Gurung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse her visa application. The core issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, as required by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as stipulated by clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. In making this determination, the Tribunal was guided by Direction No. 69, which outlines factors to consider when assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion. These factors include the applicant's circumstances in her home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to her future, and her immigration history.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided inconsistent evidence regarding her future business plans and had not presented sufficient evidence of ties to her home country, Nepal, which would serve as a significant incentive to return. While the applicant stated she had family in Nepal and had worked in a healthcare centre there, her stated work experience in Denmark and current online marketing position, coupled with her educational background and the fact that she applied for the student visa shortly before her visitor visa expired, raised concerns. The Tribunal concluded that, on balance, the applicant had not satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.