HOR (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Ms Hor against a decision not to grant her a Subclass 572 (Student) visa. The core dispute revolved around whether Ms Hor met the criterion of being a genuine applicant intending to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by clause 572.223 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Senior Member Michael Ison.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Ms Hor satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion under cl.572.223(1)(a). This involved assessing whether she genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, considering her personal circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters. In making this assessment, the Tribunal was bound to have regard to Direction No. 53, which outlines specific factors to be considered, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the course to their future, their immigration history, and any other relevant information.

The Tribunal considered Ms Hor's evidence that she and her husband owned a home in Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, and that their families remained there, awaiting their return. Ms Hor stated she had completed English studies and intended to undertake a year of business studies before returning to Malaysia, and that there were no disincentives to her return. However, the Tribunal also noted that Ms Hor had resigned from her employment as a senior counter sales attendant in April 2015, prior to her arrival in Australia in January 2016. Despite her stated intentions, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Hor did not meet the requirements of cl.572.223.

Consequently, as Ms Hor failed to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the Subclass 572 visa, Mr Kuay, who was seeking to meet secondary criteria related to her visa, also did not meet those requirements. The Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.