DAENWONG (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision to refuse a Subclass 500 (Student) visa application made by a citizen of Thailand, and her husband who was a secondary applicant. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily as a student, a requirement under clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant met the criteria for a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, specifically whether she genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and intended to comply with visa conditions. This assessment involved considering the applicant's circumstances in her home country and in Australia, her immigration history, the value of her proposed course of study to her future, and any other relevant matters, as guided by Direction No. 69.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's stated career goals were confused and prone to change, lacking consistency with her area of study. Her intention to pursue a career in marketing was undermined by her continued work in hospitality and her recent application for a training visa to work in a restaurant, which she had not initially disclosed. These factors, combined with her inconsistent statements regarding her GTE statement, led the Tribunal to conclude that she did not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily as a student.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas. The Tribunal found that the secondary applicant did not meet the secondary criteria for the visa, as his eligibility depended on the primary applicant satisfying the criteria for a student visa, which she had failed to do.