Gurung (Migration)

[2019] AATA 5340

Gurung (Migration) [2019] AATA 5340 (15 August 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Karma Gurung
Mrs Geeta Pun

CASE NUMBER:  1730217

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/3452170

MEMBER:Roger Maguire

DATE:15 August 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 15 August 2019 at 3:39pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – no response to s 359(2) invitation – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – Tribunal declined indefinite adjournment of decision – genuine temporary entrant – reason for study in Australia – future career plans – incentives to return to home country – study gap – regression in level of study – value of course – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 617
Kaur v Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 915
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FMCA 28
Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh [2014] FCAFC 1
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li [2013] HCA 18

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 16 November 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 21 September 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 visa 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 found that the applicant did not intend to stay temporarily in Australia.

4. 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 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate found that the applicant did not intend to stay temporarily in Australia.

5. On 22 May 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the review applicant pursuant to s.359 of the Act, inviting the review applicant to provide information about the course(s) of study being undertaken, and entry and stay in Australia as a student in writing.

6. On 4 June 2019, the applicant requested an extension of time to comply with the request, and was given until 3 July 2019.

7. The applicant did provide information to the Tribunal, but not until 4 July 2019. Notwithstanding the late delivery of the information by the applicant, the Tribunal has taken it into consideration in arriving at its decision in this review.

8. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear:[1]

   [1] Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

9. The Tribunal has considered whether, in the circumstances of this case, information that the review applicant meets the requirements of the Act and Regulations is likely to be forthcoming and whether the review applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information already.

10. The Tribunal has given consideration to whether it should adjourn the review under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to allow the applicant additional time in which to provide further evidence to support the review application. In doing so, the Tribunal has had regard to the decisions in Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs[2] and Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[3] where the Courts have held that the Tribunal is not required to indefinitely defer its decision-making processes. It has also had regard to Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Li[4] regarding the reasonableness of any request for an adjournment, and the Full Federal Court decision in Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Singh[5] which considered analogous issues, as well as the recent decision of Kaur v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.[6]

    [2] [2002] FCA 617

    [3] [2012] FMCA 28

    [4] [2013] HCA 18 (8 May 2013)

    [5] [2014] FCAFC 1 (4 February 2014)

    [6] [2014] FCA 915 (28 August 2014)

11. In these circumstances, for the reasons set out in this decision record above, the Tribunal considers that the review applicant has had a fair opportunity to provide relevant information.

12. Accordingly, the Tribunal has decided not to exercise its discretion under s.363(1)(b) of the Act to adjourn the review any further to allow the review applicant more time. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has decided to proceed to make a decision having regard to the information it has before it, including the information previously provided by the review applicant to the Department.

13. Ultimately, a decision maker is not required to make the review applicant’s case. It is for the review applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations 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 review applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. 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 is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

    Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

16. 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?

17. 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.

18. 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.

    Applicant’s circumstances and home country.

19. The applicant has expressed no concerns about military service commitments or political or civil unrest in his home country.

20. The applicant’s parents and brother continue to live in the applicant’s home country, and appear to have a significant asset base there.

21. The applicant has been in Australia since 16 September 2006, and has not returned to his home country since that time. The applicant’s failure to return to visit his parents and brother during this extended period leaves a question mark over his relationship with his parents and brother.

22. Whilst the applicant has pointed to assets owned by his parents and his brother, the applicant has not identified any assets of his own in his home country, and neither has he identified any other social, community, or economic ties to his home country.

23. On 12 June 2019, the applicant obtained COEs in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, for study to commence on 30 September 2019, followed by a Diploma in Hospitality Management for study to commence on 12 April 2021, and conclude on 10 October 2021. The applicant has stated that Nepal is a country which is popular for its hospitality, travel and tourism. The applicant has stated that in Nepal there are “no such courses which is of a two year’s package of hospitality courses. They do have short cooking courses which are of no good quality.…” The applicant has provided no detail as to the availability of similar courses in Nepal, and his assertion that the courses are not of good quality appears to be at odds with his countries stated popularity for its hospitality.

24. The applicant’s criticism of courses in his home country appears to be very generalised, and do not appear to be the product of any particular research. The applicant has not provided the Tribunal with any satisfactory evidence as to why it is necessary for him to undertake his proposed enrolments in Australia.

25. The applicant does not appear to have a settled career path. Whilst he has made much of his father’s business, his written submission appears to be at odds with the suggestion that he will join his father’s business. It states in part “the applicant can be ahead of other candidates when looking for jobs in Nepal with his Australian trade qualifications.” (See paragraph 1 a. i.). The submission also states “On the other hand, the applicant also has options of looking for jobs with successful hospitality companies in Nepal.” (See paragraph 1 d. ii.). The fact that the applicant contemplates the possibility of working outside his family’s business, raises a further question mark about his relationships with his family.

26. Considering all of the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has reasonable reasons for seeking to undertake his proposed enrolments in Australia, and neither is it satisfied that the applicant has any significant incentive to return to his own country. The Tribunal gives this considerable weight.

    Applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

27. Although the applicant has lived in Australia since 16 September 2006, the applicant has not disclosed any assets in Australia, and neither has the applicant disclosed details of any social community or economic ties he may have to Australia. Likewise, the applicant has not disclosed any employment history in Australia or cost of living expenses.

28. The Tribunal finds it difficult to believe that the applicant has not established some social or community ties in Australia during his period of residence.

29. Most students who come to Australia, particularly from developing countries, avail themselves of the opportunity to undertake some employment in order to meet their costs of living and studying. The applicant’s failure to disclose any source of income during his period of residence in Australia raises the possibility that he may not have made a full and complete disclosure to this Tribunal.

30. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife accompanies him in Australia, and is a dependent applicant in this application. The Tribunal finds that the presence of the applicant’s wife in Australia reduces his incentive to return to his home country.

31. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has three sisters who live permanently in Australia. Indeed, two of them are citizens of Australia. The Tribunal finds that the presence of the applicant’s three sisters in Australia reduces his incentive to return to his home country.

32. Having regard to the applicant’s failure to depart Australia since 16 September 2006, and his overall circumstances in Australia, particularly the presence of his wife and three sisters, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has no significant incentive to leave Australia.

    The value of the courses to the applicant’s future.

33. Since coming to Australia, the applicant has completed the following courses:

    (i)Diploma of Accounting (completed 4 July 2009);

    (ii)Bachelor of Accounting (completed 24 June 2012);

    (iii)Master of Business Administration (completed 26 June 2015);

    (iv)Diploma of Human Resource Management (completed 16 September 2018).

34. Information provided by the applicant does not disclose that the applicant was enrolled in a registered course of study subsequent to 16 September 2018.

35. The COE’s provided by the applicant were both issued on 12 June 2019.

36. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study between 16 September 2018, and 12 June 2019.

37. The Tribunal notes that the Tribunal wrote to the applicant on 22 May 2019 requesting information regarding current enrolments and the applicant’s status as a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. The Tribunal also notes that on 4 June 2019 the applicant requested, and was subsequently granted an extension of time until 3 July 2019 to provide that information. The Tribunal is satisfied that as at the date that the applicant requested an extension of time to produce evidence of enrolment, the applicant was not enrolled in a registered course of study.

38. The Tribunal notes that the gap between the date on which the applicant completed his last study, and proposes to commence his next study is more than one calendar year. A gap in enrolment of this duration is not consistent with entry and stay as a student.

39. Having regard to the applicant’s failure to enrol in, and commence, a further course of study promptly following the completion of his previous study, and the length of time which passed prior to the recent enrolments, and the fact that the applicant only secured the recent enrolments subsequent to the Tribunal’s letter of 22 May 2019, the Tribunal finds that the applicants recent enrolments have been made for the purpose of maintaining residence in Australia.

40. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant had been serious about pursuing these recent enrolments, he would have undertaken them in or about late September 2018.

41. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant’s previous study has been at Diploma, Bachelor, and Masters level. The recent enrolments present as a regression in the applicant’s level of study.

42. At the Tribunal finds in all the circumstances that in undertaking the recent enrolments, the applicant has been seeking to abuse the student visa program, and gives great weight to this.

43. Moreover, the applicant has provided no persuasive evidence that his proposed causes of enrolment will add value to his future employment prospects.

44. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s proposed enrolments add no particular value to his employment prospects, having regard for the significant substantial qualifications he has already achieved.

    The applicant’s immigration history.

45. The student visa program is intended to assist in genuine foreign students to enter Australia temporarily. The applicant currently seeks to extend the duration of his stay in Australia beyond 15 years. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has abused the student visa system by remaining in Australia for a period of some nine months without being enrolled in a course of study. The Tribunal gives great weight to this.

46. 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).

47. 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.

48. 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.

    MRS GEETA PUN

49. In order to grant the above named applicant a Student visa, the Tribunal must be satisfied that clause 500.311 in Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations is satisfied. This clause provides that:

    500.311

    The applicant is a member of the family unit of a person (the primary person) who holds a student visa, having satisfied the primary criteria for that visa, and either:

    (a)  the applicant became a member of the family unit of the primary person before the grant of the student visa to the primary person, and was included in:

    (i)the primary person’s application under sub regulation 2.07 AF (3); or

    (ii)information provided in relation to the primary person’s application under sub regulation 2.07 AF (4); or

    (b)  the applicant became a member of the family unit of the primary person:

    (i)after the grant of the student visa to the primary person; and

    (ii)before the application was made.

50. As the primary person failed to satisfy the primary requirements for the grant of this student visa, the above-named applicant fails to satisfy clause 500.311.

51. As clause 500.311 is not met by the primary applicant, the criteria for the grant of a student visa are not met by the above-named applicant.

    DECISION

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

    Roger Maguire
    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.