Kaur (Migration)

[2019] AATA 1931

Kaur (Migration) [2019] AATA 1931 (12 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Manjinder Kaur
Mr Sandeep Singh

CASE NUMBER:  1719089

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/967076

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:12 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 12 June 2019 at 3:53pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) – Subclass 500 (Student) – failed to comply – not a genuine temporary entrant – decision maker not required to make applicant’s case – substantial ties to India – further student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence – not satisfied the applicant intends to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2), 359A, 360(2)(b), 360(3), 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 500.111, 500.211-500.218

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 8 August 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 11 March 2017. 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.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The Tribunal formally wrote to the applicant on 13 March 2019 pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicant to provide further information to the Tribunal.

5. The applicant responded to the Tribunal’s request by written instrument lodged with the Tribunal on or about 27 March 2019.  By that instrument the applicant informed the Tribunal, materially, that the applicant consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing.

6. The Tribunal is satisfied that the necessary consent has been given under section 360(2)(b) of the Act and that, pursuant to section 360(3) of the Act, the applicants are no longer entitled to appear before it.

7. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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?

1. 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 requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

   ·the applicant’s circumstances in her 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.

2. 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.

Overview of evidence

1. The Tribunal had before it a copy of both the delegate’s decision, which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and the Department’s file in relation to the application.

2. The applicant is a 34-year-old Indian national who first arrived in Australia on 5 June 2015 as the holder of a Student (Class TU573) visa. 

3. The delegate’s decision record notes the following relevant information:

   a.The applicant’s initial Student visa was granted under Streamlined Visa Processing arrangements as the applicant was enrolled in an eligible course at an approved educational provider in the Higher Education Sector.

   b.One of the conditions attached to the applicant’s initial student visa was condition 8516 requiring the applicant to continue to be a person who would satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, as the case requires, for the grant of the visa.  As the applicant cancelled her Confirmations of Enrolment (COE)s for which her Student visa was granted and continued study in courses at the Vocational Educational (VET) Sector level, the applicant has failed to comply with condition 8516 of her Student visa.

4. According to the evidence submitted by the applicant, including her response to the Tribunal's s.359A letter, she holds a Bachelor of Arts, a Post Graduate Diploma in Computer Applications, a Master of Science (Information Technology) and a Master of Computer Applications from universities in India.

5. Since arriving onshore, the applicant’s evidence is she has undertaken the following courses:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
ELICOS	06/2015	07/2017
Certificate III in Commercial Cookery	02/2016	01/2017
Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery	02/2017	07/2017
Diploma of Hospitality Management	07/2017	02/2018
Diploma of Business	02/2018	02/2019
Advanced Diploma of Business	02/2019	02/2020[1]

[1] Prospective completion date.

1. The applicant’s ELICOS course was completed at Curtin University, Perth the Certificates III and IV and the Diploma of Hospitality Management were completed at Cambridge International College, Perth and the Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Business are provided by the Vocational Training Institute, Hobart.

2. The applicant further states that she was enrolled in, but did not complete, a Master of Internet Communication at Curtin University, Perth; and a Bachelor of Business (Management) at Cambridge International College, Melbourne.

3. The following is a summary of the information submitted to the Department by the applicant on or around 11 March 2017 in support of her application for a student visa:

   a.Following her tertiary studies in India, the applicant worked as a computer teacher between April 2009 and June 2011. 

   b.During this period she got married and in August 2011 she received an offer to work as an Assistant Manager at a business in Wadala Bangar.

   c.Whilst working in this role she decided to undertake post-graduate studies in Australia, specifically a Master of Internet Communications at Curtin University.

   d.She did not complete that course, however, and stated in her submissions to the Department: “Now I have selected Cambridge International College, and applied for Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, Diploma of Hospitality leading to Bachelor of Business with the specialisation of Management”.

   e.She claims that her reason for changing her courses to a different study is that:

   During my school days I always had this huge interest in cooking [a] variety of dishes.  However, I am not saying that it was my hobby during that time, [it] is something that makes me feel happy. Through this course I am planning to take my cooking skills into professional level [sic]. I constantly feel excited at the prospect of learning more about it. After completing my secondary education I always had the [intention] to study cookery.

   f.She states that the reasons she did not study cookery immediately after leaving secondary school was the weight of family expectations and cultural norms in India that she should obtain “professional” qualifications.

   g.She stated that her plan, after completing a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, was to undertake a Diploma of Hospitality leading to a Bachelor of Business (Management).  The Bachelor’s degree is necessary, she claims, to enable her to acquire management “skills and knowledge”.

   h.As to her future prospects, she stated:

   After the completion of this course from Australia, I have already planned to come back [to] my home country in India and will utilize my learnt international education [sic] and experience in India. I can get ample [work opportunities] in any [sic] as well as multinational companies/Hotel industries.

   i.She claims that she “…can easily earn… a handsome salary” in India with those qualifications.

4. In evidence submitted to the Tribunal on or about 27 March 2019 the applicant states the following, in summary:

   a.She chose to not complete Bachelor’s level study as her English is not of a sufficiently high standard for tertiary education in Australia.

   b.Studying an Advanced Diploma of Business can provide her with the necessary knowledge and skills to manage her future business and “commence believing in [herself]”.

   c.After completing the Advanced Diploma she “…will have a range of skills [enabling her] to work in various areas of business including marketing, sales, customer accommodation, HR, accounting, ICT and admin”.

Analysis and findings

1. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

2. In her statement to the Department in support of her application the applicant acknowledged that she entered Australia on a subclass 573 visa.  Notwithstanding this, she chose to commence a study pathway in commercial cookery, an area wholly unrelated to her previous studies and work experience, albeit one prospectively leading, at that time, to a Bachelor’s Degree in Business.  Her justification for so doing was her claim that she “always intended” to study cookery but felt constrained by family and cultural expectations.

3. From her evidence to the Tribunal, it appears that she has now abandoned pursuit of higher education altogether and is proposing further VET.

4. The abandonment of higher education studies raises a concern in the Tribunal’s mind that that the applicant is simply now proposing to undertake further short, inexpensive courses with the primary objective of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia. 

5. The Tribunal’s concern in this regard is heightened by the applicant’s inexact evidence concerning her future career plans which she describes variously as follows:

   a.In her initial evidence to the Department she states to the effect that after completing her Bachelor’s degree she anticipates employment in India as a “chef cook”, “food preparation worker” or “other chef jobs”.

   b.In her later evidence to the Tribunal, however, she states that her VET studies in Business will enable her “to work in various areas of business including marketing, sales, customer accommodation, HR, accounting, ICT and admin”.

6. The Tribunal considers this evidence vague, inconsistent and, ultimately, unpersuasive.  It does not provide the Tribunal with a clear understanding of the applicant’s motives in undertaking her further study, and does not address its concern as regards the applicant’s primary objective in applying for a student visa.  The applicant’s apparent indifference to having breached condition 8516 of her initial visa also weighs against her.

7. Further, having regard to the applicant's circumstances, including her significant university qualifications obtained in India, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the study proposed will assist her to obtain employment or improve her employment prospects there. The Tribunal considers the vocational courses she proposes to undertake to be of marginal value to someone with her existing qualifications and experience.

8. The applicant’s work experience in Australia also raises concerns for the Tribunal.  in her evidence she provides the following information:

Employer	Job Title	Start date	End date	Annual salary ($AUD)
India Cottage	Restaurant Manager	06/2017	01/2018	22,880
Bengal Tiger	Restaurant Manager	02/2018	09/2018	24,159
Bengal Tiger	Cook	10/2018	03/2019[2]	55,000

[2] That is, the date of the evidence.

1. The applicant’s work history displays a pattern of increasing responsibility and commensurate salaries in her time onshore.  This raises a concern in the Tribunal’s mind that the applicant is using her visa status as an opportunity to build a career in Australia. This concern is not allayed by any evidence available to the Tribunal.

2. Overall, the Tribunal weighs these concerns significantly against the applicant.

3. Balanced against these concerns is that the applicant has substantial family ties to India, most notably her daughter whom she states she last saw over 12 months ago, as well as property holdings.   The Tribunal accepts that these personal ties provide an incentive for the applicant to return to her home country.  However it is apparent that the applicant has decided to reside in Australia, apart from her daughter, and to seek to extend her visit until February 2020.  Overall, the Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in her favour.

4. The Tribunal also accepts that, having lived in Australia for four-and-a-half years, the applicant has sufficient knowledge of living in Australia; however there is no specific evidence before the Tribunal as to the applicant’s knowledge of her intended course of study beyond generic statements.  The Tribunal also considers the applicant’s stated reasons for studying in Australia to be of a generic nature and of little significance.  In all of the circumstances the Tribunal places little weight on these factors in the applicant’s favour.

5. In her evidence, the applicant does not declare travel to any country other than Australia. There is nothing before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has experienced visa refusal or immigration issues in any of other country.

6. There is no evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction 69: whether the applicant has sound reasons for not undertaking the proposed study in India or that region, her specific economic circumstances, the applicant's ties with Australia, any potential military service in India, political or civil unrest circumstances in India, (translated) remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in India or a third country compared with Australia, circumstances in India relative to Australia (aside from her family ties there) or any other country and the applicant's circumstances in India relative to others in that country.

7. The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily. Given the amount of time the applicant has now spent in Australia on student and associated bridging visas, the Tribunal is concerned that a further student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.

8. The Tribunal has had regard to all other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the Tribunal) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant. 

9. In weighing the available information the Tribunal has taken care to draw no inferences adverse or unfavourable to the applicant from any absence(s) of evidence or information.  That said, in the absence of evidence or information pertaining to a relevant factor or factors it is impossible for the Tribunal to weigh those factors in the applicant’s favour.

10. The weight the Tribunal places on the absence of political or military unrest in the applicant’s home country, and her personal ties there is insufficient to dispel the Tribunal’s concern, for the reasons set out above, that the applicant is using the student visa programme to maintain ongoing residence in Australia rather than for the purpose it is intended. 

11. Overall the evidence and information available to the Tribunal is insufficient to persuade it that the applicant meets the genuine temporary entrant criteria.  For the reasons outlined above the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is undertaking her current study or future study for the reasons she claims, but rather is using it as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.

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

13. 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.

14. It follows that the secondary applicant, the second-named applicant, does not meet clause 500.311 of the Regulations.

15. Further, the secondary applicant does not meet the primary criteria for a Subclass 500 visa as there is no evidence before the Tribunal to show that he is enrolled in a ‘course of study’, or is a Foreign Affairs or Defence student.  At the time of the delegate's decision the secondary applicant did not meet this criterion, as per the delegate's decision.

16. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

DECISION

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

Damian Creedon
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 her previous studies or employment; and

   d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in her 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

1. Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in her home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

2. For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

3. 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 her home country

1. When considering the applicant’s circumstances in her home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

   a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in her 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 her home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to her home country;

   c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to her 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 her 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.

2. Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in her home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.

The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

1. 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 her 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 her 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 her proposed course of study and living arrangements.

Value of the course to the applicant’s future

1. 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 her current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in her 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 her 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

1. An applicant’s immigration history refers both to her visa and travel history.

2. 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 her visa and left before her visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond her 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

1. 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

1. 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.