DOS REMEDIOS SOUZA (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2256

DOS REMEDIOS SOUZA (Migration) [2019] AATA 2256 (2 April 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Miss Lorena DOS REMEDIOS SOUZA
Mr Rodolfo RODRIGUES CARVALHO

CASE NUMBER:  1719208

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2208884

MEMBER:Meredith Jackson

DATE:2 April 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 02 April 2019 at 10:45am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – unsatisfactory academic progress – study gaps – proposed course not originally envisaged – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.212, 500.311

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 4 August 2017 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 22 June 2017. 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 the primary applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

4.    The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 27 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The second named applicant did not give oral evidence to the Tribunal.

5.    The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, who was not present at the hearing.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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 primary applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212).

8. 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?

9. 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 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.

1. 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.

Summary of the case

1. The primary applicant (the applicant) is Ms Lorena Dos Remedios Souza and the secondary applicant is Mr Rodolfo Rodrigues Carvalho, Ms Remedios Souza’s dependant partner. Both are citizens of Brazil. Ms Dos Remedios Souza first arrived in Australia in October 2011 on a Student visa for five months’ study in the English language sector. She returned to Australia in 2012 on a tourist visa with her partner. She was subsequently granted four Student visa as a dependant on Mr Rodrigues Carvalho’s four Student and one Graduate Work visas. On the day her partner’s Graduate visa was due to expire, the applicant lodged her application for a Student visa, indicating she had enrolled to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management. She completed the course in July 2018 and has not studied since. The visa was refused in August 2017. The applicant appealed the decision and on 26 March 2019, the day before the review hearing, the applicant, who is a physiotherapist in her home country, enrolled in a one-year Diploma of Remedial Massage.

Documentary evidence considered

1. Ms Dos Remedios Souza submitted documentary evidence to the Tribunal, including:

   a.The delegate’s decision;

   b.A personal submission;

   c.A General English certificate (20 weeks’ study) completed 16 March 2012;

   d.Academic records for the applicant in a Diploma of Leadership and Management from which she graduated in July 2018;

   e.A Certificate of Enrolment (COE) for a Diploma of Remedial Massage due to commence on 9 April 2019 and complete on 29 May 2020.

The hearing

1. At the hearing, the Tribunal, under section 359AA of the Act, referred the applicant to information about her held in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) and explained its relevance in that the information in the database might be the reason, or part of the reason to affirm the delegate’s decision.

2. The Tribunal outlined the information in the database, which captures a chronological record of the applicant’s academic history in Australia: her enrolments, commencements, cancellations and finalisations. The Tribunal said it had not made up its mind about the information. The Tribunal referred to the information during the hearing and the applicant was invited to comment on it. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she wished to seek further time to consider it. The applicant said she was prepared to comment on the information immediately after it was read to her and said she understood it and why it was relevant to his case.

3. The applicant confirmed that her PRISMS record was correct.

4. The applicant submitted that she had come to Australia to study English and returned as a tourist and remained here as a member of the family unit of the secondary applicant.

5. The record reflects that the applicant completed a General English course between October 2011 and March 2012, then did not study again until July 2017, after she gained a Certificate of Enrolment in a Diploma of Leadership and Management that was issued on 19 June 2017, three days before she applied for the visa under review.

6. After the visa application was refused in August 2017, the applicant completed her course but then did not enrol in any further study until one day before the review hearing, when she gained a Certificate of Enrolment in a one-year Diploma of Remedial Massage due to commence on 9 April 2019. The applicant submitted that she is a qualified physiotherapist in Brazil but her qualifications are not recognised in Australia. The remedial massage course, she explained, would complement her existing physiotherapy qualifications in Brazil.

7. In the gaps between her studies in Australia, the applicant claimed she worked in hospitality in order to financially support her partner while he completed a Master of Civil Engineering.

8. In response to Tribunal questioning about the timing of the courses, the applicant confirmed that at the time of the visa application, she had intended only to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management. Her decision to enrol in the Diploma of Remedial Massage at the time of the review was to now take advantage of her presence in Australia to build on her qualifications.

9. The Tribunal said it might have a concern that the applicant had not progressed academically since completing her physiotherapy degree in Brazil, had big gaps in her study record and was now proposing a course that she had not originally envisaged. The Tribunal repeated to the applicant its introductory remarks that the purpose of the student visa program was to study and progress academically. The applicant argued that if she started a course prior to the review, and the decision was affirmed, there was a risk that she would have wasted money on a course she could not finish. She submitted she had anticipated an earlier review hearing and this would have reduced the gap in her studies.

10. The Tribunal said it might have a concern that the applicant’s record of having applied for visas around the time an existing visa was due to expire indicated the applicant was using the Student visa program to extend her stay in Australia. The applicant said this was not the case, the difficulty with timing had been that her partner had been applying for jobs, or an internship, and she didn’t want to enrol because if he were successful in gaining an internship, she would not be able to support him financially because she would be studying. The Tribunal pointed out that when a person applies to study in Australia, a requirement for the grant of a student visa is that they have financial capacity to fund the studies.

11. The Tribunal then asked why the applicant has not sought to progress beyond her Brazilian physiotherapy attainment and had not sought to become qualified as a physiotherapist in Australia while she was here. The applicant said the test was expensive and hard to get through, and the parties’ lawyer had questioned whether the applicants were in a position to undertake such a commitment.

12. The Tribunal raised that an option for the applicants appeared to be a return to Brazil, where, as the applicant had indicated at hearing, the secondary applicant could readily find work as an Australian-qualified civil engineer, rather than work in a carpet business as he was doing now, and the applicant could work as a physiotherapist. The Tribunal said it might consider this to be a stronger option for the applicant, and outweigh the need for a further course and further visa in Australia.

13. The applicant said she understood how the situation might appear, but she felt she would not have another opportunity to gain a qualification in a country like Australia, and this was why she wanted to study further before going back home.

14. The Tribunal raised a related concern that the applicant had said, at the time of the visa application, she wanted to study only a Diploma of Leadership and Management and, while waiting for the review, had completed it. She now wanted to add a Diploma of Remedial Massage, a course not envisaged at the time she applied for the visa. This could indicate she was seeking to extend her stay in Australia and further, might decide enrol in a further course beyond that to remain longer.

15. The applicant said she had considered her options and chosen the massage course for career reasons, and was not interested in doing a further course beyond the Diploma of Remedial Massage. She stated she needed leadership skills and massage skills which would enable her to work within health teams or supervise others and this would give her a professional edge in Brazil. The applicant stated that, also, she had supported her partner through his studies and now it was her turn. Having overseas qualifications made a difference in Brazil and being here now was a big opportunity to add them.

16. The applicant submitted that her sister had been very ill during the time she had been in Australia and she had gone home to help her and her parents for months. This had been very difficult for her and had contributed to her apprehension about enrolling in courses before now.

17. In relation to her family circumstances, the applicant said she had one member of her family in Australia, a cousin who was married to an Australian citizen. In Brazil both applicants had immediate families who lived fairly close together.

18. The applicant stated neither she nor her partner had ever applied for visas elsewhere or had any visas cancelled or refused before now.

Conclusions

1. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence submitted by the applicant and considered the relevant factors in Direction 69, and has reached the following conclusions:

   a.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, and in relation to other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the Tribunal, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant, the Tribunal concludes the applicant is using the Student visa program to extend her stay in Australia, rather than seeking to achieve academic progression. The applicant has a limited attainment for a person who has been in Australia since 2011, her qualifications confined to English language and a Diploma of Leadership and Management, which are both below her level of attainment in a Bachelor degree in Brazil. The Tribunal accepts some of the applicant’s study gaps may be due to her having been here as a dependant on Student and Graduate visas for much of her time here. However the timing of the applicant’s enrolments, particularly enrolment in the Diploma of Remedial Massage 12 days before the hearing after a nine-month gap in study, and the enrolment in a Diploma of Leadership and Management three days before her visa application and on the day her partner’s Graduate visa ran out, are strategic not academic. They were made for the purposes of the visa and the review outcome she is seeking. The applicant is a qualified physiotherapist at Bachelor degree level in Brazil, and has not sought to undertake an Australian registration process while in the country, despite having had significant opportunity to do so. Given that she characterises her stay in Australia as a one-off opportunity to gain valuable overseas qualifications, her study record is demonstrably thin. She has not progressed and has sought short courses below her existing attainment level, despite stating that she intends to work in physiotherapy when she returns to Brazil.

   b.In relation to the value of the course to the applicant’s future, and in relation to other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the Tribunal, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant in her PRISMS record, the Tribunal concludes the applicant is using the student visa program to extend her stay rather than making academic attainment her central purpose. The applicant cites personal finances as the reason for not studying for the past nine months. She states she did not want to start studying something and paying for the course, if there were a risk she would not be successful in gaining a visa; it would be a waste of money. She indicated in sworn evidence that she has an arrangement in place with the education provider, Massage Schools of Queensland, for a refund if the outcome of the review went against her. In asserting this, the applicant further indicates to the Tribunal that her academic activities are primarily calculated to extend her stay in Australia.

   c.Further in relation to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, the Tribunal concludes the applicant’s reasons to remain in Australia outweigh the appeal of resuming her life in Brazil. The applicant’s family circumstances are that she has a cousin in Australia who is on a pathway to permanent residency, while her own immediate family members remain in Brazil. The Tribunal is not convinced that having family members in Brazil is of itself, a compelling reason to return home at the end of the applicant’s studies. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s oral evidence that her partner is seeking employment or internship as a civil engineer in Australia, but has not yet been successful in doing so. The Tribunal is mindful that a further Student visa would provide the secondary applicant the time to seek professional opportunities in Australia that would afford him valuable experience and a chance to work towards residency. The Tribunal concludes that these factors are encouraging the parties extend their stay in Australia for as long as possible.

   d.In relation to 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; the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has not applied for visas elsewhere and does not have a settled plan to live in other countries that might indicate to the Tribunal a desire to leave Brazil and resettle overseas. However the Tribunal notes the applicant’s timing in applying for a visa at the time of the expiry of her partner’s graduate visa and concludes this was done to provide an arrangement whereby the couple could remain in Australia for an extended period by relying on the Student visa program and as such is not a genuine temporary entrant.

2. 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).

3. 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.

4. 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.

Secondary applicant

1. The entitlement of the secondary applicant, Mr Rodolfo Rodrigues Carvalho, to a visa is initially dependent on whether the primary applicant is the holder of a visa, having satisfied the primary criteria for that visa, and then on whether he, as the secondary applicant meets any additional visa criteria applicable (cl.500.311). As the primary applicant does not satisfy the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa (cl.500.212), Mr Solano Santos cannot satisfy cl.500.311.

DECISION

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

Meredith Jackson
Member

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

1. Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

2. For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

   c.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;

   d.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;

   e.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;

   f.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

   g.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

1. 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

1. An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.

2. 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;

   i.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

   ii.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

   iii.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country

If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant

1. 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

1. 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.