JAVIER (Migration)

[2017] AATA 1939

JAVIER (Migration) [2017] AATA 1939 (11 October 2017)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms JASMIN JAVIER

CASE NUMBER:  1606386

DIBP REFERENCE(S):  BCC2016/193724

MEMBER:Jan Redfern

DATE:11 October 2017

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 11 October 2017 at 3.25 pm

CATCHWORDS

Migration – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 572 Vocational Education and Training Sector – Genuine temporary entrant – Genuine student – Inadequate reasons for course choice – Ties to home country – Plans to establish childcare business – Relevance of courses to future employment

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 499

Migration Regulation 1994, Schedule 1, Schedule 2 cl 572.223

CASES

Hazra & anor v MIBP [2017] FCCA 688

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 Immigration and Border Protection to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection for the visa on 13 January 2016. The delegate decided to refuse to grant the visa on 15 April 2016 on the grounds that the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the relevant requirements for the visa set out in Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). In particular, the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intended to stay in Australia temporarily.

3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 March and 18 July 2017 to give evidence and present arguments. She also provided written submissions and evidence prior to the hearing and a further written submission after the hearings explaining her reasons for undertaking her studies, including the current course in which she is enrolled.  The applicant has been in Australia since 2009 and has undertaken and completed eight courses during this period. She is currently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma course which was commenced in March 2017 and is due to be completed in March 2018.  

4. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by Ms Melinda Bernardo, who is an education consultant but not a registered migration agent.

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

   RELEVANT LAW AND QUESTIONS FOR DETERMINATION

6. At the time the visa application was lodged, the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa contained a number of subclasses: Item 1222 of Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). Generally speaking, the subclass that can be granted depends upon: the type of course in which the applicant is enrolled or has an offer of enrolment as his or her principal course (Subclass 570 - 575); for certain applications made on or after 24 March 2012, whether the applicant is an ‘eligible higher degree student’ (Subclass 573 – 574) or ‘eligible university exchange student’ or ‘eligible non-award student’ (Subclass 575); whether the applicant has the support of the relevant Minister (Subclass 576); or whether the applicant has applied on the basis of being a Student Guardian (Subclass 580).

7. Having regard to the applicant’s current proposed course of study, the relevant subclass in this case is Subclass 572.

8. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criterion in cl.572.223. The time for assessing whether a visa applicant meets the criterion is the time of decision. Clause 572.223(1)(a) relevantly states:

   (1)The Minister is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

   (a)      the Minister is satisfied that 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)     …

9. In considering whether the applicant satisfies this criterion, the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.53, Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

   (1)the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

   (2)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;

   (3)if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   (4)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 to guide decision makers to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

    BACKGROUND FACTS AND EVIDENCE

11. The applicant arrived in Australia on 17 June 2009, having been granted a student visa (subclass 572) valid for the period 15 June 2009 to 5 September 2011. She was granted further student visas on 31 August 2011, valid until 19 November 2013, and on 19 November 2013, valid to 13 January 2016. The applicant made an application for a further student visa on 13 January 2016. Further information was requested, which was provided by the applicant the day following the request.

12. A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the visa by decision made on 15 April 2016. In summary, it was concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the relevant criteria for the grant of the visa because the delegate was not satisfied the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. Relevantly, the delegate found that the applicant had not completed any courses above the advanced diploma level and that she had maintained enrolment in short inexpensive courses, was not satisfied that the applicant had made significant progression in her education and was not satisfied about the value of the proposed course for the applicant's future. The delegate was also concerned about whether the applicant had sufficient ties to her home country and was of the view that the applicant was using the Student Visa program as a means of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia.

13. As noted in the decision record of the delegate, the applicant has enrolled in and successfully completed the following courses during the period that she has resided in Australia:

    ·     Certificate III in Business - commenced 16 June 2009, completed 15 December 2009

    ·     Certificate III in Business - commenced 11 February 2010, completed 31 July 2010

    ·     Certificate IV in Human Resources - commenced 21 June 2010, completed 4 December 2010

    ·     Diploma of Human Resources Management - commenced 3 January 2011, completed 18 June 2011

    ·     Advanced Diploma of Marketing - commenced 22 August 2011, completed 19 August 2012

    ·     Advanced Diploma of Management - commenced 15 October 2012, completed 13 October 2013

    ·     Certificate III in Childhood Education and Care - commenced 1 July 2014, completed 7 November 2014

    ·     Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care - commenced 1 December 2014, completed 4 December 2015

    ·     Diploma of Community Services - commenced 1 February 2016, completed 3 February 2017

14. The applicant is currently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management. This course commenced on 6 March 2017 and is due to be completed by 2 March 2018.

15. The evidence is that the applicant enrolled in but did not proceed or complete the following courses:

    ·     Certificate IV in Business - course commenced 8 January 2010

    ·     Diploma of Management - course commenced 8 October 2010

    ·     Certificate III in Children Services - course commenced 4 November 2013

    ·     Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care - course commenced 2 November 2014

    ·     Diploma of Children's Services (Early Childhood and Care) - course commenced 10 November 2014

    ·     Certificate IV in Disability - course commenced 1 February 2016

    ·     Diploma of Disability - course commenced 6 March 2017

16. The applicant gave evidence that she did not proceed with these courses either because she was not satisfied with the providers or because the providers changed the courses and cancellation was beyond her control. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, I accept this evidence. I also note that, with the exception of approximately six months from late 2013 to mid-2014, the applicant has continuously engaged in approved courses of study in Australia.

17. The applicant has resided in Australia for approximately 8 years and returned home to the Philippines for three weeks between September and early October 2014. According to her evidence, the applicant has lived with her uncle and his family since first coming to Australia. She said that she was unable to return home more frequently because of the conditions on her bridging visa and the demands of her study.

18. The applicant's student visa application made on 13 August 2011 was originally refused by delegate of the Minister but this decision was set aside on review by the former Migration Review Tribunal in September 2013. The applicant was granted a bridging visa pending the review and continued her studies during the period, completing an Advanced Diploma of Marketing and an Advanced Diploma of Management.

19. According to the applicant she graduated from Stella Maris College Cubao, Quezon City, in the Philippines with a Bachelor of Science in Religious Education in 2004. She worked full-time as a primary school teacher between 2004 and 2009. The applicant said that she commenced studies in a degree of Masters of Arts in Theology in San Carlos Seminary in 2008 but did not complete this degree.

20. The applicant said that her parents, two siblings and their respective families live in the Philippines and she has strong family ties in the Philippines.

21. The applicant gave evidence that she wanted to study in Australia because of the quality of the education available and its proximity to her home country. The courses previously studied and the current course being undertaken was said by the applicant to be relevant to her chosen career to work as an early childhood educator in the Philippines. According to the applicant, she aspires to be "an exceptional centre director or owner of a childcare centre in the Philippines one day". In written evidence provided to the Tribunal for the hearing, the applicant stated as follows:

    My courses in community service will help in my future career as a centre director or as an owner of a childcare centre. I previously took courses like business, management, marketing and human services to build my own child care centre one day. Now, I would like to focus more now on how to better understand the community with which I am going to work with, especially the childcare industry. I want to investigate how to better manage and give appropriate service to these young children and how to work collaboratively with their families once I establish my own child care centre with the collaboration of some business investors, local government childcare centres and non-government organisation in the Philippines. This non-for profit childcare centre would achieve its goal in promoting quality and affordable education among children of my community.

22. At the hearing, the applicant gave evidence to the effect that all of the courses which she had undertaken were considered by her to be relevant to her future plans. She had undertaken the Certificate III business courses in 2009 and 2010 to assist in running her early childcare business. She had undertaken the Certificate IV in Human Resources and Diploma in Human Resources Management in 2010 and 2011 to give her the relevant knowledge and skills about recruiting and dealing with staff. It was her plan to operate a non-for profit centre in Manila. She would ask family and friends to invest and her aunt had said she would invest about $20,000 in this venture. The applicant anticipated that the business would have about seven employees, including her. She said that she had undertaken the Diploma of Marketing in 2011 and 2012 to gain knowledge about how to network and promote her business. The Advanced Diploma of Management, which was undertaken in 2012 to 2013, was also said to be relevant to assist her to operate the proposed childcare business. When questioned as to why she had not undertaken the Certificate III and Diploma of Early Child Care until 2014 and 2015, the applicant said that she wanted to understand everything about business first. She also said that she was interested to undertake the business and management related courses because they may assist her to help run the family business.

23. The applicant gave evidence that she had undertaken the Diploma of Community Services because she wanted to understand the community she would be working in and how to develop and implement education programs to service that community. She was studying the Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management for similar reasons. The applicant had been working as an early childhood educator in Australia since 2015 and these courses had also assisted in her work in Australia.

24. The applicant was not able to explain what courses were offered as part of the Diploma of Community Sector Management, other than it was "more managerial" than the previous course she had completed. The applicant was questioned about some of the subjects that she had studied in the Diploma of Community Services course and how these subjects were relevant to her plans to own and operate a childcare centre in the Philippines. There were 16 subjects offered in the Diploma of Community Services. From the description of the subjects it is apparent that a number of those subjects related to the provision of community service programs, for instance, ‘develop, facilitate and review all aspects of case management’, ‘develop and implement service programs’, ‘confirm client’s developmental status’ and ‘provide advocacy and representation services’. The applicant was asked how case management would be relevant to her proposed plans to open and operate an early childhood centre. She responded to the effect that if there was child abuse she would then be able to be able to deal with these issues. The applicant was not able to explain how advocacy and representation services would be relevant to operating a childcare centre. When pressed on relevance of the Diploma of Community Services, the applicant accepted that this course generally related to services provided to vulnerable people in the community with disability, mental health issues or age care needs but said that this was still relevant to her chosen vocation because the parents and families of the children in her centre were “part of the community”.  These courses would assist her to investigate how best to manage these issues with those parents or family members.

25. The applicant said that after she finishes the Advanced Diploma course in which she is  currently enrolled in March 2018 she would return home to finish her Master’s degree and she would apply for a business permit to commence her business. When asked about her plans for the business, it was apparent from the applicant's evidence that she had not taken undertaken any research on how many childcare centres there were in Manila, nor had she undertaken research about the need for childcare centres in Manila. She knew that some centres in Manila were operated by overseas operators. The applicant said that she would start with about 10 to 15 children and would approach friends about working for her. The applicant was not able to explain what business permits were required to operate a childcare centre in the Philippines nor had she identified any possible sites or locations.

26. After the hearing, the applicant provided a submission to the effect that she had chosen to undertake the Diploma of Community Services and the Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management in furtherance of her desire to establish and manage her own childcare centre in her hometown. Her past qualifications and the further education she had undertaken (and was undertaking) would assist her to deliver “high quality work as director and owner of a centre in the Philippines”. The Diploma of Community Service would provide her with sufficient knowledge and experience to manage a childcare centre in the community sector and the Advanced Diploma would “equip her to become a good leader in the Philippines”. The applicant confirmed her oral evidence as to why she had chosen to study in Australia and provided copies of photographs demonstrating her strong ties to her family in the Philippines. She provided details about the courses she had finished and stated that her current courses were relevant to her plans of becoming an “exceptional centre director and owner of a childcare centre in the Philippines”.  The previous courses had focused on the business side of operating a childcare centre and the current courses would assist her to better understand and work in the community.

27. According to the applicant the cost of the courses undertaken to date was in the vicinity of $60,000 to $70,000. The cost of the  course currently being undertaken is $8,000 and the applicant provided evidence that she had paid $2,375 towards the cost of the course.

28. I found the applicant’s evidence at the hearing and this further submission unconvincing and invited the applicant to a further hearing to respond to concerns that undertaking the current course she was enrolled in, together with some of the previous course, were not for the genuine purpose of assisting her with a planned business but were motivated to extend her stay in Australia, possibly to work.[1]

    [1] Refer Hazra & anor v MIBP [2017] FCCA 688 about the importance of specifically raising concerns about the visa holder’s motivation to stay in Australia

29. The applicant responded that this was not the case and both the current course being undertaken and the previous courses were relevant because she would be operating a childcare centre within the community. The applicant said that she had been working in hospitality at the Hilton Hotel since 2009 and more recently had been working in childcare on a casual basis one day a week. The applicant said she was earning about $800 per week. She also said that she had a good job when she was living in the Philippines and had been earning about $450 per month. The applicant said that the financial reward from working in Australia was not the motivation for studying in Australia. She confirmed that when she returned to the Philippines next year she would find a location for the business, register as an educator with the relevant regulatory authority and start marketing the business.

30. The applicant also gave evidence that she had completed some research the week before the hearing and had found out that to be a director or administrator of a childcare centre she needed a Master’s degree, preferably in education. When the applicant was questioned as to why she did not finish the Master’s degree in the Philippines, she responded that the course could only be studied in the summer and it would have taken her four years to complete the course. She could not do this because she was working full time and decided to come to Australia instead. When she finished the Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management the applicant said she would assess whether any of her certificates and diplomas could contribute or be recognised towards a Master’s degree in Education. When asked why she had only just started to research this issue, the applicant said that she had come to Australia to learn but later said it was her dream to open a childcare centre in the Philippines before she came to Australia.

1. After the hearing, the applicant provided an extract of an internet search headed ‘Starting a Preschool or Day Care Center’. This document outlined the requirements for operating a centre, which includes hiring a school administrator or director with a master’s degree, preferably in education. It is noted that this article was published in the Manila Bulletin and the publisher was offering a training program called ‘How to Start and Manage a Preschool or Day Care Center’.  The applicant included a letter requesting that she be allowed to continue the course and provided a copy of a one-way ticket to Manila for 31 March 2018. She also provided a document headed Confirmation of Studies dated 17 July 2017 noting that the applicant had completed five units in the Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management course, being:

   ·Lead and manage organisational change

   ·Manage risk

   ·Develop and implement service programs

   ·Research and apply evidence to practice

   ·Manage innovation and continuous improvement

   CONSIDERATION

2. Under  Direction No.53, I must have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in her home country and her potential circumstances in Australia.

3. In considering the applicant’s circumstances in her home country, I must have regard to whether the applicant has sound reasons for not undertaking the study in the Philippines, the applicant’s personal ties to the Philippines and whether this would serve as a significant incentive to return and whether there are significant incentives for the applicant not to return home, such as economic circumstances, military service commitments or political and civil unrest.

4. In considering the applicant’s circumstances in Australia, I must have regard to the following factors, which are relevant to her case:

   (1)whether the applicant has ties with Australia that would present a strong incentive for her to remain;

   (2)evidence that the visa program is being used to circumvent the intentions of the program;

   (3)whether the program is being used to maintain ongoing residence; and

   (4)the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and her intended course of study.

5. Under Direction No.53, I must also have regard to the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future. In particular, I must have regard to whether the course the applicant is undertaking is consistent with her current level of education and whether this course will assist her to obtain employment in the Philippines, the relevance of the course to the applicant’s past and future employment in the Philippines or another country and the remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the Philippines compared with Australia using the qualifications gained.

6. Direction No.53 provides that I must have regard to the applicant’s immigration history, including previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, previous travel to Australia or other countries, including, relevant to the facts in this case, the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the visa may be used for maintaining ongoing residence.

7. I accept that the applicant has close ties to her family in the Philippines and there is no evidence of military service commitments or political or civil unrest that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia. The applicant has ties to Australia with her aunt and uncle but the nature of these ties do not appear, on their face, to outweigh her family ties to the Philippines such that this would present a strong incentive to stay in Australia. While the applicant has previously been refused a visa, this decision was set aside on review.  There is no evidence she has failed to comply with visa conditions. I accept her evidence about the reasons that she could not return to the Philippines more frequently.

8. The critical concern is that the applicant has been living and working in Australia for over 8 years and has been studying a number of courses which, on their face, do not appear to be relevant to her stated purpose of operating a childcare centre in the Philippines. While the applicant has been studying continuously in this period (except for a short gap) and has incurred considerable expenses in paying for these courses, I am not convinced by the applicant’s evidence as to the reasons why she says she has undertaken studies in Australia as opposed to the Philippines. Furthermore, while I accept that the applicant is educated and could obtain employment in the Philippines, there is evidence that there are economic advantages for the applicant living and working in Australia for an extended period.

9. Based on the evidence before me I am of the view that the applicant is using the student visa program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia and this leads me to the conclusion that the program is being used to circumvent the intentions of the program, which are to enter and remain temporarily in Australia to study. In short, I am not satisfied the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia. My reasons follow.

10. The applicant has been studying since 2009. As already noted, she has undertaken nine courses, and currently enrolled in a further course, mostly progressing to the next level within the course. Notwithstanding this, I am not persuaded that all of these courses are of value to the applicant’s to stated future plans in the Philippines.

11. The applicant said she wanted to study in Australia to enhance employment opportunities in the Philippines and, in particular, to give her the skills to open and operate a childcare centre in the Philippines.

12. I accept that the business courses undertaken by her in 2009 and 2010 may have advanced this objective. I also accept that the early childcare courses, which were undertaken in 2014 and 2015, would have been relevant and useful to her stated objectives and plans. However, I am not persuaded from the applicant’s evidence that the courses she has undertaken in Human Resources, Marketing, the Advanced Diploma in Management or the more recent Diploma of Community Services and the Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management would be anything other than of marginal relevance. When questioned about why she had taken the human resources and marketing courses, which were studied over a period of two years, the applicant said that she thought these courses would help her to manage her staff and to market her business. The applicant said that she expected she would employ about seven staff, including herself, but could not explain why topics such as ‘organise workplace information’, ‘recommend products and services’ and ‘manage workforce planning’ would be anything other than peripherally relevant to what the applicant proposed as a relatively modest small business. When questioned about the relevance of the marketing course, the applicant stated that she needed skills to market her business but could not explain what steps she would take to market her business, other than in the most general terms. She could not provide any details about research she had undertaken to identify the need for a childcare centre in Manila or how and where she would start the business. Her evidence was vague and unconvincing.

13. It was also apparent from the review of the course topics set out in the transcripts provided by the applicant that there was considerable overlap and duplication between the subjects studied in the Business and Early Education courses and those studied in the other courses. There was also overlap and duplication between other courses. For instance, in the Advanced Diploma of Management course, topics such as ‘develop and implement a business plan,’ ‘manage the marketing process’ and ‘develop a marketing plan’ were also included in the Advanced Diploma of Marketing course. In the Diploma of Human Resources Management subjects such as ‘organise personal work priorities’, ‘producing spread sheets’ and ‘working effectively with diversity’ were included in the Certificate III Business course. The subjects for the Diploma of Community Services course included a number of topics that had already been included in some of the previous courses, including ‘manage work health and safety’, ‘manage and promote diversity’ as well as topics relating to leading and managing a team. Having closely examined the transcript for the various courses undertaken by the applicant, I am not satisfied about the value of studying all of these courses given the considerable overlap and duplication between them.

14. The applicant stated at the hearing, and in her written submissions, that the reason she was undertaking the various courses, including the most recent course, was to “follow [her] strong desire and commitment to put up and manage [her] own childcare centre in her home town”. However, the applicant was unable to give any detail about how the childcare centre would operate and was only able to provide particulars about the regulatory requirements to establish a centre after further questioning by the Tribunal at the second hearing. It was clear that the first time the applicant had undertaken such research was just prior to the second hearing after this issue was raised at the first hearing. Furthermore, it was not until the second hearing, after these concerns were specifically raised with the applicant, that the applicant said she needed a Master’s of Education degree to operate a childcare centre in the Philippines. She said that she was hopeful some of the study that had been completed in Australia would count towards such a degree. The fact the applicant had not undertaken this research earlier is inconsistent with the evidence about her “strong desire” and motivation for studying in Australia. It is also relevant to note that the applicant did not commence the childcare studies until 2014, after studying higher level management related courses.

15. I find the applicant’s evidence about the purpose for her study in Australia to be unconvincing and inconsistent. If the applicant had been genuinely motivated by her desire to open and operate a childcare centre in the Philippines she would have undertaken the necessary research about the business and operating requirements for the childcare centre so that she could choose any relevant courses. I also find it implausible that the applicant would undertake studies in Marketing, Human Resources Management and Management before undertaking study in Childcare courses, which would be highly relevant to her chosen career. Despite repeated questioning on this, the applicant was unable to provide a clear and coherent explanation for this.

16. A further difficulty with the applicant’s evidence is that she had already commenced a Master’s degree in the Philippines before coming to Australia. She said that she did not complete this degree because it would take her four years. Yet if the applicant had continued with this degree she could have completed her degree nearly four years ago. The applicant’s evidence about why she did not remain in the Philippines to complete this degree was unconvincing, particularly given she is now proposing to complete this degree when she returns to the Philippines.

17. When giving evidence about the current course, the applicant was unable to provide any detail about the proposed subjects. When pressed, the applicant said the course was “more high level” than the Community Services course. The applicant’s evidence about the value of the course to her further plans was unconvincing and lacking in detail. She said she wanted to be a community leader but was unable to explain how the course would assist her in operating the proposed childcare centre.

18. The applicant denied she was motivated by the employment opportunities in Australia but acknowledged that she has been earning regular income in Australia since she arrived in 2009, which, based on her own evidence, has exceeded her course expenses and is considerably more than the money she would have earned in the Philippines. The applicant has provided a one-way ticket to Manila to support her claim that she indents on returning home upon completion of her current course. It is not clear whether this ticket is non-refundable but even if it were, the cost of the ticket is modest and this does not in itself evidence a genuine intention to stay temporarily in Australia.    

19. Having regard to the matters referred to above, I am not persuaded by the applicant’s evidence about the need to undertake further study in Australia and I am of the view that her motivation to continue studies, including undertaking the current Advanced Diploma course, is to either work in Australia or simply reside in Australia for an extended period. While I accept that the Business and Childcare courses may have assisted the applicant with her stated objectives, I am not convinced that the other courses, including the most recent Diploma of Community Services and Advanced Diploma of Community Sector Management, were anything other than peripheral to the skills that she would require.

20. On the basis of the above, and having considered the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history, and other matters considered relevant, I am not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, I am not satisfied the applicant meets cl.572.223(1)(a), which is an essential requirement of cl.572.223.

21. As I have found that the applicant does not meet a criterion for the grant of a student visa, I must affirm the decision under review.

    DECISION

22. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    Jan Redfern
    Deputy President