He (Migration)

The applicant, a Chinese citizen, sought review of a decision to refuse her application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had previously held a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa and a Subclass 600 (Visitor) visa. She had completed a Diploma of Accounting and Computerization in 1998 and worked in various finance roles in China, including operating her own company producing satellite navigation equipment, before applying for the student visa. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applicant's case in light of Direction No. 69, issued by the Minister under section 499 of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which provides guidance on assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for student visas.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criterion for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, as stipulated by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). This criterion requires the applicant to genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal was also required to consider the applicant's enrolment in a course of study, as mandated by clause 500.211 of Schedule 2, and to apply the principles outlined in Direction No. 69, which directs decision-makers to consider factors such as the applicant's circumstances in their home country and in Australia, the value of the proposed course to their future, and their immigration history.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant had provided evidence of enrolment in a course, she had not demonstrated that she met the GTE criterion. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's previous work experience and the nature of her own company suggested a strong career path in China. The proposed course of study was not clearly linked to her previous studies or employment, nor was its value to her future career in China adequately explained. Furthermore, the applicant had limited community ties to China, which, in the context of her career and business, raised concerns about her genuine intention to return. The Tribunal acknowledged that it was bound to consider Direction No. 69 but was required to reach its own independent conclusions on the merits of the case.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.