Chiang (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 347

CHIANG (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 347 (7 MARCH 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
.
Applicant:Mr Ching-Tsung Chiang
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2313459

Tribunal: General MemberB. Lumsdaine
Place:Sydney
Date: 7 March 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 07 March 2025 at 1:49pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa – intends to bring partner and child to Australia to live with him – economic circumstances present a significant incentive to not return to Taiwan – using the student visa programme to circumvent the migration programme – not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 500.212
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 14 August 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 9 June 2023. 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.
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 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the applicant was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The hearing was adjourned and resumed on 28 February 2025. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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 applicant for entry and stay as a student.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl 500.212)
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.
Evidence before the Tribunal
In his application for the student visa, the applicant provided a statement regarding his reasons for study in Australia. In summary, the applicant explained that he had finished school in the equivalent of year 11 in Myanmar before later moving to Taiwan. Most recently, he worked at Proud Sun Heat treatment company, a manufacturing company in Taipei, Taiwan, which manufactured heat treated steel. He decided to study management to seek promotion in his career. He sought to study general English, a Diploma of Business, and a Graduate Diploma of Management so that he may be able to apply for management level jobs on return to Taiwan. He decided to pursue this course of study while visiting family in Australia. His family supported his decision to remain in Australia to study and he believed that he would be able to make up the income lost from studying and paying tuition if he could secure a higher paying management role in Taiwan. He sought to study in Australia to learn English and because the diploma courses were more practical and shorter than tertiary level management courses he had looked at in Taiwan. The applicant’s wife and two children remain living in Taiwan where his son was at school and his wife worked at the Taiwan Tea Culture Museum. Both his wife and child supported his decision to study in Australia. He speaks to them every night and planned to visit them for the Christmas holiday break. With his application, he provided a copy of his passport, evidence of savings and insurance, and a letter from his previous employer.
On 14 August 2023, the delegate refused the application on the basis that they were not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia. In forming this view, the delegate reasoned that while the applicant’s wife and children were in Taiwan, they would be eligible to join the applicant in the future. The delegate also gave weight to the fact that the applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa for a short-term visit, and the applicant was enrolled in courses that would extend his stay in Australia for approximately two years. The delegate found the applicant’s decision to study to be inconsistent with the behaviour of a genuine student, given the applicant was employed in Taiwan prior to arrival in Australia and as they expected the applicant would have included a greater level of planning and preparation before coming to Australia if he was a genuine student. The delegate also found the applicant’s stated career goals to be unclear and the course of study was not of clear value to the applicant’s future given the lack of clarity around his career goal.
On 1 September 2023, the applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision. On 12 December 2024, the applicant provided further information in a completed ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form sent to him by the Tribunal. In summary, he claimed in this form that he selected to attend the London College – Sydney campus to study a Diploma of Business. The applicant indicated that London College appealed to him because of its practical teaching style of the college, the efficient path of study allowing him to learn General English, a Diploma of Business, and a Graduate Diploma of Business in succession and relatively quickly, and its relatively affordable fees. Given his age the relatively short study time was preferable to him than studying a bachelor’s degree and postgraduate degree in Taiwan, which he estimated would take six years. He also had the opportunity to learn English in Australia. He was also inspired by his nephew’s professional growth after studying in Australia. He explained that he remained in close contact with his family in Taiwan. The applicant indicated he intended to return to Proud Sun Heat treatment in a managerial role or to pursue a managerial role at a similar large company in Taiwan. He estimated he would earn upwards of 53,000AUD annually in such a role. He provided evidence that he had paid fees and a copy of the certificate and results for his Diploma of Business issued on 11 August 2024 and a Statement of Achievement for General English issued on 30 July 2023. He also provided a copy of his bank balance and life insurance statement from Taiwan.
The applicant was invited to attend a hearing before the Tribunal on 13 February 2025 by videoconference. The applicant attended the hearing but hearing was adjourned as the start of the hearing had been delayed by the Tribunal and the interpreter was unbale to stay longer to assist the Tribunal. The applicant attended a hearing in-person before the Tribunal on 28 February 2025.
On both 13 February 2025 and 28 February 2025, the Tribunal was assisted by Mandarin speaking interpreters. On 13 February 2025, the Tribunal explained the role of the hearing and the applicant provided some background information, while at the resumed hearing on 28 February 2025, the Tribunal asked the applicant about his reasons for study in Australia. At the hearing on 28 February 2025, the applicant explained that he came to Australia to live and if he had gone back to Taiwan he would be working in a factory as regular staff. He explained that when he came to Australia to visit relatives, they encouraged him to enrol in a course and explained that he wanted his wife and children to join him in Australia. He also explained that in Taiwan he had joined a religious group with a name that translated to ‘unity’ in English, but they were not who he believed they were. He wanted to leave the group but they continued to harass him and sent people to find him. He explained that because he wants to live in Australia, he wants to learn English. He said he wanted to work in Australia and stay in Australia.
The Tribunal explained to the applicant that it was assessing whether he intended to stay in Australia temporarily and if it found he did not intend to do so, it would find that he is not eligible for the student visa he applied for. The applicant confirmed that he understood this and confirmed that he wanted to stay in Australia. The Tribunal also asked him what his plans were for when he finished studying and the applicant replied that he wanted to open a restaurant in Australia as his older sister had one in Taiwan.
The Tribunal asked the applicant if there were any circumstances that would make it difficult for him to return to Taiwan such as military service commitments, civil or political unrest or personal circumstances. The applicant responded that it was just the issue with the religious group he mentioned earlier in the hearing. He wished that his wife and children could come to Australia. He said his older sister was prepared to sell her house so that his wife and children could come to Australia.
The Tribunal put to the applicant that in his application he stated he was studying in Australia so he could return to Taiwan with better prospects of employment in management jobs at the heat treatment factory where he had been working or other similar businesses but at the hearing, he said that he intended to remain in Australia and open a restaurant. The Tribunal explained that this suggested he did not want to stay in Australia temporarily as he stated but wanted to live in Australia. The applicant confirmed this was the case. The Tribunal explained that if it found he did not want to stay in Australia temporarily, it would decide he would not meet one of the criteria for a student visa and would affirm the delegate’s decision. The applicant indicated he understood and asked for advice on how to remain in Australia permanently. The Tribunal explained that it was not its role to advise him but he could seek some advice about his circumstances and was not something the Tribunal could consider presently as its role was to assess his eligibility for the student visa he applied for and specifically whether he intended to remain in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal asked the applicant if there was anything else he wanted to say. The applicant thanked the Tribunal and the hearing was concluded.
Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?
In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl 500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No 108, ‘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.
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.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s personal circumstances, including his stated intention for study in Australia and personal circumstances in Australia and Taiwan. The Tribunal has also considered the PRISMS record for the applicant which indicates that he has completed a General English course and a Diploma of Business and is currently studying a Graduate Diploma of Business, which supports the applicant’s claims that he is in Australia for the purpose of study as he outlined in his application for the student visa. While the applicant claimed in his application for the student visa that he intended to return to Taiwan following his study to find employment, his evidence at the hearing on 28 February 2025, directly contradicted this. At the hearing, the applicant stated that he intended to remain in Australia to open a restaurant. Even after the Tribunal explained that it was assessing whether the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily, the applicant confirmed this was his intention. Based on the applicant’s evidence at the hearing, the Tribunal finds that the applicant does not intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The applicant’s statements regarding his intentions to return to Taiwan to seek employment in a management role do not reflect his current intentions. As such the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s reasons for undertaking study in Australia or not undertaking study in Taiwan are not reasonable as they are not to pursue employment related to the study as the applicant claimed in his student visa application and completed student visa information form provided to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s ties to Taiwan including the presence of wife and child in Taiwan. The delegate noted in their decision, the listing of the applicant’s partner and child in his student visa application as unaccompanied family members may indicate a future ‘desire/intention’ to include his immediate family members on a temporary visa to reunite with them. Given the applicant’s explicit statement at the hearing that he intends to bring them to Australia to live with him, and the potential for them to apply for and be granted a student visa, the Tribunal finds that their current presence in Taiwan is not a strong incentive for the applicant to return to Taiwan.
The Tribunal has considered whether the applicant’s economic circumstances present a significant incentive for him to not return to Taiwan. Based on the applicant’s stated income in Taiwan most recently 34,000 AUD, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s economic circumstances do not provide a significant incentive for him not to return to Taiwan given the purchasing power of his income in Taiwan is considered.[1] Further there is no indication that the applicant has military service commitments in Taiwan or that civil or political unrest or other personal circumstances motivated his entry and stay in Australia. The Tribunal considered that these factors do not indicate that the applicant does not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
[1][1] See e.g.
The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s ties to Australia. The applicant has extended family in Australia, including his younger brother and his children. At the hearing, the applicant stated he is close to his family in Australia and lives with his nephew. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s family in Australia present a strong incentive for him to remain in Australia. Further, the applicant’s statements at the hearing that he did not want to return to Taiwan and wanted to stay in Australia to open a restaurant and bring his wife and child to Australia clearly indicates that he does not intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal asked the applicant to confirm this was his intention at the hearing on multiple occasions and explained that it might lead the Tribunal to find he does not intend to genuinely stay in Australia. The applicant confirmed that he understood the significance of this for his application and that it was his intention to remain in Australia. Given the applicant’s statements at the hearing, the Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is using the student visa programme to circumvent the migration programme and to maintain ongoing residence insofar as he is using it to establish himself in Australia rather than to study with the intention of staying in Australia temporarily.
There is no evidence the applicant has entered into a relationship of concern. The Tribunal was also satisfied that the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia, his intended course of study and associated education provider was realistic and of the level expected for a student. Nonetheless, the applicant’s statements at the hearing that he intends to live in Australia, indicate that his current intentions are not to stay in Australia temporarily. The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia indicate strongly that the applicant does not intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
The Tribunal has also considered the value of the course to the applicant’s future. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s study is consistent with his level of education and would potentially assist him to improve his employment prospects in Taiwan were he to return there. However, as stated above, the applicant expressed at the hearing an intention to remain indefinitely in Australia and open a restaurant rather than to pursue employment in Taiwan as he has stated previously. Given the applicant’s evidence regarding his plans for the future are to open a restaurant in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s study is of value to his future, as they are unrelated. Further, the Tribunal is of the view, given the applicant’s stated intention at the hearing to remain in Australia and open a restaurant, that the applicant is using his application for a student visa is a means of circumventing the migration programme and maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
While, in the Tribunal’s view, much of the applicant’s evidence prior to the hearing supported the claims he made in his application that he was seeking to remain in Australia temporarily, the applicant’s statements at the hearing that he wished to remain in Australia, open a restaurant and bring his family indicate that the applicant does not currently intend to return to Taiwan, or seek employment in a managerial role there. The Tribunal places more weight on the applicant’s clear and repeated statements at the hearing that he intended to remain in Australia indefinitely to establish a restaurant and bring his family to live with him.
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). As the applicant does not meet cl 500.212(a), it follows that 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.

Given the Tribunal finds that cl 500.212 is not met, the tribunal finds the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Dates of hearing(s): 13 February 2025 and 28 February 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Stanley Chan (MARN: 0430097)
Attachment – Direction No 108
DIRECTION NUMBER 108 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, CLARE O’NEIL, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated:
Clare O’Neil

Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security
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 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 108 – Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 108.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 23 March 2024.
Revocation
Direction No. 69, given under section 499 of the Act, is revoked.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Finally determined has the same meaning as is set out in subsections 5(9) and (9A) of the Act.
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 against the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications (as applicable).
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application.
This Direction applies in relation to Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made before 23 March 2024 but not finally determined on that date, including such visa applications that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for a Student visa and seek to satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, or an application for a Student Guardian visa and seek to satisfy the primary criteria.
Note: Direction No. 106 applies in relation to Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made on or after 23 March 2024, including visa applications made on or after that date that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa program 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 program 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 – 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 or Student Guardian 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 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;
d)whether 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.
iii.b. Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
iv.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;
v.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
vi.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
vii.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 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.