CHANG (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5686

CHANG (Migration) [2020] AATA 5686 (29 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs In Yi CHANG
Mr Jai Young LEE

CASE NUMBER:  1907361

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/298155

MEMBER:Margaret Forrest

DATE:29 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 29 September 2020 at 9:40pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– vague details about her future plans – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met– personal ties with Australia–– decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 Home Affairs on 15 March 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 1 February 2019. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (the applicant) applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visas 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 was a genuine temporary entrant.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal by telephone on 25 September 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.

5. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, however, their agent did not attend the telephone hearing to make submissions.

6. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. 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)

9. 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?

10. 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.

11. 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.

12. The applicant confirmed that she and her husband (the secondary applicant) first arrived in Australia on 27 December 2018.  The applicant did not submit an information form to the Tribunal in response to a request from the Tribunal on 23 April 2020.

13. The applicant told the Tribunal that when she and her husband arrived in Australia on 27 December 2018, they were both on visitor visas. 

14. The applicant submitted her current student visa application on 1 February 2019.  When the applicant submitted her current student visa application she was proposing to study the following courses:

    a.an English course;

    b.a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice; and

    c.a Diploma of Project Management.  

15. Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed high school in South Korea (1992) and a Bachelor of Music (2009 – 2013).  Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant worked as a safety supervisor at Sebo Mec in Seoul from December 2015 to December 2018.  The applicant also worked as a Music Teacher from May 2008 to November 2015. 

16. The applicant told the Tribunal that she has never worked in Australia. 

17. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the circumstances in her home country.

18. In the genuine temporary entrant statement that the applicant submitted to the Tribunal, she said that she had chosen to study in Australia rather than South Korea because:

    I have experienced that I need a tertiary education diploma which is related to a professional job but it was hard to try in South Korea because I need to study year 11-12 subjects again including English, Mathematics, Physics and geography and so on.  I did not like to study them again and it was not useful for business career.  I studied French and it did not help to find a job in South Korea…

    Education in Australia is the best in the world.  Australian teachers give students a lot of chance to practice English but Korean English teachers usually teach Grammar.  So, I feel the teaching environment in Australia is very suitable for me to learn knowledge and skills. 

19. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her family ties to South Korea.  The applicant said that her parents and her brother and two sisters continue to reside in South Korea.  The applicant said that she phones them twice per month.  The applicant confirmed that since arriving in Australia on 27 December 2018, she has not returned home to visit her family in South Korea.   

20. The applicant said that her assets in South Korea consist of cash that is also accessible from Australia.  The applicant said that she has no community ties in South Korea.  The applicant said that she is not concerned about military service commitments or political or civil unrest in South Korea.

21. The Tribunal put to the applicant that the evidence suggested that her family ties to South Korea were not a significant incentive for her to return there.  The applicant accepted that they were not.  The Tribunal asked the applicant how this could be reconciled with her statement in the genuine temporary entrant statement that she submitted to the Tribunal that:

    I need to go back to Korea because me and my husband need to look after my parents and my parents in law.    

22. The applicant said that her brother and sister can look after her parents.

23. Taking into account this evidence, on balance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s family ties to South Korea do not, of themselves, constitute a strong incentive for the applicant to return there.  In making this finding, the Tribunal has placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant has been in Australia for almost two years, has not returned home during this time and has managed to keep in touch with her family in South Korea via electronic means during this time.  The Tribunal has also taken into account the applicant’s statement that her family ties are not a significant incentive for her to return there.

24. The Tribunal asked the applicant about her potential circumstances in Australia.

25. The applicant said that she has never worked in Australia.  The applicant confirmed that her husband (the secondary applicant) is her only family member in Australia.  The applicant confirmed that she has lived with her husband in Australia since they both arrived on visitor visas on 27 December 2018.  The applicant that her husband cannot work in Australia and he is undertaking study at home, but no formal study in Australia.  The applicant said they are supporting themselves via savings in South Korea.  The applicant said that she has no assets in Australia and when asked about her community ties in Australia she said that she attends church.  

26. Taking into account this evidence, the Tribunal considers that, on balance, the applicant’s family ties to Australia do constitute a strong incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.  In making this finding, the Tribunal has placed significant weight on the fact that the applicant has been living with her husband in Australia since they both arrived almost two years ago. 

27. Adopting the procedure in section 359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had on the Tribunal file a copy of her enrolment records from the Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database.  The day before the hearing, the Tribunal emailed the applicant a copy of her PRISMS records.  The applicant confirmed that she had her PRISMS record in front of her during the hearing.  The Tribunal explained to the applicant what the PRISMS database is and the relevance of the records to the review before the Tribunal (that the records showed the applicant had not completed a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice or started a Diploma of Project Management and that the applicant had only completed a small number of courses since arriving in Australia).  The Tribunal explained to the applicant the consequences of it relying upon the information (that the Tribunal may form the view that the applicant is not a genuine temporary entrant and does not meet the criteria for the visa for which she has applied).  The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant understood the relevance and consequences of the information being relied on.  The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information and advised the applicant that she may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information.  The applicant elected to respond at the hearing.

28. The applicant confirmed that the PRISMS record was correct and that she had not completed a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice or started a Diploma of Project Management.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why she had not completed these courses.  The applicant said that she could not catch up on the level of study and that her English was not high enough. 

29. The applicant submitted evidence to the Tribunal that shows she completed a General English course between 14 January 2019 and 17 January 2020.  The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant completed a second General English course between 24 February 2020 and 15 May 2020.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is presently enrolled in an English course that commenced on 31 August 2020 and which was scheduled to conclude on 20 November 2020.  The end date for this course was recently extended from 20 November 2020 to 11 May 2021.  The Tribunal asked the applicant why the end date of her current English course was pushed out from 20 November 2020 to 11 May 2021.  The applicant said that this was because she expected she would not be able to finish the course on time.

30. The Tribunal asked the applicant when she plans to leave Australia if her current course finishes on 11 May 2021.  The applicant said she plans to stay in Australia until her English level is reasonably high and the she would see how she goes.  The Tribunal asked the applicant if she still planned to complete a Certificate IV and a Diploma and the applicant said that she plans to study English for now. 

31. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she decided to study English when she has previously studied music and worked as a safety supervisor.  The applicant said the she is a Christian and that she was reading the bible and God ordered Abraham to leave his place and she wanted to follow this man.  The applicant said she wanted to study and earn money in Australia and when her visa was refused, she thought about going back to Korea, but she felt that God wanted her to stay in Australia and so she applied for review of the refusal.  The applicant said she wanted to learn English in the English speaking world.      

32. The Tribunal asked the applicant about the value of the course to her future.

33. In the genuine temporary entrant statement the applicant submitted to the Tribunal on 27 March 2019, the applicant said:

    As soon as I can complete the courses, then I will go back to my country and I will start a new career or will go back to previous job.  I just can decide sooner or later. 

34. The applicant told the Tribunal that her future plan had now changed.  The applicant said that she plans to spread the word of God in English if possible.  The Tribunal asked the applicant where she planned to do this.  The applicant said wherever God leads. 

35. The Tribunal asked the applicant if her plan was return to South Korea after her English had improved.  The applicant said that God will tell her when that point arrives.  The applicant said that she cannot say whether returning to South Korea is her current plan. 

36. The Tribunal asked the applicant where she plans to work if she did return to South Korea.  The applicant said she would search for where to work when she returned.

37. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has provided only vague details about her future plans. The Tribunal also finds the fact the applicant cannot say with certainty when she plans to leave Australia or whether her current plan is to return to South Korea is inconsistent with an intention to remain in Australia temporarily.

38. The Tribunal has taken into account the applicant’s immigration history insofar as the applicant first arrived in Australia almost two years ago on a visitor visa and it was after this time that she applied for her student visa in Australia. 

39. The Tribunal asked the secondary applicant, Mr Jai Young Lee whether he wished to give any evidence to the Tribunal.  Mr Lee said he did not. 

40. The Tribunal considers that an applicant who was a genuine temporary entrant would have circumstances which support a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal considers that when the following evidence and findings are considered together, they indicate that any student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.  These are:

    a.the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant’s family ties to South Korea do not, of themselves, represent a strong incentive for the applicant to return to South Korea;

    b.the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant’s family ties to Australia do constitute a strong incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia;

    c.the fact that the applicant has not completed the courses she initially intended to complete when she applied for the student visa;

    d.the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant has provided only vague details about her future plans;

    e.the fact the applicant cannot say with certainty when she plans to leave Australia or whether her current plan is to return to South Korea which is inconsistent with an intention to remain in Australia temporarily; and

    f.the fact that the applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa and it was after this time that the applicant applied for her student visa.

41. 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).

    Conclusion on cl.500.212

42. 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.

43. 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.

    Clause 500.311

44. Clause 500.311 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations requires as follows:

    The applicant is a member of the family unit of a person (the primary person) who holds a student visa, having satisfied the primary criteria for that visa, and either:

    (a)     the applicant became a member of the family unit of the primary person before the grant of the student visa to the primary person, and was included in:

    (i)the primary person’s application under subregulation 2.07AF(3); or

    (ii)information provided in relation to the primary person’s application under subregulation 2.07AF(4); or

    (b)    the applicant became a member of the family unit of the primary person:

    (i)after the grant of the student visa to the primary person; and

    (ii)before the application was made.

    Conclusion on cl.500.311

45. As the applicant was found not to meet cl.500.212, the Tribunal finds that the secondary applicant, Mr Jai Young Lee, does not satisfy cl.500.311. As the secondary applicant, Mr Jai Young Lee, has been found not to satisfy cl.500.311, no further assessment with regard to this applicant has been undertaken. Accordingly, in relation to the secondary applicant, Mr Jai Young Lee, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Margaret Forrest
    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.