Hassan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant sought to review a decision to refuse this visa. The central issue was whether the applicant met the criteria for being a genuine temporary entrant, as stipulated by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters, in accordance with Direction No. 69. This Direction outlines factors to be considered, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to the applicant's future, and their immigration history.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that while the applicant had provided evidence of enrolment in a course, their overall circumstances did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion. Specifically, the Tribunal found it concerning that the applicant had been in Australia since 2016, had a work history as an Uber driver, had failed to progress academically for several years, and was now undertaking a course that represented an academic regression from previous qualifications. The Tribunal concluded that this pattern of behaviour was inconsistent with that of a genuine student intending a temporary stay and suggested an intention to use the student migration program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, and therefore did not meet the requirements of clause 500.212(a). Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.