Kashyap (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3176

Kashyap (Migration) [2019] AATA 3176 (10 July 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Robin Kashyap

CASE NUMBER:  1726012

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1619491

MEMBER:D Shirrefs

DATE:10 July 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 10 July 2019 at 11:53am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa –genuine temporary entrant criterion not met –a series of low level hospitality courses  – using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, 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 Immigration and Border Protection on 18 October 2017 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 for the visa on 5 May 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). 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 visa 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) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 15 April 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.

5. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

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.

    Background and applicant’s immigration history

11. The Tribunal has considered clause 13 and 14 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant’s immigration and travel history.

12. The applicant was granted his Australian student visa from India on 2 December 2013 and first arrived in Australia on 15 December 2013 on a Student (Class TU subclass 500) visa in the 573 (higher education) stream. The s.359(2) response from the applicant accords with this as did his evidence at the hearing.

13. The applicant gave evidence that he had no other current applications for an Australian visa under consideration. The applicant’s s.359(2) response stated that the applicant has never been refused a visa to any country or held a visa that has been cancelled or considered for cancellation. The evidence of the applicant’s past history of visas is accepted.

14. The applicant’s s.359(2) response indicates that he has travelled back to India on two occasions: one from December 2015 for about 3 months; and one from January 2018 for about three months. He claims to have not travelled to any other countries during his stay in Australia. The Tribunal accepts this evidence as to the applicant’s travel during his period of stay in Australia.

15. In the application under review the applicant applied for a Student (subclass 500) visa on 5 May 2017.  A decision to refuse that visa was made on 18 October 2017.

16. The applicant originally came to Australia to study an English language course and a bachelor of business at Federation University.  The delegate’s decision indicates that the applicant studied the English language course and only four months of the Bachelor Degree.  At hearing the applicant expressed some uncertainty regarding exact dates but agreed he did not complete the Bachelor of Business and did not complete the mandatory reporting period with his initial provider. 

17. The applicant then did no further study until he commenced a certificate III in commercial cookery on 13 October 2014, which he finished on 11 October 2015.  The Tribunal accepts the letter from the South Pacific Institute as proof of this. 

18. He has since pursued a series of low level hospitality courses in the vocational education and training sector; a certificate IV in commercial cookery, a Diploma of Hospitality and at the time of hearing he was enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality scheduled to end on 4 June 2019. 

19. The applicant produced a confirmation of enrolment in a Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management scheduled to commence on 22 July 2019.  He has previously been enrolled in a Bachelor of Business at Stotts College in 2018, which he agrees he never commenced.

20. The applicant has now been in Australia for more than 5.5 years.  The Tribunal notes the change in pathway the applicant made from the Bachelor of Business and allowance is made for that change.  After changing pathways, the applicant has completed certificate III in commercial cookery, certificate IV in commercial cookery and diploma in hospitality.  By the time of this decision, the applicant should have completed an advanced diploma of hospitality management. 

21. He states his intention as now being to study a Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management, a level of study he has had two previous opportunities to achieve in Australia.

22. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has had an opportunity to complete a substantive number of courses in related and complementary subjects at the vocational level up tpo the Advanced Diploma level.  He has progressed from cookery to hospitality to management studies.  These courses provide a relevant body of education to support his career aspiration of working in hospitality.  The tribunal finds that his background and immigration history do not support her claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.

23. The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s travel history is more consistent with an intention to use the temporary visa as a means for maintaining ongoing residence.  The applicant has now been in Australia for more than 5.5 years, or 2007 days.  During that period he has returned home twice for about 5 months to attend family members who were ill.  He told the Tribunal he has not travelled anywhere other than in Australia since arriving here.  The tribunal finds that the applicant’s length of stay in Australia and his periods of absence are not supportive of a desire to return to his home country. 

24. On balance, and after regarding the matters in clause 13 and 14 of Direction 69 carefully, the Tribunal concludes that the applicant’s immigration and travel history support a finding that the applicant is using the student visa program to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme, not as a genuine temporary entrant. The significant period of time he has been in Australia, his lack of departures and his early diversion from his stated objective of tertiary studies, together with all the evidence, support a finding that his incentives to stay in Australia outweigh any incentives he has to depart.

    The applicant circumstances in their home country

25. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 9 and 10 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

26. The applicant came to Australia after completing his senior secondary education in May 2013.  There is no evidence of him having commenced a career in India prior to coming to Australia.

27. The applicant states that he doesn’t own any property in India.

28. The applicant provided evidence he has a father, mother and brother in India as well as friends.  He says his father operates a Juice Bar business and his brother works with his father.  He claims to speak to his father daily.  He is from a Hindu family and claims to visit a temple weekly in Australia.

29. At hearing the applicant agreed that there were similar courses available in India and he stated that he would prefer to live in his home country.

30. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has now been in Australia for more than 5.5 years.  Although the applicant asserts a close relationship with his family, the tribunal finds that the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia is difficult to reconcile with that proposition and his claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.  His evidence is that he has left Australia on two occasions and both were concerned with episodes of illness in his family, including one episode involving his father. 

31. The Tribunal is concerned that whilst such travels demonstrate family connections, they are not evidence of a significant incentive to return to his home country other than at times of family adversity.  On balance, and having regard to the evidence, the Tribunal considers that the significant period of time he has been in Australia and the lack of regular visits to India suggests his personal family ties to her home country are not strong.  The Tribunal is not satisfied the applicant is likely to yield to his personal ties as a significant incentive to return.

32. The applicant described his career prospects in India not as future employment but in relation to a future restaurant business venture.  He provided an Affidavit of Support from his father at the hearing, which states “That I have sufficient money to support my son to open a restaurant in India”.  “That I will help to extend our current business”.  The applicant also provided evidence of the fact his father had the property where the Juice Bar operates and from which a restaurant could operate.  This is accepted.

33. The applicant provided a submission at the hearing which, amongst 9 other documents, included a project report dated 18 June 2018 titled “Sanjay restaurant”.  The project report was a sophisticated document prepared by Bahl and Batra chartered accountants.  Under the heading “Strength” in the project report were listed the following:

    “01 Prime Location

    02  Exceptional Staff

    03  Quality Food

    04  Management”

34. The applicant gave evidence that he expects to earn about $2,000.00 AUD per calendar month in this venture should it eventuate.  He gave no evidence as to the likely expenses he would incur living in India.

35. The applicant’s studies in Australia have well prepared him for the very venture he says he aspires to.  Indeed, the project report lists Management as a “Strength” of the venture.

36. When he completes his Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management – scheduled to end on 4 June 2019 - he will have completed four complementary and related vocational courses in cookery and hospitality.  Yet he claimed in oral evidence to “want Bachelor to assist in my business” and to want to do more practical work.

37. I am troubled by these assertions given the applicant has had two prior opportunities to study at the Bachelor level in complementary courses and his current employment is in transport.

38. The Tribunal considers that, objectively, the applicant will have more than sufficient skills, knowledge and qualifications, to confidently embark on his career after completing his Advanced Diploma.  His aspiration to remain in Australia beyond this time to study a similar course to one he could already have completed is contrary to an intention to return home to pursue his stated business venture.

39. Having carefully considered all the evidence in relation to the applicant’s economic circumstances the Tribunal finds it difficult to reconcile the opportunity he would have to progress his career if he returns to India with the length of his intended period of residence in Australia. 

40. The Tribunal has carefully considered the applicant’s evidence and the matters in clause 9 and 10 of Direction 69.  Weighing the evidence and considering his personal circumstances objectively, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s personal ties to his home country do not serve as a significant incentive to return to India. 

41. There is no relevant evidence regarding the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to others in that country and the Tribunal makes no finding in that regard.

    The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

42. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 11 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

43. The applicant has had regular employment on an ongoing basis in the transport industry during his residence in Australia.  Over that time he claims to have earned variously sums from about $26,000.00 annually to $750.00 per week for 20 hours employment ; $39,000.00 annually.  The applicant did not provide any evidence to support these figures, however they are accepted.  The applicant’s representative was not able to

44. I consider it to be significant that, even the lower of all the figures provided, is higher than the expected returns from the proposed Sanjay restaurant venture in his home country.  The upper end of his earnings in Australia is more than 50% greater than the forecast returns from the Sanjay restaurant venture.

45. The applicant’s living expenses in Australia were described in different ways in his section 359(2) response and his oral evidence. Orally, he stated he lives in St Albans, rents through an agent and pays about $450.00 per month rent. He said he also pays college tuition fees. He claimed to not send the balance of his monthly earnings – approximately $1300.00, on the basis of the foregoing - home. I accept that evidence. In his section 359(2) response he listed his annual expenses as $900.00 per week (AAT folio 16 item 20). Accepting either basis, the applicant is earning a material surplus of income over his expenses in Australia.

46. The applicant’s evidence is that he can earn more in Australia than he would undertaking his proposed Sanjay restaurant business venture.  The Tribunal finds that proposition that he intends to stay temporarily in Australia to be difficult to reconcile with the length of his stay and his intention to not act to advance his plan at a time when he clearly could do so.  The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s economic ties to Australia would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia.

47. On balance, and having regard to all the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal is of the view that the student visa programme is being used by the applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme and that the student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.    

    Value of the course to the applicant’s future

48. The Tribunal has considered the factors in clause 12 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.

49. As noted above, in 5.5 years in Australia the applicant has never successfully engaged with study at the tertiary level, which was his stated intention when he applied for his initial student visa in December 2013.  He now says it is necessary for him to advance his stated objective of developing a restaurant in his home country.  I find this difficult to accept.

50. But accepting his intention is as he states, he nonetheless has to the date of this decision had the opportunity to complete an extended and complementary course of studies in cookery and hospitality, including studies at the Advanced Diploma level.  I find his studies in Australia have well prepared him for the venture he says he aspires to.

51. The Tribunal has considered all of the applicant’s evidence, including his GTE submission and all the related attachments provided to the Tribunal.  It is not satisfied that the applicant’s reason for wanting to remain in Australia is that his proposed studies would improve his prospects on return to his home country. 

52. Having weighed all the evidence carefully, and considered the submissions of his representative, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is using the proposed course of studies primarily to maintain residence in Australia.

53. The applicant has not raised with the Tribunal any concerns about military services commitments or concerns about political or civil unrest in his home country and stated that he would “rather live in India”.

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

55. 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.

56. 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.

    DECISION

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

    D Shirrefs
    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.