Kaur (Migration)

[2021] AATA 1028

Kaur (Migration) [2021] AATA 1028 (22 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Harjinder Kaur
Mr Mandeep Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1918414

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1994319

MEMBER:Robert O’Neill

DATE:22 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 22 March 2021 at 9:08pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – visa, travel and study history – long stay and enrolment in many short, inexpensive courses at various levels in subjects unrelated to previous study and employment – applied for current student visa when temporary graduate visa expired – value of course to applicant’s future – incentives to stay or return – newborn baby – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 359AA

Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 Home Affairs on 18 June 2019 to refuse to grant the primary visa applicant Harjinder Kaur (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 18 April 2019. 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 visa application was refused by the delegate 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 did not consider her to be a genuine temporary entrant for entry and stay in Australia as a student.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 23 December 2020 and 5 March 2021 to give evidence and present their arguments. The hearing was conducted by telephone.

5. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by her registered migration agent. A Punjabi language interpreter was available at the hearing to assist the applicant.

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

   EVIDENCE AND FINDINGS

   PRISMS records

7. In advance of the hearing in December 2020, the Tribunal obtained a copy of the applicant’s PRISMS records. Adopting the procedure in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to her that it had on the Tribunal file a copy of her PRISMS records. The Tribunal explained to her what the PRISMS database is, and further explained that the PRISMS records set out her history of enrolment and study in Australia.

8. The Tribunal explained to her why this information was relevant to the review, specifically:

   a.That she had not disclosed, in the Form M17 Response she provided to the Tribunal, all the courses in which she had been enrolled in Australia;

   b.That she had enrolled in courses which were not consistent with her current level of education;

   c.That she may intend to study in a field unrelated to her previous studies or employment;

   d.That she had undertaken a series of short inexpensive courses.

9. It explained to her the consequences of the Tribunal relying on the information. The Tribunal confirmed with her that she understood how the information was relevant to the review, and the Tribunal advised her that she could comment on or respond to the information, or seek additional time to comment on or respond to it. She requested additional time be granted to her, and the Tribunal granted her an adjournment in order to have that time.

10. At the adjourned hearing, the applicant said that the information in the PRISMS record was correct. That evidence was qualified in further discussion with the Tribunal, with the assistance of her representative, to the effect that there were numerous duplicate entries in the record, and that she had eventually completed each course that was listed.

Evidence in support of application

1. In support of her application, the applicant has relevantly provided:

   ·Response to s.359(2) request made by the Tribunal (Form M17) filed 11 May 2020

   ·Current Confirmation of Enrolment

   ·Medical information in relation to her pregnancy in 2020

   ·Transcripts of results

   ·Marriage certificate

   ·Birth certificate for the applicant’s child, who was born on 1 August 2020

   ·Passports.

2. The Tribunal has considered these documents and the evidence given by the applicant in reaching its decision.

3. 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 in cl.500.311. The issue in the present case is whether the primary applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for entry and stay in Australia as a student.

   Enrolment (cl.500.211)

4. The applicant has a current Confirmation of Enrolment and confirmed in oral evidence that she is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management course. The Tribunal is satisfied that she meets the criterion in cl.500.211.

   Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

5. 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?

6. 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.

7. 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.

8. The Tribunal has considered all of these matters and sets out below the matters which it considers materially relevant in relation to them.

   Entry and visa history

9. The applicant in this case is a 36-year-old woman from India who first arrived in Australia on 12 March 2009 on a student visa.

   Time onshore

10. The applicant has remained in Australia since then, other than visits home in 2011, 2012 and 2016.

    Study history

11. Prior to arriving in Australia, the applicant had completed year 12 and a Diploma of Nursing in India.

12. Based on the evidence in the PRISMS record, her M17 form and the applicant’s oral evidence, the Tribunal finds that since her arrival in Australia the applicant has been enrolled in the following courses:

Institution	Course Name	Status	Start Date	End Date
Certificate III in Food Processing	Completed	04/2009	03/2010
Diploma of Business	Completed	3/2010	3/2011
Diploma of Management	Completed	5/2011	4/2012
Advanced Diploma of Management	Cancelled	4/2012	6/2012
Advanced Diploma of Management	Cancelled	6/2012	12/2012
Advanced Diploma of Management	Completed	1/2013	7/2013
Certificate IV in Hospitality	Cancelled	7/2013	3/2014
Certificate IV in Hospitality	Cancelled	3/2014	9/2014
Advanced Diploma of Management	Cancelled	9/2014	9/2014
Brighton Institute of Technology	Certificate III and IV in Commercial Cookery	Completed	9/2014	3/2016
Brighton Institute of Technology	Advanced Diploma of Hospitality	Cancelled	5/2016	5/2017
Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management	Cancelled	6/2017	7/2017
Bachelor of Tourism and Hospitality Management	Completed	7/2017	7/2019
Brighton Institute of Technology	Diploma of Leadership and Management	Cancelled	4/2019
Diploma of Leadership and Management	Cancelled	5/2020
Diploma of Leadership and Management	Cancelled	10/2020
Yes College	Diploma of Leadership and Management	Studying now	1/2021	11/2021

1. If the applicant completes her current course on time, that would result in the applicant’s having resided in Australia for a period of almost 13 years.

   Relevant considerations

2. Set out below are a number of considerations raised by the applicant or arising on the material. The considerations raised are conveniently considered under headings derived from the factors set out in Direction No. 69, keeping in mind that those factors are not a checklist and the ultimate question remains that set by cl.500.212. The Tribunal has considered all the submissions of the applicant but has set out only those it considers materially relevant to its decision.

   Applicant’s circumstances in their home country

3. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s circumstances in India as follows:

   Reasons for not studying in home country

   ·The applicant explained the relative benefits of the Australian and Indian education systems. The Tribunal accepts that she had good reason in earlier years for her choice to study in Australia.

   ·However, the Tribunal gives this factor little weight in circumstances where, the applicant has now been in Australia for over 10 years and seeks a student visa again after the expiry of a Subclass 485 visa.

   Personal ties to home country

   ·The applicant’s mother, sister and brother are in India.

   ·The applicant was previously involved in folk dancing.

   ·As the applicant has been away for 12 years, and only been back to India three times, and notwithstanding her involvement in a community activity, the Tribunal considers her personal ties to be weak and does not give them significant weight.

   Economic circumstances as incentive not to return home

   ·Before coming to Australia, the applicant had worked as a hospital nurse in India.

   ·She has worked long term in the hospitality industry in Australia. The secondary applicant, her husband, has work as an Uber driver. No evidence was provided of his employment prospects in India.

   ·The Tribunal considers their work history in Australia to be an incentive to remain.

   ·The applicant’s family have property in India. The Tribunal gives this matter little weight in the absence of evidence that she will inherit it or that she is required to be in India to benefit from it.

   Military service or civil/political unrest concerns in home country

   ·The applicant raises no such concerns.

   ·The Tribunal is not aware of any particular circumstances in India which would give rise to an additional inducement for the applicant to apply for a student visa in Australia.

   Consideration

4. Based on her evidence that she has no assets or secured employment there, the Tribunal does not consider that the applicant has strong economic or financial ties that constitute an incentive to return to her home country.

5. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has family ties to India and that those ties potentially present as an incentive to return, in particular her mother. The Tribunal considers however that the applicant has only returned home three times in 12 years. The Tribunal considers this a significant indicator that her family ties are not a strong incentive to return home.

   Applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

6. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, based on the evidence provided at the hearing, as follows:

   Applicant’s ties with Australia

   ·The applicant has lived in Australia since 2009. Her child was born here.

   ·The applicant and her family are settled in Australia.

   ·The applicant has relatives in Sydney who were a major support to her at the time of the birth of her child in 2020.

   Evidence visa program being used to circumvent the migration program

   ·The applicant had, before commencing her current course, already completed a series of courses in hospitality leading up to a Diploma of Hospitality Management, as well as a Diploma of Business Management and an Advanced Diploma of Business Management.

   ·The Tribunal does not accept that there is any further substantive benefit to her career prospects in now engaging in a Diploma of Leadership and Management.

   ·It is also notable that the applicant made the current visa application at the expiry of her Subclass 485 temporary graduate visa.

   Applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia, their intended course and level of research into their intended course

7. The applicant provided the Tribunal with information generally about the education provider she has chosen. It is in the nature of promotional material and does not relate to the applicant’s course or her situation specifically.

8. The Tribunal is unable to conclude that the applicant has undertaken any genuine research into her proposed course, course content, education provider or educational objectives as would be expected of a genuine student, based on the information set out above.

9. While the information was general, given she has now lived in Australia for over 10 years and is conducting at least her seventh course, the Tribunal accepts that she is familiar with Australia and the education system. However, the Tribunal gives this matter little weight in circumstances where for other reasons the Tribunal does not accept that the course of study has significant value for the applicant.

10. The Tribunal is troubled by the timing of the applicant’s current visa application, that being close to the expiry of her temporary graduate visa and considers that the timing is indicative of an intention to use the student visa program to prolong her stay in Australia, not an application for the primary purpose of studying and progressing academically.

11. The Tribunal is troubled by the length of time that the applicant is intending on spending onshore, over 12 years. The Tribunal considers this to be of concern and suggest the possibility, when combined with her extensive study history, that she is enrolled in study for the purpose of staying in Australia indefinitely.

    Value of the course to the applicant’s future

12. The Tribunal has had regard to the value of the course/s of study to the applicant’s future as follows:

    Is the course consistent with the applicant’s current level of education?

    ·The applicant’s current course is at the same level as numerous other vocational courses she has already completed, and with overlapping subject matter.

    Will the course assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects?

    ·The applicant states that she would like to return to India and seek employment as a chef or catering manager, with a view to eventually opening her own catering business. The Tribunal accepts that this is her ambition.

    ·However, the Tribunal is unable to accept that the Diploma of Leadership and Management adds anything of value to her prospects of obtaining such a position. In that circumstance, the ambition adds little weight to her application.

    Expected remuneration using qualifications in home country compared to what is receivable in Australia

    ·The applicant told the Tribunal that she considers that she will be able to obtain a salary of between 30,000 and 50,000 rupees on her return to India. She currently earns approximately $20,000 pa in Australia.

    ·Given differences in cost of living, and in the absence of any articulation from the applicant as to why this might be an incentive to return to India, the Tribunal is unable to make a meaningful comparison between these figures that assists in determining the central question. The Tribunal treats this as a neutral factor.

    Immigration history

13. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s immigration history. There is no evidence of other visa refusals or cancellations. That is a matter in the applicant’s favour.

    Any other relevant matters

14. The Tribunal did not consider any other matter raised by the applicant to be significant to the application for review.

    Consideration

15. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has at least some economic incentive to remain in Australia due to her past and current working history in Australia particularly considering the applicant has no hospitality industry work history in India.

16. The Tribunal considers that the applicant does not have family or social ties that present as an incentive to remain in Australia.

17. In weighing up the considerations which the Tribunal must consider pursuant to the Schedule and Direction No. 69, the Tribunal has given particular weight to the following matters in the applicant’s favour:

    ·her family ties to India

    ·her overall good study record of completing courses.

    However, the following matters in particular outweigh those matters and indicate to the Tribunal that the applicant does not genuinely intend to remain in Australia temporarily:

    ·the lack of substantive benefit of the applicant’s current course;

    ·the applicant having been in Australia for 8 years on student visas, then 2 years on a Subclass 485 visa and then seeking to again obtain a student visa;

    ·The fact that the applicant’s family is settled in Australia, having been here for many years and her child having been born here;

    ·The applicant’s family ties in Sydney.

18. The Tribunal raised each of these matters with the applicant and gave her the opportunity to respond. The Tribunal did not find her responses persuasive.

19. The applicant has not provided any specific details establishing the benefits to be gained by studying the proposed course in Australia as opposed to studying in her home country considering the financial outlay required to study in Australia. The applicant’s assertions as to the value of the course for her employment prospects were vague and the Tribunal does not accept them.

20. The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant in Australia for the purpose of studying and to progress academically will be able to demonstrate circumstances that evidence a genuine intention to remain temporarily as a genuine student. The Tribunal acknowledges that these things will be different in each individual case and may change over time with respect to an individual applicant. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has failed to establish such circumstances and as such the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.

1. Considering the above individually and collectively, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

2. 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. It also follows that the secondary applicant does not meet the criteria under cl.500.311. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

   DECISION

3. The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

   Robert O’Neill
   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.