Fun Har Yew (Migration)

Fun Har Yew (Migration) [2019] AATA 1995 (19 June 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Miss Fun Har Yew
CASE NUMBER:  1802006
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/4238954
MEMBER:D. Triaca
DATE:19 June 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 19 June 2019 at 5:16pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – no response to s 359(2) invitation – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – genuine temporary entrant – value of course – changes in study and career plans – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212
CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
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 16 January 2018 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 13 November 2017. 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 visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
359C INVITATION
The Tribunal formally wrote to the applicants pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicants to provide further information to the Tribunal on 12 April 2019. The invitation advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 26 April 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicants would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicants were properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the applicants’ nominated address, being the address provided by the review applicants in connection with this application for review.
On 26 April 2019 the applicants responded in writing to the Tribunal’s request (359 Response) and consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing.
In these circumstances, the applicants are not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: Section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.
It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicants’ case. It is for the applicants to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department as well as information that may be discerned from the delegate’s decision itself. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the review application.
The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that 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 genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily as a full time 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.
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.
The applicant is 48 years old and a citizen of Malaysia. By her 359 Response she stated she first visited Australia in 2001 on a tourist visa but could not recall the date. The delegate’s decision states that the applicant was first granted a Student Visa as the primary applicant on 21 October 2010. Since this initial visa, the applicant held 4 student visas, a visitor visa, a number of associated bridging visas. Her 359 Response confirms she was granted a Student Visa on 13 October 2015 and this visa ceased on 8 December 2017. She applied for a further student visa on 13 November 2017. On 16 January 2018, the delegate of the department refused his application (delegate’s decision) and on 25 January 2018 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision and provided the Tribunal with a copy of the decision.
The Tribunal has read and had regard to the documentation provided by the applicant to the Department including his application for a Student Visa (df1-17); passport extracts (df 18); PTE Academic Test Report (df 19); Letter of Lei Chin Beauty Treatment Centre Malaysia 21 July 2015 (df 21); Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) Statement); Evidence of Health Cover (df 23-24); Evidence of Bridging Visa Grant (df 25-30); Delegate‘s Decision (df 35 – 46).
The Tribunal has read and had regard to the applicant’s 359 Response. She provided a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in Diploma of Remedial Massage at Australian College of Sport and Fitness commencing on 25 January 2018 and concluding on 23 January 2020.She also provided a Record of Results at Australian College of Sport & Fitness dated 26 September 2018 and Certificate IV in Massage Therapy dated 26 September 2019. On 29 April 2019 the applicant provided further information to the Tribunal being evidence of course attendance and progress and the Tribunal has read and had regard to those documents.
By her GTE Statement, the applicant states, relevantly:
(a)She discussed running a massage business with his sister in law who is the Director of Lei Chin Treatment Centre;
(b)Her advice was to further up-skill competency and skills to a remedial level to beat the competition and establish her own market;
(c)The quality and standard of Australian education is much higher than at home and is highly regarded;
(d)She chose ACSF to upgrade to remedial level to include pregnancy and sport therapy.
(e)ACSF has been providing quality education for over 30 years;
(f)The student clinic at Melbourne University provided a good opportunity to practice and develop her knowledge;
(g)She attended Tony Robbins and that influenced her to give her power and energy to solutions;
(h)She is pursuing her dream to be her own boss and do something that she enjoys.
The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s GTE statement demonstrates some knowledge of her intended course of study and her private education provider. She has provided no specific evidence of her knowledge of living in Australia, although the Tribunal considers that after living in Australia for a substantial period of time she has probably developed a reasonable knowledge of living in Australia.
The applicant lists her family in her 359 Response as her father and four brothers. All are resident in Malaysia save one brother resident in Australia. She states she visited her family approximately once a year for “roughly 10 days” and stays in touch via telephone and social media. In the circumstances in which the applicant has resided in Australia for at least 7 years, and appears to have managed her family relationships via social media and telephone and visiting, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant‘s personal ties to her home country operate as a significant incentive to return.
There is minimal evidence before the Tribunal in respect of the applicant’s economic circumstances in Australia. There is no evidence of her working in Australia. She stated she is financially supported by her family and “mostly herself”. Her annual expenses are stated as $19144.80 AUD per annum. There is no evidence she holds any assets in her home country.
The Tribunal takes into account that the letter of Lei Chin Beauty Treatment Centre in Malaysia. This correspondence of 21 July 2015 states relevantly, “the company is planning to diversify on business growth in line with the demand and request from the valued existing customers. For the benefit and moving forward of the business enhancement, the company has discussed with Miss Yew Fun Har to work out 03 years road map business development plan in the therapy field. In order to improve her profession and business development, she has decided to take up a massage therapy course in Australia.” This is not evidence of a specific job offer and is at best an agreement to agree and the Tribunal places minimal weight in the applicant’s favour with regard to this letter.
The Tribunal also recognises that the United Nations classifies Malaysia as a ‘very high human development’ country, ranking it 57^th in the world by the United Nations human Development Index, whereas Australia is also classified ‘very high human development’ and is ranked third.[1] It is an objective measure that provides a further basis for concluding that the applicant may have been primarily motivated by the more general economic opportunities, rather than the specific educational opportunities to which her visa application refers, that staying in Australia may represent.
[1] United Nations Development Program, Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update (UNDP, 2018).
Having regard to evidence of the applicant’s economic circumstances in both countries, the Tribunal does not consider there is sufficient evidence to find her economic circumstances are such that they operate as a significant incentive not to return home.
The applicant states she has no community ties to Australia. There is no evidence of the strength of her relationship with her brother who she states is also resident in Australia. In these circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s ties to Australia operate as a strong incentive to remain.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal with regard to the applicant’s circumstances in her home country relative to others there and the Tribunal makes no finding adverse to the applicant in this regard.
The applicant states in her 359 Response and the Tribunal accepts the applicant has no concerns in relation to military service commitments or Political and civil unrest in her home country. Accordingly these factors under Direction 69 do not operate unfavourably against the applicant in the present application on review.
The applicant states she has no community ties to Australia. She has a family connection to Australia with a brother living here as confirmed in her 359 Response. The Tribunal considers it is unlikely that the applicant has not developed ties to Australia given that she has resided here predominantly for the better part of a decade and is seeking to continue to do so. However the Tribunal considers on the evidence before it that those ties are not so strong so as to operate as a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia.
The applicant’s academic history set out in his 359 Response as follows; a Diploma of Leadership Management at Universal Institute of Technology started in 2016 and completed in 2017; Certificate IV in Massage Therapy commenced in 2015 and completed in 2016; Advanced Diploma in Businss at Aveta College commenced January 2015 and completed in July 2015; Diploma in Business at Aveta College completed in November 2014; Certificate IV in Frontline Management completed in April 2014 at Aveta College.
The Tribunal is concerned that the value to the applicant’s current vocational studies to her future is marginal. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has already attained VET level qualifications including a Diploma of Business and Certificate IV in Massage Therapy. The applicant has made distinct changes in her study and proposed career objectives numerous times including changing from frontline management to business to massage therapy. This casts doubt on the value of all of the courses and associate career plans previously claimed by the applicant. Whilst the Direction indicates that reasonable changes to career plans should be accommodated, the applicant’s conduct displays a pattern of changes that I consider goes beyond the changes contemplated in the Direction.
The correspondence from Lei Chin leads to a further factor weighing against the applicant’s case – the credibility of her claims. There are several inconsistencies in the applicant’s case that are cause for concern. The writer, Lei Chin, refers to the applicant undertaking a “massage therapy course” she does not specifically refer to a Diploma of remedial massage. There is no evidence to suggest that the requirements of Lei Chin are not met by the applicant’s completion of the Certificate IV in massage therapy, a course that the applicant enrolled in and duly completed shortly after the Lei Chin letter was written. For example, Lei Chin does not state there is any benefit in undertaking “remedial massage” or a need to differentiate herself from the traditional Chinese and Urut massage in Malaysia.
Further, the applicant enrolled in a Certificate IV in massage therapy at Universal Institute of Technology in August 2015 and completed that course in 2016. Upon completion of that course she did not commence the diploma of remedial massage, instead electing to enrol in a Diploma of Leadership Management at the Universal Institute of Technology which she states she completed in 2017. She did not enrol in the Diploma of Remedial Massage at ACSF until 9 November 2017, less than a month before her then current visa was due to expire. The Tribunal considers that her plans to return to Malaysia to go into business with her sister in law are, at best, vague and not particularly convincing.
Further, it considers that if the applicant was genuine in her plans, upon completion of her Certificate IV in massage she would have either returned to Malaysia immediately or commenced the course in Remedial Massage Therapy. Instead, she chose to delay the enrolment in this course by taking another seemingly unrelated course at the same level.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal has some reservations about the genuineness of her visa application overall.
The applicant states she anticipates she will be in a position to earn $1660 AUD per month in her hometown upon the completion of her qualifications. She does not state any basis for this estimation. The Tribunal accepts that the completion of these qualifications may improve the applicant’s employment prospects of employment and remuneration in Malaysia. It also accepts her evidence that this is a “high” income in her hometown in Malaysia. However, it considers any such increase to be marginal in circumstances in which the applicant has completed a Certificate IV in massage therapy and, according to the documentation provided to the Tribunal on 29 April 2019, has been attending and progressing in the remedial massage course so will have acquired some skills in that area that can be expected to assist her in her further employment.
There is no evidence to suggest the applicant has considered or sought to undertake further study in her home country. The applicant’s GTE Statement, states that ACSF provides quality education, however the Tribunal considers the applicant’s statements regarding the benefits of studying in Australia are vague and do not equate to reasonable reasons for not undertaking study in her home country.
The applicant has declared no concerning travel history. Other than her travel between Australia and Malaysia, she has travelled to Taiwan for a holiday in 2013 and Singapore for a holiday in 2016. The Tribunal makes no adverse findings against the applicant with regard to her travel or visa history.
There appear to be no other matters of significance that are relevant for the purposes of determining the present application on review.
In all the circumstances, having considered all the information available to it, 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.
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).
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.
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.
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
D. Triaca
Member

Attachment – Direction No.69
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
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 Subclass 500 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;
dwhether 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.
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;
ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
iii.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
iv.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 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
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.

[2019] AATA 1995

19 June 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Appeal