Jung (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay in Australia temporarily as a student, as required by clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to their circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to their future, and their immigration history, in accordance with Direction No. 69. The Tribunal also considered any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant possessed qualifications and work history that would enable them to seek employment in their home country, their extended period of onshore presence since 2014 without demonstrating the value of the proposed courses to their future was inconsistent with the behaviour of a genuine student intending a temporary stay. The Tribunal found that this pattern suggested an intention to use the student migration program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia. Despite acknowledging the applicant's stated desire to work in South Korea, the Tribunal concluded that the proposed course would not add value to their future given their existing qualifications and experience. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas, finding that the criteria for the visa were not met. As the primary applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion, the dependant applicant also failed to meet the relevant criteria.