Kaur (Migration)

Kaur (Migration) [2020] AATA 4580 (2 November 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Ms Jagdeep Kaur
Mr Parteek Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1926427
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3648841
MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno
DATE:2 November 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 02 November 2020 at 1:14pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – previous student visa refused – unable to complete first course because of COVID-19 restrictions – statement of reasons for not studying in home country almost identical to agent’s other clients’ – incentives to remain or return – husband and some other relatives in Australia, previous work and most relatives in home country – relevance of proposed courses to previous work and value to future planned change of work area – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 23 July 2019. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visas 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). The delegate was not satisfied that the information provided by the applicant demonstrated that they met the genuine temporary entrant requirement for the grant of a student visa.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 8 September 2020 by telephone due to the Covid-19 restrictions to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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.
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?
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.
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.
The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s oral evidence and her agent’s submissions given at the hearing, the contents of the department’s file as well as documents provided by the applicant to the Tribunal including:
·     A completed s.359(2) questionnaire;
·     Confirmation of enrolment;
·     Financial and property ownership documents;
·     Documents relating to the employment of the applicant and her husband;
·     Evidence of communication by way of telephone screenshots; and
·     Various academic documents.
The applicant is a married 28 year old woman from India, who arrived in Australia with her husband on a visitor visa on 12 December 2018. She has applied for a student visa in order to study a Certificate III in Electronics and Communications and then a Diploma of Electronics and Communications Engineering (“the proposed courses”). She commenced the Certificate III course on 15 June 2019 and was due to the completed on 14 June 2016, however due to the Covid-19 restrictions she has been unable to complete 4 units of this course. Once the restrictions are lifted, she will be able to complete these units. The Diploma course was due to commence on 15 July 2020 end on 15 May 2021. She provided a letter dated 27 August 2020 from her education provider, which confirmed the above and stated that her enrolments are currently on hold until students are able to resume their courses. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is currently enrolled in the two proposed courses.
In the applicant’s questionnaire, she provided a generalised statement about why she was unable to undertake the proposed courses in her home country. This Tribunal has previously expressed concern about applicant’s using the same wording in an almost identical fashion about the reasons why they are not studying in their home country. The applicant said that she attended the office of her migration agent and filled out the form with her agent’s assistance. The Tribunal considers that the particular wording used by this applicant and by many other applicants is attributed to a particular proforma used by this particular agent. The Tribunal has decided to disregard the reasons provided in the questionnaire for not studying in the applicant’s home country. Rather, it gives weight to the explanation she provided orally at the hearing and also in her statement to the Department.
At the hearing, she said that she was not studying the proposed courses in India because international studies will be more beneficial for here than studying locally in India. She said there are similar courses available there, but there are a lot of students in India. She also said that studying in Australia will open a lot more opportunities for her in India.
In her statement to the Department, the applicant explained that securing a placement in Indian colleges and universities is difficult because students have to sit an entrance exam, the limited number of places available, students are expected to be under the age of 25 except for scheduled castes or scheduled tribes or persons with disabilities.
While the Tribunal accepts the above makes it difficult for students to secure a placement at university, the Tribunal is aware that a significant percentage of placements are in effect reserved for persons of particular castes or tribes. The difficulty here is that the applicant provided no evidence that she was not included in those castes or tribes. Furthermore, the applicant was able to secure and complete a Bachelor in Computer Application at Khalsa College for Women and then a Master degree in Information Technology at Punjabi University. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has sound reasons for not undertaking the proposed courses (or similar courses) in her home country.
In relation to her personal ties to her home country, the applicant has parents, parents-in-law and a brother living in India. Her sister has been studying in Australia with her husband for the last four years. Her husband has travelled to Australia with her. And she also has a cousin (with whom she lives) who is an Australian citizen. She provided evidence that she is in daily contact with family members in India. In addition to family, she also said that she used to often attend Gurudwara (temple) and participate in religious activities.
Shortly after arriving in Australia in December 2018, the applicant said that she returned to India in January 2019 to visit family for four months. She has not returned to her home country since then. The Tribunal does not consider that having family members in India is a particularly strong tie given that she has a number of family members in Australia and that she has been able to maintain contact with her family on a regular basis.
The applicant provided evidence that her father in law owns residential property in India and that over two years ago, her husband held the equivalent of approximately AUS $7,800 in an Indian bank account and the applicant herself had approximately AUS $40 in her own account. She said in her statement to the Department that she and her husband, parents and in-laws managed to earn more than enough to take care of their needs and take responsibilities for their extended family members. The applicant and her husband were both employed at an international school before the travelled to Australia in late 2018. Her parents have been sending them money whilst she and her husband have been living in Australia. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant’s economic circumstances would not be an incentive to avoid returning to her home country.
The applicant stated in her questionnaire that India is a very safe country and that there is no civil unrest in her area. There is no evidence that the applicant came to Australia and applied for the student visa to avoid military service commitments or because of political or civil unrest in her home country.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. She arrived in Australia with her husband on a visitor visa. While her husband was originally going to return to India while the applicant resided with her cousin in order to study here, her husband then decided to stay in Australia with her. She and her husband both reside with her cousin and while the applicant is studying, her husband looks after her cousin’s children. The applicant’s cousin is an Australian citizen and is married with two children. The applicant’s address provided to the Tribunal is an address in Swan Hill, Victoria. In her statement to the Department, she said that if her student visa is granted, she would stay with her cousin in Swan Hill. At the hearing, however, the applicant said that her cousin in Melbourne. Swan Hill is a number of hours drive to Melbourne where her college is located and there is no evidence that the applicant’s studies have been conducted online, meaning physical attendance at class would be required. The Tribunal is concerned that if the applicant has been residing in Swan Hill, that this could suggest that the applicant is not a genuine student. However, it does not make this finding, as the applicant appears to have completed all but four of the subjects in the Certificate III course thus far and it is only because of the Covid-19 restrictions that she has been unable to complete the course.
The applicant pays rent to her cousin, for which her family back in India sends money to her. Neither she nor her husband have undertaken any employment in Australia.
In addition to living with her cousin and husband, the applicant also has a sister who has been living in Australia for the last four years. Her sister is studying information technology here and accounting. Her sister lives in Sydney with her husband and two children. The applicant is an active volunteer at a Gurudwara (temple).
The Tribunal considers that the applicant ties with Australia that may be a strong incentive to remain here. First, her husband remained in Australia despite initially intending on returning to India. The Tribunal considers that having her partner in Australia decreases the need to return to India. She also has a number of family members living in Australia and is active in the community by volunteering at her local Gurudwara. Although she has continued to study despite being refused the visa by the delegate, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant may be using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence here. It is apparent that the applicant had no intention of studying when she left India. This is evidence by the fact that she and her husband only obtained leave from their work at the international school from 5 to 22 December 2018.
The Tribunal has had regard to the value of the proposed courses to the applicant’s future. Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant had completed a Bachelor in Computer Application in 2013 and then a Master degree in Information Technology. She is now seeking to study related courses in Australia which are at a level lower than what she has previously studied at. Examining the types of units she is studying in the Certificate III course compared to the units taught in the Bachelor and Masters’ degree, the proposed courses provide skills and knowledge that are quite distinct to her previous studies. For example, the units that the applicant has yet to complete in the Certificate III course are assemble, set-up and test computing devices; troubleshoot single phase input d.c power supplies; fault find and repair complex power supplies; and solve problems in basic electronic circuits. For this reason, the Tribunal is satisfied that the proposed courses are consistent with the applicant’s current level of education.
As to the applicant’s future career plans, she said at the hearing that after completing the proposed courses she could return to India and resume the job she was working in before coming to Australia. She was previously working at an international school for around nine months along with her husband before they both took leave in order to travel to Australia. She said she was employed as an accounting/computer operator and that she would be able to return to a more advanced role at the school after finishing the proposed courses.
In reference letters, the school stated that she had been employed as an Accountant since 20 March 2018 and she was responsible for school accounts, back end operations and school record maintenance. In a separate letter, the school confirmed that the applicant’s husband was employed by it as head of IT, and his responsibilities included operating smart classes, computer lab and school management software. He commenced his job at the school on 16 May 2018.
The school further provided letters for both the applicant and her husband confirming that it had authorised their leave from 5 to 22 December 2018 and that if they did not attend school on 23 December 2018 their employment would be terminated. The applicants would not have been able to attend school on 23 December 2018 as they remained in Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that both the applicant and her husband’s employment was terminated on 23 December 2018.
The applicant also provided the Tribunal with a letter from the same school dated 20 May 2020, which is purportedly a job offer. It states that when the applicant completes her studies in Australia and returns to India, they will offer her a job managing all work related to computer electronics, hardware and networking. It offered a salary of INR 70,000 per month.
In her questionnaire response dated 29 May 2020, the applicant referred to this job offer. She also said that she believed she would be eligible for technician roles involving electronics and communication for companies such as Sony, Phillips, Hitachi etc. With experience, she is hoping to open a service centre in her hometown.
The Tribunal accepts that the proposed courses will be useful in obtaining employment in her home country of India.
The proposed courses do not appear to have any relevance to his previous work experience in her home country where she worked most recently as an accountant at a school. She also has worked experience as a customer care executive and teaching “Sukhmani classes”. The courses do have relevance to the work that has expressed a desire to engage in, namely an electronics and communication technician. However, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s career aspirations have been tailored to fit with the proposed courses in Australia. The job offer appears to have been tailor made to fit with the courses, and it comes approximately 18 months after the applicant did not return to her role with the school, leading to the termination of her employment. It is unexpected that without any on the job experience, that the school would have offered her the position of managing computer electronics and hardware maintenance before she has even completed any of the courses which she is currently enrolled and studying.
In relation to remuneration the applicant can expect to earn using the qualifications from the proposed courses, the Tribunal takes into account the job offer made by the school contains a significant increase in salary. The Tribunal is concerned about the genuineness of this job offer. It inexplicably contains it a salary nearly seven times the amount the applicant was previously earning as the school’s accountant. The example positions the applicant referred to in her statement to the Department do not appear to have salaries anywhere near the amount offered by the school. The proposed courses would only offer a small increase in salary for the jobs examples she provided. Furthermore, it is noted that the applicant does not appear to have ever put her Bachelor and Master degrees to use in the workforce and it is unknown what income she would be able to earn using these qualifications. For these reasons, the Tribunal is not satisfied that qualifications from the proposed courses will have a significant impact on the remuneration she can expect to earn in her home country or third country.
Lastly, the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s immigration history. She does hot have any other Australian visa application pending a decision, nor has she ever had a visa cancelled by another country. However, she has been refused an Australian student visa previously in 2019. She explained at the hearing that she her first application was made on 24 May 2019 as she was going to stay with her cousin and her husband would return to India. This application was refused as the delegate did not consider that she was a genuine temporary entrant. She said that she did not seek a review of that decision. Instead, she lodged a second student visa application on 23 July 2020. The only change in circumstances between her lodging her first and then second application was that her husband was included in the second application. The Tribunal considers that instead of providing more convincing evidence that she would remain in Australia on a temporary basis, by including her husband in the application she has reduced her ties to her home country and increased her ties to Australia. With her husband with her in Australia, she would have less incentive to return to India than if he had remained there while she completed her studies.

The applicant did not raise any other relevant matter for consideration.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and therefore the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).
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.
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.
It follows that the Tribunal also affirms the decision in relation to the second named applicant.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Elizabeth Tueno
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.

[2020] AATA 4580

2 November 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction