Kader (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the applications of a 32-year-old citizen of Mauritius and her husband and daughter for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas, subclass 500. The primary applicant sought to undertake a Diploma of Social Media Marketing. Her husband and daughter applied as secondary applicants, seeking to satisfy only the secondary visa criteria. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the primary applicant met the genuine temporary entrant criterion for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the primary applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by the genuine temporary entrant criterion. This involved assessing the value of the proposed course to her future, her circumstances in her home country and in Australia, and her immigration history, in accordance with Direction No. 69 issued under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958. The Tribunal also had to consider the applications of the secondary applicants, which were contingent on the primary applicant satisfying the primary visa criteria.

The Tribunal reasoned that the primary applicant had spent a considerable amount of time in Australia undertaking various courses since 2013, including English language courses, Certificate III and IV in Community Services Work, and a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care. While she presented a plan to return to Mauritius and open a childcare centre, supported by her husband's involvement in a family business, the Tribunal found that she had not clearly demonstrated the value of the Diploma of Social Media Marketing to her future career prospects in Mauritius. The Tribunal noted that her previous studies were in early childhood education and community services, and the proposed social media marketing course appeared unrelated. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the genuine temporary entrant criterion was not met.

The Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas to all applicants. As the primary applicant did not satisfy a key visa criterion, the secondary applicants, who relied on her eligibility, also had their applications refused. The Tribunal found no evidence that the secondary applicants would otherwise satisfy the primary criteria for the visa.