Jacob (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3560

Jacob (Migration) [2020] AATA 3560 (7 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Ashima Jacob
Mr Gursewak Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1831854

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3859878

MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno

DATE:7 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 07 July 2020 at 1:06pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa–   genuine temporary entrant criterion not met–applicant has not completed any of courses– no strong incentive to return to her home country – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 360
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 October 2018 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 21 June 2018. 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). The delegate was not satisfied that the information provided by the applicant in relation to the circumstances in her home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course and her immigration history demonstrated that she intended to stay in Australia temporarily.

4. On19 March 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information about their enrolment and entry and stay in Australia in writing. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s registered migration agent and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by 2 April 2020, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. In their response, the review applicant indicated that they did not consent to the Tribunal deciding the application without a hearing.  However, 15 April 2020, the applicant’s registered migration sent an email to the Tribunal advising that the applicant no longer wanted to attend a hearing and requested that the matter be decided based on the evidence and submissions provided.  The Tribunal is satisfied that the necessary consent has been given under s.360(2)(b) of the Act and that, pursuant to s.360(3), the review applicant is no longer entitled to appear before it. This matter has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.

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 intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

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 Tribunal has had regard to all of the documents provided by the applicant to the Tribunal and the documents contained in the Department’s file.

12. The applicant is a 30 year married woman from India.  She arrived in Australia on 20 April 2013 on a student visa. Since then, she has remained in Australia on a further student visa and then a temporary graduate visa.  Since arriving in Australia, she has been enrolled in a number of courses:

    ·     Master of Nursing – started on 22 July 2013 but did not complete;

    ·     Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery – commenced on 15 September 2014 and completed on 23 October 2015;

    ·     Diploma of Hospitality – commenced on 16 November 2015 and completed on 13 May 2016;

    ·     Diploma of Business – never commenced;

    ·     Advanced Diploma of Business – never commenced;

    ·     Diploma of Nursing – started on 5 November 2018 but not completed;

13. The applicant is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management, which is due to commence on 13 July 2020 and will end on 11 July 2021 (“the proposed course”).

    CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE APPLICANT’S HOME COUNTRY

14. The applicant explained in her questionnaire why she is not studying the proposed course in India:

    To get an admission in India’s top ranked management institutes is highly competitive given that lakhs of students pass out high school every year and seats available for admission are quite limited.  Moreover, the rat race to secure admission gets much more intense depending on the level of study and discipline.  On top of it we must deal with the stress of acing entrance exams for certain disciplines.  High cut-offs cause even the brightest students to give up on their hope to secure admission in course of their choice at a college of their preference.  Due to only this factor I don’t want to lose my dream to pursue management course and as a result, I have to think through the final option of studying abroad.  My interest parameters included evaluation thinking about criteria of an Educational establishment, Quality of Educators, Student heartfelt air, Acceptance for understudies from various social orders, Safety and Affordability.  At the completion of my hunt, experience I found that Australia was way ahead as far as “Financial” perspectives.  Likewise, the study recommends that 5 out of the 30 best cities in the world for international students are from Australia.  Moreover, various understudies nowadays support Australia and that has made it exceptional contrasted with other Educational objectives on the planet.  In this manner, I could conclude Australia as the country for my higher education. 

15. The applicant also addressed the reasons for choosing to study in Australia in a letter to the Department, however this does not relate to the proposed course but rather the Advanced Diploma that she enrolled in but never commenced.  Nonetheless, it is a relevant consideration.  In the letter, she states, “Australia is the only one country which I visited other than my home country.  Australia has become a first choice of all the students worldwide who want to pursue their studies in abroad.  The support which I got from my previous colleges and their staff is wonderful.  The study environment in Australia is so peaceful; you can do your studies at your own pace.  Lecturers are always available for helping students.  That is the reason m [sic] studying my study in Australia”.

16. The Tribunal is concerned about the applicant’s motives for wanting to study the Diploma of Leadership and Management.  This is because lodging this application for student visa, the applicant has enrolled in a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Business and a Diploma of Nursing and now the Diploma of Leadership and Management course.  She did not compete the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Business and a Diploma of Nursing.  The Tribunal considers that changes made to her enrolment demonstrate in just the last two years suggest that the applicant is not in fact motived to completed further studies but rather to stay in Australia. 

17. In her document to the Department, she provided very generic reasons for wanting to study the Diploma and Advanced Diploma Business.  In her questionnaire response relating to the Diploma of Leadership and Management, the applicant did provide reasons why she is not studying leadership and management in her home country.  However, the applicant does not state that she would need to sit an entrance exam, rather she simply says this is the case for “certain disciplines”.  Whether leadership and management is one of these disciplines is unclear.  The applicant has studied at a tertiary level previously in India, having completed a Bachelor Science (Nursing) degree.  Her marks are not spectacular, but she did manage to pass all of her subjects in this course.  If this truly is a dream of hers to “pursue management”, the fact that it is easier to study in Australia is not necessarily a sound reason for not studying in her home country.  If she is truly motivated to study management, then the matters raised by her as set out above would not matter so much because. 

18. Given the concerns held by the Tribunal about the applicant’s real motivation to study the proposed course in Australia, taking the above matters discussed into consideration, it does not consider that the applicant has sound reasons for not studying the proposed course (or similar course) in her home country.

19. As to the applicant’s personal circumstances in her home country, she states in her questionnaire that her only family member still in India is her mother.  She came to Australia with her husband and she also has a brother living here.  She stated that she talks “to my parents everyday and I regularly speak with my friends”.  She also stated that she would often visit church and participate in Church activities.  It is noted that the applicant does these things also in Australia.  In her letter to the Department, she states that she is here with her husband who works as a full-time fish filleter and that both of their families are in India.  While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has limited familial ties and friendships in India still, it also notes that the applicant has only returned once to India since coming to Australia in April 2013.  In the last seven years, the applicant has only returned to India for two weeks in July 2017 to visit family.  Taking this into account, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s family and friends are not a significant incentive for her to return to her home country and that she has been able to maintain her connection with family and friends whilst remaining in Australia for the last seven years.

20. In relation to her economic circumstances, the Tribunal notes that the applicant did not provide the Department with any details of financial assets in her own name in her home country.  The applicant has provided no information or evidence about financial assets.  She provided no information about employment in India before coming to Australia, however since arriving here, she has worked part-time at Sumo Salad and her husband works full-time as a fish filleter.  The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s economic circumstances would be a significant incentive for her and her husband to not return to their home country.

21. The Tribunal has taken into account that the applicant has stated she has no concerns about any military service commitments or any political or civil unrest in India.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider these matters would induce the applicant to use the student visa to remain in Australia indefinitely.

    POTENTIAL CIRCUMSTANCES IN AUSTRALIA

22. The applicant has resided in Australia with her husband, who works full-time as a fish filleter.  The applicant herself works part-time for Sumo Salad and has done so since 2015.  Her brother also lives in Australia.  She states that she visits Church in Australia and participates in Church activities here.  The Tribunal considers that the applicant has immediate family here, employment and ties to the community.  All of these matters would be a strong incentive to remain in Australia rather than return to her home country. 

23. As noted above, the Tribunal has concerns that the applicant is not genuinely motivated to study the Diploma of Leadership and Management.  She did not even commence the courses that she was enrolled in at the time she applied for the student visa.  She then enrolled in a Diploma of Nursing, which, while relevant to her previous study in Nursing bears no similarity to her purported interested in commercial cookery, hospitality or business.  After not completing this course, she then has enrolled in the Diploma of Leadership and Management.  This gives the appearance that rather than holding a genuine interest in any of these three areas of study, that the applicant has instead enrolled in these courses so that could maintain ongoing residence in Australia.  And in doing so, the applicant also appears to be attempting to circumvent the intentions of the migration program. 

    VALUE OF THE COURSE

24. The applicant has previously completed a Bachelor of Science (Nursing) course in India before coming to Australia.  She did not complete the Master of Nursing which she came to Australia to study.  Instead, since arriving here she has studied in the vocational education and training sector.  These courses are discussed above at paragraph 12.  Having considered the applicant study history, the Tribunal does not believe that the proposed course is consistent with her current level of education.  She has completed a Bachelor degree and also a Diploma of Hospitality Management.  To undertake a further management diploma would appear to be unnecessary.

25. The applicant states that her plans for the future are to “open a well-known continental restaurant in my home country India.  To fulfil this dream, my decision to pursuing [sic] leadership and management course after having necessary cookery skills is pretty much right.  Completion of these courses will give me a competitive advantage to establish my restaurant.  So, considering this fact, relevance of my course is totally in line with my future career goal.”

26. The applicant gave a slightly different response in her letter to the department with regards to her future plans.  She stated that she will return to India to open her own restaurant and that her studies (the diploma and advanced diploma of business at that time) would help her understand the “loopholes” of the business industry.  She said she wanted to open a salad bar and then an Indian restaurant.  This happens to coincide with her work experience at Sumo Salad while in Australia. 

27. The applicant has variously stated she wants to open a “continental restaurant”, a “salad bar” and an “Indian restaurant”.  It is unclear whether she wants to open all three restaurants, or just one of them.  Other than stating the proposed course will give her “a competitive advantage” it is unclear how the proposed course will actually assist. It would seem that the Certificate III and IV in Commercial Cookery and the Diploma Hospitality would be more useful than the proposed course.  Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed course will assist the applicant in obtaining employment or improving her employment prospects in her home country.  The proposed course also bears little relevance to the applicant’s past employment, since she does not appear to have been employed in India before coming to Australia, and it is difficult to see how it is relevant to the applicant wanting to open a restaurant in her home country or third country.

28. The applicant gave evidence that the average salary for a restaurant chef in India is around INR 500,000 to 600,000.  She said she expects to open a restaurant to accommodate 40 to 50 guests and then she will expand the business.  However, given the Tribunal’s findings about the proposed course’s lack of relevance and assistance to her future plan of opening a restaurant, it follows that the Tribunal considers the proposed course will have minimal impact on the applicant’s expected remuneration in India or in a third country.  

    IMMIGRATION HISTORY

29. The Tribunal takes into account that the applicant has not been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled by any country other than Australia. 

30. Despite enrolling in the Master of Nursing course, she has never completed tertiary level studies since arriving in Australia.  Instead, she has gone on to enrol in vocational level courses that have nothing to do with her past studies (except for the Diploma of Nursing, which she did not even commence).  Her courses have been for short duration.  Furthermore, in the 2636 days she has resided in Australia, she has only spent 14 days back in her home country.  This indicates that the applicant is not motivated to return to her home country but rather is using the student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

    OTHER MATTERS

31. There were no other matters raised by the applicant for consideration.

32. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, therefore the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

33. 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.

34. 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.

35. It follows that the delegate’s decision in relation to the second applicant must also be affirmed.

    DECISION

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

    Elizabeth Tueno
    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.