Custodio Lopes (Migration) - [2021] AATA 1089

Custodio Lopes (Migration) [2021] AATA 1089 (12 April 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Ricardo Custodio Lopes
CASE NUMBER:  1921852
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3432532
MEMBER:D Triaca
DATE:12 April 2021
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 12 April 2021 at 11:47am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – study and work history in home country and Australia – enrolment at lower levels than previous highest study – value of courses to applicant’s future – partner relationship in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)
CASES
Singh [2019] (Migration) AATA 2993
Vu Vu (Migration) [2019] AATA 5740
Vu Vu v Minister for Immigration [2020] FCCA 2292
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 31 July 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 9 July 2019. 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 Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Portuguese and English languages.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that 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.
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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Custodio Lopes (Migration) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2021] AATA 1089
Decision Date: 12 April 2021

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Custodio Lopes, who sought review of a decision to refuse a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, a key criterion for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and if they intended to comply with the visa conditions. In making this assessment, the Tribunal was bound to consider Direction No. 69, which outlines various factors relevant to the genuine temporary entrant criterion, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and Australia, the value of the proposed course of study to their future, their immigration history, and any other relevant information.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant's previous study history and current enrolment at a lower academic level than their highest previous qualification were factors to consider, they were not determinative. The Tribunal also had regard to the applicant's partner relationship in Australia. Applying the principles from Direction No. 69 and case law such as *Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection*, the Tribunal considered these factors holistically, rather than as a checklist, to assess the applicant's overall genuineness.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that 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. 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.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.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. 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. This is made plain from the following statement of Logan J in Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2020) FCAFC 16 at [4], ‘Of course the Minister’s directions were a relevant consideration. How could it be otherwise in light of s 499 of the Act? But they were guidelines. Reading them as a whole, the Minister did not purport to elevate them beyond that, only to offer guidance to the end of consistency in public administration. Moreover, as Derrington and Thawley JJ explain, the Minister explicitly counselled against a mechanical, “checklist” approach. He recognised that factors might not be all one way; hence his reference to, “on balance”. All this was done in respect of a visa eligibility for which has as a criterion a subject which inherently involves, “a matter of opinion or policy or taste” in terms of satisfaction as to whether an applicant is a genuine student.’

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.