Choo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of a 32-year-old Malaysian man who sought review of a decision to refuse him a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had previously held several student visas and completed numerous English language courses, as well as a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma of Hospitality Management. The applicant's stated intention was to study Patisserie with the aim of employment in a high-end hotel.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the criterion of being a "genuine temporary entrant" as defined by clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This required the Tribunal to assess whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to his circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters, in accordance with Direction No. 69.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had strong family and economic ties in Australia, and had pursued a course of study, these factors were outweighed by a lack of evidence of prospective job offers in his home country that would align with his stated career aspirations. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had been in Australia on various student visas since 2014 and had completed a series of courses. Despite the applicant's stated desire to work in a high-end hotel, the Tribunal found insufficient evidence to support the genuine temporary entrant criterion, particularly concerning the value of the proposed Patisserie course to his future employment prospects in Malaysia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, finding that the criteria for the visa were not met.