Kaur (Migration)

[2021] AATA 900

Kaur (Migration) [2021] AATA 900 (20 January 2021)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Harpreet Kaur
Balraj Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1930735

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/4386827

MEMBER:T. Quinn

DATE:20 January 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the applications for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:

·clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 20 January 2021 at 1:13pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily – positive study progress – family and social ties to home country – significant incentive to return home– decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 338, 347, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 (‘the delegate’) on 10 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The applicants applied for the visa on 2 September 2019 (‘the application’).   At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).  The primary applicant (‘the applicant’) applied for the visa (being a Subclass 500 (Student) visa) to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. 

3. On 10 October 2019, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’), namely that the applicant was not considered to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicants’ review application.

4. On 29 October 2019, the applicants applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.

5. Approximately fourteen months have elapsed since the making of the delegate’s decision and the applicants’ application for review with the Tribunal. In coming to consider the merits of the application for review, the Tribunal recognises the applicant’s personal circumstances bearing upon their visa application may have changed during that time. The Tribunal considered that it would be beneficial for the applicant to provide updated and further information to the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the outcome of their application for review. To this end, on 1 June 2020, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting them to provide information in writing about the course(s) of study the applicant was undertaking and their entry and stay in Australia as a student (‘the s359(2) letter’). The applicant responded to the s359(2) letter on 15 June 2020 which was within the prescribed time period.

6. The applicants were listed to appear before the Tribunal on 17 September 2020, but the Tribunal was experiencing technical difficulties with the virtual hearings platform and the matter was adjourned.  The applicants were listed to appear before the Tribunal on 21 January 2021 for a telephone hearing to give evidence and present arguments.  However, upon considering the material filed by the applicants, the Tribunal determined that it could make a decision without the need for a hearing.

7. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having had regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicants to the Department and all submissions filed with the Tribunal by the applicants.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

10. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in clause 500.211 to clause 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant.

11. 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?

12. In considering whether the applicant satisfies clause 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’ (‘the Direction’), made under section 499 of the Act. The Direction 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.

13. 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.

14. The Direction is a lawful direction of the Minister made in accordance with section 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent that its terms are relevant, apply it to the applicant’s case.[1]  Accordingly, the terms of the Direction and their application to the applicant’s case have been considered in relation to material before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body.  It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor in the Direction is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate.  In this regard, the Tribunal also notes the decision of Judge McNab in Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667 (at [44]-[47]), wherein his Honour referred to the decisions of Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1372 (at [49] and [51]) and Khan v Minister for Immigration & Another [2019] FCCA 565 (at [35]) in relation to the proper approach to the consideration of guidelines such as the Direction. Most pertinently, his Honour endorses the view espoused in those cases, that such guidelines may not be relevant where the matters raised by an applicant, either upon the application or at merits review, do not raise facts which engage particular matters identified by those guidelines.

    [1]FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555, [10], [34]; Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46, [29]; Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112, [60]-[73]; Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482, [8]; Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145, [10]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, [53] Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345, [27]-[28].

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The primary applicant in this case is a 34-year-old female Indian citizen who first arrived in Australia on 12 July 2019 on a visitor visa.[2]  The secondary applicant (aged 40 years) is the partner of the primary applicant.[3]  Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed High School in India in 2003 and then worked as a cook part time from March 2018-June 2019 earning AUD480 equivalent per annum in India.[4] 

    [2]           See delegate’s decision.

    [3]           See delegate’s decision.

    [4]See delegate’s decision, applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

16. The applicant’s application which is the subject of this review was to undertake a Certificate III and IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma of Hospitality Management.[5]  Due to delays in the applicant’s matter coming before the Tribunal, she has now commenced and completed the Certificate III course and has provided a letter from her course provider dated 14 January 2021 reflecting this.  She was supposed to have finished this course in September of last year but has made submissions that there were delays with completion of the practical components of this course due to the COVID19 Pandemic and associated restrictions.  The Tribunal accepts this explanation for the delay in the applicant’s course completion.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers the applicant has applied herself to her studies and made good academic progress.  This is to her credit; particularly given she has been doing so while on a bridging visa, managing the uncertainty of the outcome of this application.

    [5] See delegate’s decision and applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

17. The applicant intends to return to her home country upon completion of her courses in November 2021 and work as a professional Cook or qualified chef at a hotel, restaurant, club, pub or café or run her own small business.  She submits that her proposed study will increase her career opportunities in the hospitality sector.  She has supplied a letter from her previous employer dated June 2020 attesting to her character as an individual and as an employee and supporting her in pursuing her study and higher career.[6]  The applicant submits that she anticipates earning approximately AUD14,920 equivalent per annum in India using the qualifications gained.[7]  The Tribunal accepts that these courses are consistent with the applicant’s current level of education and are relevant to and likely to assist and improve her future career prospects. 

    [6]See Tribunal file document ID 7361329.

    [7] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

18. The applicant is living onshore with her spouse, brother, sister in law and her brother’s two children.[8]  Her brother and his family are Australian citizens and her brother is financially supporting the applicants onshore.[9]  The applicant states she has made some friends at her college and in the local area.[10]  The Tribunal considers that the applicants’ community ties to Australia are strong ties likely to serve as a strong incentive for the applicants to remain onshore.    

    [8]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

    [9]See applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

    [10]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

19. The applicants have not returned to India since their arrival but travel restrictions were severely limited during 2020 due to the COVID19 Pandemic and the Tribunal does not place any weight on this fact.[11]  The applicant’s mother, mother in law, brother, brother in law and son are all living in India and she speaks to her mother in law and son daily and her other relatively once a week or once a fortnight.[12]  The applicant also has a sister in Canada[13]  The applicant’s son is eleven years old and currently being cared for by her mother in law.[14]  She states that she has many friends and relatives in India and used to go to Kitti Parties.[15]  The Tribunal considers the applicant’s personal ties to her home country are likely to be serving as an incentive for them to return but does not consider it has sufficient information before it to make any firm conclusions about whether those ties are acting as a significant incentive to return.

    [11] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [12] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [13] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [14]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

    [15] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

20. The applicants have not been working onshore and the applicant’s brother has provided a statutory declaration to the Tribunal about his support of the applicants.[16]  The applicants have expenses of AUD3,600 per annum in Australia.[17]  The applicants have some funds in bank accounts in Australia and India and her mother in law owns assets which will ultimately pass to the applicants.[18]  The Tribunal notes that the United Nations Human Development Index, which is a statistical comparison of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators by country, ranks India as 129^th in the world as compared to Australia’s ranking of 6^th in the world.[19]  The Tribunal considers that the applicants’ economic circumstances in Australia relative to India do not appear to be acting as a significant incentive for them to remain onshore at this time. 

    [16]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

    [17] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [18]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

    [19]See Table 1 of United Nations’ Human Development Report 2019 commencing at page 300 <>

    The applicant has made detailed submissions in relation to studying in Australia as opposed to her home country, including that there are not many course providers in her local area offering quality hospitality courses and she does  not meet the entry requirements for Bachelor or Master level qualifications in her home country.[20]  She also states her age is a barrier to studying in India and that Australian qualifications are globally recognised.[21] The Tribunal considers the applicant has provided reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in her home country.

    [20] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [21] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

21. The applicant has previously had a tourist visa refused in April 2019 which raises concerns for the Tribunal.[22]  The applicant stated the basis for this refusal was insufficient evidence of strong personal, employment or financial incentives.[23] The Tribunal is troubled by this history,  particularly considering the way in which the applicant has gone about making this application.  The Tribunal is concerned by the way in which the applicant came to be onshore (being on a visitor visa and only then, once onshore, applying for a student visa).  It is difficult for the Tribunal to accept that the applicant, in such a short space of time after her arrival onshore as a visitor, could have then promptly researched all study and living options and decided to remain onshore for a further two year period.  The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that an applicant may seek a change in plans or to further their skills for employment reasons and remuneration opportunities, but the Tribunal is puzzled when an applicant arrives on a visitor visa and then makes sudden changes to their plans within a short period of time after arriving.  It seems unlikely to the Tribunal that a person travelling as a tourist would make such a significant change from their initial intentions to visit.  Such a significant change would necessarily include a greater level of planning and preparation before arriving in Australia considering the length of time (two years) that the applicant proposed to spend in Australia.  It raises concerns about her true intentions in seeking a student visa. 

    [22] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [23]See applicant’s email to the Tribunal of 20 January 2021.

22. The applicants have not had any other travel, visa or immigration issues in the past.[24]  The applicant states she does not have any potential military service obligations or political or civil unrest circumstances in India.[25] 

    [24] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [25] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

23. The Tribunal is troubled by some of the evidence as set out above and considers the factors for and against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant for study in Australia are closely balanced in this case.  Ultimately, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant.  The applicant has submitted that upon completion of her courses in November 2021, she will return to India to be with her family and pursue her career goals.  The applicant is therefore approximately ten months from completion.  Should the applicant make a further student visa application on the basis of an intention to undertake further study after this, her submissions and evidence in connection with this case will clearly be relevant to any assessment her intention to stay in Australia temporarily only to study.

24. Having had regard to the applicant’s circumstances, her immigration history and all other relevant matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily as required by clause 500.212. Accordingly, the applicant meets clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

25. Given the above findings, the appropriate course is to remit the applications for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

26. Consequently, as the decision in relation primary applicant’s review has been remitted, the Tribunal considers the Minister should also reconsider whether clause 500.311 in Schedule 2 of the Regulations is met by the second applicant as members of the family unit of a person who satisfies, or has satisfied, the relevant primary criteria.

27. Therefore, the decisions in relation to the second applicant’s review must also be remitted.

    DECISION

28. The Tribunal remits the applications for Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa: clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    T. Quinn
    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.