HOU (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by an Indonesian citizen against the refusal of his application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant, who was 34 years old, had been in Australia on student visas since 2011. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for being a genuine temporary entrant, as required by clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and whether he intended to comply with the conditions of the visa. In assessing these issues, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Direction No. 69, which outlines factors to consider when assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion. These factors include the applicant's circumstances in their home country and in Australia, their immigration history, and the value of the proposed course of study to their future.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had enrolled in a series of courses across different disciplines, including Hospitality, Business, Marketing, and Information Digital Media and Technology, between 2011 and 2016. In 2016, he changed his study direction to accounting, proposing a further three years of study to achieve an Advanced Diploma. While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had completed some of his accounting studies and remained enrolled, it found that his history of changing course directions, coupled with the extended period he had already spent in Australia as a student, did not positively outweigh concerns about his genuine temporary entrant status. The Tribunal considered that his current enrolment did not sufficiently demonstrate a genuine intention to study temporarily and return home.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, finding that the criteria for the visa were not met.