JUNG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant had previously held a Subclass 573 visa and had completed vocational education and training (VET) courses. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by the criteria for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant (GTE) criterion under clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved considering the applicant's circumstances in their home country, their immigration history, and the value of the proposed course to their future, as guided by Direction No. 69. The Tribunal also had to assess whether the applicant intended to comply with visa conditions.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant provided no information to assist in this assessment, nor did they respond to the Tribunal's invitation to provide further information. Consequently, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision based on the available information, finding that the applicant had not demonstrated that they met the GTE criterion. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant's enrolment in short, inexpensive courses to maintain residency suggested an intention contrary to genuine temporary entry.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.