residence in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1959 (Cth), s 65

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

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 29 December 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 31 October 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 applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 27 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.

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

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 is a genuine temporary entrant.

   Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

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.

11. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing the substance of which was as follows. The applicant had read the decision of the delegate dated 29 December 2017 refusing his application for a student visa. The applicant understood that the issue for determination was whether he was a genuine temporary entrant.

12. The applicant arrived in Australia on 6 September 2012 for the first time. He said that since that time he had left Australia twice for a total period of 34 days. The applicant gave evidence that the first time he arrived in Australia was on a “tourist visa” and that he intended to stay for “20 days”. He said that the next time he arrived in Australia was in 2016 again on a “tourist visa” and that he stayed for “eight days”. Apparently he returned to Australia again on 2 August 2017 on a “tourist visa” which was valid from 14 July 2017 to 2 November 2017. He applied for a student visa on 31 October 2017, a few days prior to the expiry of the “tourist visa”. The Tribunal enquired why the applicant had travelled to Australia on this occasion to which he said, “I’d come two times prior to this and I like this country”. He did not elaborate.

13. The Tribunal enquired as to his intended fields of study to which he said, “in Malaysia I use the language of Chinese, when trying to study here, the first thing I need to study is English”. He did not elaborate. The Tribunal enquired whether he had enrolled in such a course. He responded that he had enrolled in an English course with a duration of “one year and three months”. In answer to a question from the Tribunal he said that he enrolled in this course on “31 October 2017”. In answer to a further question from the Tribunal he said that he applied to enrol in this course on the same day. He did not elaborate. The Tribunal observed that three days prior to the expiry of the tourist visa the applicant applied for, and committed to, a 15 month period of study. Further, that this had occurred less than three months after arriving in Australia on a tourist visa. The applicant did not respond.

14. In answer to a question from the Tribunal the applicant said that he had a “family business” in his home country. He informed the Tribunal that the “family business” was being operated by “two uncles and my mother” while he is in Australia. The Tribunal enquired whether he was an employee of the business to which he said, “I am a partner with uncles”. The Tribunal enquired whether the applicant had resigned from the partnership whilst in Australia. The applicant seemed not to understand this concept. However in answer to further questions he said that he had not taken leave from the business and that he was still deriving income from the business. The Tribunal enquired whether he had informed his partners of a likely return date, to which he said, “if I have been given a good record, I will return”. The Tribunal pressed the applicant on this point and after further questions he said, “yes, when I finish my course I will go back and help them, I will finish my course in December”. He added, “I will return after that, I have an air ticket”. The Tribunal enquired as to his date of departure to which he said “29 or 30”. The Tribunal invited the applicant to provide a copy of the air ticket. The applicant then said, “I have not booked ticket yet”. The Tribunal informed the applicant that it did not accept his evidence and invited him to comment. The applicant did not respond.

15. The applicant has completed an English course whilst in Australia and is about to complete, apparently, a certificate III in business. The Tribunal enquired as to his intentions when he returns to his home country to which he said, “I want to help the family business”. He did not elaborate. In answer to a question from the Tribunal he said that he had been working in the family business for 10 years and that it was a business “selling fish”. He did not elaborate. In answer to a question from the Tribunal he said that the business was conducted in the Chinese language. The Tribunal enquired why he had he needed to speak English to conduct such a business, to which he said, “when I go back and take over now I’m taught to deal with hotels and restaurants and need to use English”. He did not elaborate.

16. The Tribunal enquired whether he could study a certificate III in business in his home country to which he said, “there is no course like this in Malaysia”. He did not elaborate. The applicant said that his income prior to arriving in Australia was approximately 100,000 Malaysian ringgit annually. The applicant said that he is not working in Australia and that his older brother is giving money to him. He did not elaborate.

17. In answer to a question from the Tribunal the applicant said he owned a house in Malaysia and “stocks”; he added that his father “left me a boat”. He estimated the value of the assets to be in the order of 500,000 Malaysian ringgit. His immediate family in Malaysia are comprised of his mother and sister; he has a brother living in Australia. The applicant lives in accommodation in Australia “leased by my brother”.

18. The applicant’s migration agent, Williams, was invited to make any submissions he thought appropriate on behalf of his client. In substance he said that his client had travelled to Australia on three occasions: first in 2012, then in 2016 and most recently on 2 August 2017. On the latter occasion he said was as a “tourist”. The migration agent confirmed that the applicant has not left Australia since he arrived in 2017. The applicant’s migration agent said that his client had a confirmation of enrolment which stated that he would conclude his current course on 29 March 2020, but that in fact he would finish the course on 23 December 2019. As to the applicant’s brother the migration agent said that that it was his understanding that the applicant’s brother is on a “dependent student visa” and that the applicant’s sister-in-law is the holder of a “student visa”. The Tribunal observed that the migration agent had provided submissions dated 12 October 2019. The migration agent confirmed that the applicant relied upon those submissions. The Tribunal informed the migration agent that they had been read and would be taken into account.

19. In considering whether the applicant has met the genuine temporary entry criterion, the Tribunal had regard to the following factors consistent with cl.500.212 and Ministerial Direction No.69. The factors were used to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether he has satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

20. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in his home country.  The applicant is unmarried and is from Malaysia.  The applicant has provided evidence of social, direct family and financial ties to his home country or other economic incentives to return. When considering the applicant’s circumstances in his home country, the Tribunal therefore finds that he has been able to demonstrate ties to act as an incentive to return to his home country at the completion of the proposed study. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have family ties Malaysia, however, given the time the applicant has spent in Australia and the intended period of future to stay in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a significant incentive for the applicant to return to Malaysia.

21. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.  The applicant arrived in Australia on 2 August 2017 as a holder of “tourist” visa valid to 2 November 2017.  The proposed study would extend the applicant’s stay until at least early 2020.  The Tribunal finds that the length of this proposed additional stay creates serious concerns that the applicant is studying for the purposes of staying in Australia.  Whilst the Tribunal accepts that plans can change, this is not the conduct of a genuine temporary student.  Rather, it suggests the applicant has decided to extend his stay in Australia by utilising the student visa programme.

22. The Tribunal does not place weight on the value of the course to the applicant’s future, including remuneration and career prospects in the applicant’s home country.  The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s study history since arrival and notes that he commenced study in October 2017 in Australia.

23. The Tribunal notes that this course plan is inconsistent with the applicant’s work history as the owner or partner in a seafood business in which Chinese is the language of commerce. He entered Australia in August 2017 as the holder of a “tourist visa”. The applicant now wishes to pursue an English-language course in  Australia.  The course is asserted to have relevance to very vague future plans. The Tribunal gives this little weight because the applicant said he had been a partner in the seafood business for approximately 10 years and that the business is conducted in or by reference to the Chinese language.

24. The applicant has via his migration agent provided a submission in which he attempts to address the genuine temporary entry criterion.  It is consistent with the applicant’s evidence and has been taken into account.

25. The Tribunal notes that the applicant worked as a partner in a seafood business in Malaysia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established that study will provide him with significant benefits in his proposed career plan, considering the cost of the study and the fact that the applicant already has experience as a partner in a seafood business.  The Tribunal therefore is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed additional study has a realistic prospect of providing significant value to his future beyond the qualifications and experience he already holds.

26. The Tribunal has given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter.  The Tribunal finds that there are no other relevant matters to consider that may be beneficial or adverse to the applicant, and that this aspect is not relevant.

27. The Tribunal has considered all the information provided with the visa application. After weighing up these factors as a whole, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been able to satisfy it that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia as a student.

28. The Tribunal has considered the evidence and has taken into account the applicant’s economic circumstances in the applicant’s home country relative to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.  Given the disparity in economic circumstances between Malaysia and Australia the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has significant incentive to return to Malaysia.  The applicant has been unable to demonstrate substantial ties or personal assets in the applicant’s home country which diminishes the applicant’s incentive to return to Malaysia. 

29. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s intention to live in Australia may be motivated by factors other than study.  The applicant has not demonstrated any clear and substantial improvements arising from the applicant’s proposed study but will outlay the significant time and monetary commitment this course will require.  Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of the applicant’s proposed course to the applicant’s future.

30. The Tribunal does not give weight to the evidence that since the applicant’s arrival in Australia on 2 August 2017 the applicant has spent over two years in Australia and no time outside of Australia, which indicates that the applicant does not appear to have strong personal ties to Malaysia.  Based on this evidence the Tribunal assesses the applicant’s incentive to return to Malaysia to be minimal.

31. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for a further stay as full-time student.  Whilst the applicant clearly wishes to stay and continue to study in Australia, it is noted that the applicant was previously granted a visa specifically to enable the applicant to achieve that goal.  It appears to the Tribunal that the applicant has commenced studying for the purposes of the visa application only in order to secure a further stay in Australia, rather than due to a genuine interest in this area of study.  The Tribunal has also given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter, and finds there to be no other relevant matter to the assessment of the applicant’s intentions to stay in Australia temporarily.  The Tribunal has considered all information provided by the applicant in support of the applicant’s application.  On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the information the applicant has provided regarding the applicant’s circumstances in the applicant’s home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future, the applicant’s immigration history and other relevant matters are sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.

32. On the contrary, the factors indicate that the applicant appears to have enrolled in the present course for the purposes of securing a further student visa, rather than due to a genuine interest in study and overall academic progress.  The applicant appears to be using the student visa programme as a means of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia, and does not have a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.

33. There is no evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction No.69: economic circumstances of the applicant; any potential military service in Malaysia; political or civil unrest circumstances in Malaysia; remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in Malaysia or a third country compared with Australia; circumstances in Malaysia relative to Australia or any other country; and the applicant’s circumstances in Malaysia relative to others in that country.

34. The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time, to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia.  Given the amount of time the applicant has now spent in Australia, the Tribunal is concerned the student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.

35. 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.

36. 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.

   Peter Booth
   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.