Indukuri (Migration)

[2021] AATA 5474

Indukuri (Migration) [2021] AATA 5474 (1 April 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Umesh Varma Indukuri
Ms Mounika Kanumuri

CASE NUMBER:  1919945

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2697804

MEMBER:Peter Booth

DATE:1 April 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 01 April 2021 at 8:33am

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – plans to establish a care home – applicant changed to Vocational courses – family commitments in home country – employment in Australia – value of the course to the applicant’s future – maintaining ongoing residence in Australia – decision under review affirmed       

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 499; Direction No 69
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.212

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 Home Affairs on 15 July 2019 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 24 May 2019. 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 visas 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 applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 11 March 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Kanumuri, the secondary applicant.

5. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their migration agent.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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 temporary entrant.

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

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing, the substance of which was follows. The applicant had read the delegate’s decision dated 15 July 2019 refusing his application for a student visa. The applicant understood that the issue for determination was whether he was a genuine temporary entrant.

12. The Tribunal asked the applicant to identify his current enrolments including the commencement and completion dates. He responded “Certificate III Disability started in June and want to finish this April”. He did not elaborate. When asked whether he was enrolled in any other courses he said “Certificate for Ageing Care starting two months going to finish in one year”. The Tribunal asked the applicant to examine the details of the confirmation of enrolment documents which he had provided to the Tribunal before the hearing, and clearly identify the courses in which he was currently enrolled, including the commencement and completion dates. He said “Certificate III Individual Support July 2020 until March 2021, Certificate for Ageing Support May 2021 to May 2022, Diploma of Community Services May 2022 until April 2023”. The applicant had produced confirmation of enrolment documents to the Tribunal prior to the hearing as follows: Diploma of Business which commenced on 8 July 2019 and concluded on 5 July 2020, a Certificate III in Individual Support which commenced on 27 July 2020 and concluded on 26 March 2021, a Certificate IV in Ageing Support which commences on 3 May 2021 and concludes on 1 May 2022 and a Diploma of Community Services which commences on 2 May 2022 and will be completed on 30 April 2023. Notwithstanding the vague nature of the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal accepts that he is enrolled in the courses referred to in the confirmation of enrolment documents provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing.

13. The applicant had also provided information to the Tribunal in the form of response to a request to do so pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act. In summary, the information provided by the applicant was as follows.

14. Prior to arriving in Australia the applicant completed secondary education in India in 2007 and the course described as “engineering” between April 2009 and March 2013. The applicant did not provide any information regarding employment history prior to arriving in Australia.

15. The applicant arrived in Australia on 3 March 2015 and since that time has returned to his home country on four occasions: in December 2015 for three months and four days, in February 2017 for 16 days, in January 2018 for four weeks and in December 2018 for three weeks and four days.

16. The application for the current student visa was made in July 2019. Previously, the applicant stated that he held a student visa which was granted in January 2015 and then a “temporary residence” visa which was granted in May 2017.

17. As to his study history in Australia, the applicant stated that between February 2015 and February 2017 he completed a Master’s in Information Technology, between July 2019 and July 2020 he completed a Diploma of Business and he was “studying now” a Certificate III in Individual Support. He also stated that he had future enrolments in a Certificate IV in Ageing Support due to commence in May 2021 and also a future enrolment in a Diploma of Community Service due to commence in May 2022.

18. The applicant stated that his father, mother and spouse reside in India.

19. The applicant stated that he owned real property in India.

20. As to his future employment plans the applicant stated:

    The person with all this diploma and skills are employed in a range of government, non-government and community agencies such as hospitals, early intervention and child protection programs, family support services, schools, employment services, mental health services, justice, housing, disability and aged care services. There are many job prospects in my home country for health care professionals and a degree from a well reputed university will certainly make it easier for me to get a job in top recruiting companies in India such as Apollo Hospital, Fortis-Escorts Hospital, Max Super Specialty etc

    The link of job opportunities in India:

    Pay scale of community support worker in India is 6,21,420 – 8,020,00 INR per annum as per the research on the below links.

    long term, I would open my own Care Home, and serve the community I was born in and this will be my gift to my community in my country.

21. As to his expected future remuneration the applicant stated:

    The link of job opportunities in India:

    Pay scale of community support worker in India is 6,21,420 – 8,020,00 INR per annum as per the research on the below links.

    long term, I would open my own Care Home, and serve the community I was born in and this will be my gift to my community in my country.”

22. The Tribunal proceeded to ask the applicant some questions arising from the responses paraphrased above. The questions and the answers, in summary were as follows.

23. When asked to elaborate upon the course described as “engineering” he said “after secondary, a bachelor course”. When asked to give details of his employment history prior to arriving in Australia he said “did not work”.

24. The applicant confirmed that he arrived in Australia on 3 March 2015 with the intention of studying a Master of Information Technology degree.

25. The Tribunal observed that the applicant had changed the direction of his study and invited him to comment. He said “after study Master of IT I tried a couple of jobs, could not get jobs, because skills in India in this sector is dramatically increased so I could not get any jobs in the sector. I searched on Google and spoke to people, I started the course of individual support, I have a lot of opportunities”.

26. Tribunal observed that the applicant also changed the level of his study and invited him to comment. He replied “I couldn’t find jobs, changed my sector”.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he was currently employed, to which he said “yes”. When asked to give details he said “chemist warehouse, AU$42,320 annually and Woolworths but $5677 annually”.

28. When asked to confirm whether he had assets in India in his own name he said “two properties in my name”.

29. When asked as to his employment intentions when he returns to India he said “after study this course I have a lot of opportunity in India. I will take care of community, I’m the only son, I will care for the parents”.

30. The applicant confirmed that he held a Subclass 485 visa and when asked as to start and finish dates, he said “starts 05, 2017 and finished 2019, 05”. When asked as to his occupation during the period of the Subclass 485 visa he said “I work in Chemist Warehouse”. The Tribunal again asked the applicant when the Subclass 485 visa had expired to which he said “in 30 May 2019”. He confirmed that he applied for the student visa on 24 May 2019. In answer to further questions he confirmed the applied for the student visa six days before the expiry of the Subclass 485 visa .

31. The applicant confirmed that he had not applied for permanent residency in Australia and also said that he did not intend to apply for such a visa.

32. The applicant declined an opportunity to add anything further to his application for review.

33. The second applicant, Ms Kanumuri, gave evidence. She said “I came here later, I have a skilled job in IT, I have seen many people unemployed, community services is more jobs, we are keen to go back to India”.

34. Prior to the hearing the applicant provided a variety of documents to the Tribunal. The applicant did not refer to any of these documents during the course of giving evidence at the hearing. Nonetheless they have been taken into account by the Tribunal to the extent relevant and given appropriate weight.

35. Without diminishing the applicant’s evidence, it can be summarised as follows. Prior to arriving in Australia he completed a bachelor’s degree in engineering in 2013. He was not employed prior to arriving in Australia. He arrived in Australia on 3 March 2015 and since that time has returned to India on four occasions. He held a student visa between 2015 and 2017 and then a Subclass 485 visa until 30 May 2019. The application for the student visa in question was made on 24 May 2019, six days prior to the Subclass 485 visa expiring. He has completed a Master of Information Technology, a Diploma of Business and a Certificate III in Individual Support whilst in Australia. He is studying a Certificate IV in Ageing Support and then will start a Diploma of Community Services. He intends to study in Australia, if given the opportunity, until at least 30 April 2023. He has given evidence of vague plans to work in the healthcare industry. He does have stable employment in Australia. His partner currently resides with him in Australia. His remaining family reside in India. He has assets in India.

36. The applicant has not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why he has changed the direction of his study from engineering to information technology, then business and now aged support and related studies, why he has change the level of his study from a bachelor’s level to vocational courses, why he has not obtained professional employment in Australia, why his existing qualifications are insufficient to obtain meaningful professional employment, and the details of any future career plan.

37. In considering whether the applicant has met the genuine temporary entry criterion, the Tribunal had regard to the following factors consistent with cl.500.212 and the Ministerial Direction No.69. The factors were used to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether he has satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

38. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in his home country. The applicant is married and is from India. The applicant has provided evidence of social, direct family and financial ties to his home country or other economic incentives to return. The Tribunal finds that he has been able to demonstrate ties to act as an incentive to return to his home country at the completion of the actual or proposed study. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have family ties to India, having regard to the time the applicant has spent in Australia and the intended period of future stay in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a significant incentive for the applicant to return to India.

39. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. The applicant first arrived in Australia on 3 March 2015 as the holder of a student visa valid to 2017. The proposed study would extend the applicant’s stay until at least April 2023. The Tribunal considers that the length of the proposed stay suggests that the applicant is studying for the purposes of staying in Australia. Whilst plans can change, in the Tribunal’s view this is not the conduct of a genuine temporary student. On balance it is consistent with the applicant having decided to extend his stay in Australia by utilising the student visa programme.

40. The Tribunal does not place weight on the value of the course to the applicant’s future, including remuneration and career prospects in the applicant’s home country. The reason being because he has given extremely vague evidence of his future career plans.

41. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s study history since arrival and notes that he commenced study in 2015 and since that time has completed a Master of Information Technology, a Diploma of Business and a vocational certificate in individual support. He intends to continue studying in fields related to aged care and health care. He has not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why he has changed the level of his study from higher education to vocational courses, and why he has changed direction of his studies on several occasions.

42. The Tribunal observes that his current area of study is inconsistent with his intentions when he entered Australia and inconsistent with his previous qualifications obtained both in India and in Australia.

43. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established that study will provide him with significant benefits in his proposed career plan, considering the cost of the study and the fact that the applicant already has qualifications in engineering, information technology, business and individual support. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed additional study has a reasonable prospect of providing significant value to his career beyond the existing qualifications.

44. The Tribunal turns to consider whether there are any other relevant matters. The Tribunal finds that there are no other relevant matters to consider that may be beneficial or adverse to the applicant, and that this aspect is not relevant.

45. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s economic circumstances in his home country relative to his potential circumstances in Australia. Having regard to the disparity in economic circumstances between India and Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has significant incentive to return to India. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate substantial ties or personal assets in his home country, which diminishes his incentive to return to India.

46. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s intention to live in Australia may be motivated by factors other than study. The applicant has not demonstrated any clear and substantial improvements arising from his proposed study which will outweigh the significant time and monetary commitment this course will require. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of his proposed course to his future.

47. The Tribunal does give weight to the evidence that since the applicant’s arrival in Australia on 3 March 2015 the applicant has spent more than six years in Australia and limited time outside of Australia, which indicates that he does not appear to have strong personal ties to India. Further, the applicant’s wife now resides with him in Australia, which gives a further reason for the applicant to remain in Australia and not return to India. On balance, the Tribunal assesses the applicant’s incentive to return to India to be minimal.

1. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for further stay as a full-time student. Whilst the applicant clearly wishes to stay and continue to study in Australia, it is noted that the applicant was previously granted a visa specifically to enable him to achieve that goal. The applicant was granted a student visa which would have facilitated the applicant’s study in his desired field. He completed a Master of Information Technology, and then a Diploma of Business. He was granted a temporary graduate visa between 2017 and 2019. He did not obtain professional employment during this period. The applicant lodged this application six days prior to expiry of the temporary graduate visa. It therefore appears to the Tribunal that the applicant has commenced studying for the purposes of the visa application only in order to secure a further stay in Australia, rather than due to a genuine interest in this area of study.

2. The Tribunal has considered all information provided by the applicant in support of his application. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the information the applicant has provided regarding the applicant’s circumstances in his home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to his future, his immigration history and other relevant matters are sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.

3. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the applicant has enrolled in the present course for the purposes of securing a further student visa, rather than due to a genuine interest in study. The Tribunal considers that the applicant is using the student visa programme as a means of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia, and does not have a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.

4. There is no further evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction No.69: economic circumstances of the applicant; any potential military service in India; political or civil unrest circumstances in India; remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in India or a third country compared with Australia; circumstances in India relative to Australia or any other country; and the applicant’s circumstances in India relative to others in that country.

5. 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).

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The primary application having failed, it follows that the applicant of the secondary applicant also fails.

   DECISION

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

   Peter Booth
   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.