KAUR (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3048

KAUR (Migration) [2019] AATA 3048 (10 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms PARWINDER KAUR
Mr DALJIT SINGH
Mr HARFATEH SINGH

CASE NUMBER:  1713119

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/620416

MEMBER:Robert Cumming

DATE:10 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 10 May 2019 at 2:39pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) – Subclass 500 (Student) – applicant did not satisfy the requirements – applicants’ ties to India – did not represent a significant incentive to return – applicant has ties in Australia – applicant’s family are financially supporting her stay and studies – student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence – primary applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration program – not satisfied that the primary applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2 cls 500.211-500.218, 500.311

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 7 June 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 15 February 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (the primary 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 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) because the applicants’ ties to India, given the time they had spent in Australia and the intended period of future stay in Australia, did not represent a significant incentive to return to India. Moreover, having regard to the other circumstances required to be considered, the delegate was not satisfied the primary applicant was a genuine temporary entrant.

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 21 March 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.

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

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the primary applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.

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

8. Clause 500.212 requires as follows:

   The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:

   (a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

   (i)     the applicant’s circumstances; and

   (ii)    the applicant’s immigration history; and

   (iii)     if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   (iv)     any other relevant matter; and

   (b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:

   (i)     the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and

   (ii)    the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and

   (c)of any other relevant matter.

   Does the primary applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

9. In considering whether an 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 their home country, potential circumstances in Australia and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

   ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

   ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

   ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

10. The Direction (a copy of which is annexed to this decision) 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.

11. According to the information supplied to the Tribunal by the primary applicant through her migration agent in the completed Request for Student Visa Information form received by the Tribunal on 7 February 2019 (Information Form), the primary applicant arrived with her husband, the secondary applicant Mr Daljit Singh, in Australia from India on 6 December 2014.

12. In India, the primary applicant had completed a Bachelor of Pharmacy in 2012.  Thereafter she worked in the role of Lecturer at the B.I.S. College of Pharmacy in Gagra, Moga, Punjab, India until December 2013.

13. Her family in India, which the primary applicant describes as well settled, own property and undertake agricultural activities.  Her father runs the agricultural business while her mother attends to household matters.  Her only sibling, a sister, is married and lives in India.  On her husband’s side, her father in law is also a farmer who owns a number of agricultural farms and her mother in law is a housewife.  The primary applicant has three sisters in law living in India who are married.  The primary applicant is very close to her father who has been unwell of late which has caused the primary applicant much stress.

14. The primary applicant’s family have confirmed they have the wherewithal to support the primary applicant financially, and have been so doing, enabling her to live and study in Australia.

15. No issues of concern were raised in evidence by the primary applicant as to any political or civil unrest where her family lives or for any compulsion for her to render military service in her home country. 

16. The primary applicant gave birth to the child of her and her husband, Mr Daljit Singh, at Mater Misericordiae Mother’s Hospital, South Brisbane on 17 February 2015.  The child is the secondary applicant Harfateh Singh who is now four years old.

17. The primary applicant’s husband has provided the primary applicant support in child care for Harfateh.  Her husband works for Australia Post on night shifts.

18. The primary applicant’s initial study plan on arrival in Australia was to study for the degree of Master of Public Health at Griffith University.  The course required a certain degree of proficiency in the English language.  Despite undertaking English language programs to acquire the requisite level of proficiency, the primary applicant was not able to achieve the standard.  Consequently, the primary applicant was unable to undertake the Master of Public Health degree.

19. The primary applicant then, according to her evidence, searched for an alternate education provider where she might secure a place.  She wished to ensure her travel to and study undertaken in Australia would mean she could acquire higher level qualifications.

20. The primary applicant provided the Tribunal with copies of degree testamurs, academic records and documentary confirmation from the educational institution at which she studied evidencing that she then completed a Graduate Diploma in Business at the Holmes Institute after which she completed a combined Master of Business Administration (MBA) and Master of Professional Accounting (MPA) at the same institute and was issued testamurs for both those degrees on 4 December 2018.  The primary applicant gave evidence that she completed only four substantive accounting subjects to qualify for her MPA.

21. The primary applicant is now enrolled in a full version of the MPA (being conducted during the period 13 March 2019 to 20 June 2020) which, the primary applicant advised, necessitates her completing a further 12 subjects.

22. The primary applicant stated in evidence that she now plans to change her career direction towards accountancy.  She needs to complete the full course because she said this was required in order to set the conditions for better job opportunities in the big management and accounting firms in India.  This she stated in response to a concern expressed to her by the Tribunal that she was now suitably qualified to secure appropriate employment. 

23. The Tribunal expressed its concerns as to this assertion by the primary applicant because these units, based on the information summary the primary applicant provided to the Tribunal by the primary applicant, focus on Australian accounting law (in particular taxation law) and practice rather than Indian accounting law and practice.  In response, the primary applicant said the relevant principles of accountancy were the same and she could obtain extra mentorship in India to give her the necessary grounding in relevant Indian law.

24. The primary applicant also stated that studying in Australia rather than at home in India was because the Australian qualifications were up to date, advanced and job oriented and were well regarded in India and will enhance her prospects for getting a good job in India. 

25. Notwithstanding the primary applicant’s claim of a desire to work in the big management and accounting firms in India (contained in her SOP and GTE Statement under the heading “Future Career Plans” which form was received by the Tribunal on 7 February 2019 and which contained no reference to an existing job offer which is dated 20 December 2018), she presented a job offer to her dated as above for a job as account assistant with M/S Raja Rana Traders, a Commission Agent in Mandi Amarkot (Tarn Taran).  The primary applicant advised she applied for this job online and was successful.  When it was put to the primary applicant by the Tribunal that it seemed unlikely an employer wanting to employ a new employee would wait over 12 months for someone who was yet to complete their studies, the primary applicant said that was because overseas qualifications are well regarded.

26. The primary applicant gave evidence to suggest reasonable knowledge of living in Australia and details of her course of studies.

27. As noted in paragraph 11, the primary applicant first arrived in Australia on 6 December 2014.  She noted in the Information Form that she departed once on 29 June 2015 and returned on 27 July 2015.  She was, however, based on the evidence she gave the Tribunal, due to travel back to India and return to Australia in the period 18 April 2019 to 30 April 2019 to attend the celebrations for the birth of her sister’s twin sons.

28. There is a suggestion by the delegate in the decision under review of the primary applicant’s possible breach of visa conditions. This appears to relate to non-commencement by the primary applicant of her Master of Public Health course.  The primary applicant’s evidence in this regard is set out in paragraph 18 above.  Apart from that issue, and the current visa refusal, there is otherwise no evidence before the Tribunal that the primary applicant has breached the conditions of any visas she has held to date.

29. The primary applicant did not suggest there were, or give evidence concerning, any other matters which may relate to her genuine temporary entrant status in Australia.

30. Having considered the evidence, the Tribunal finds that:

    a.it can accept the reasons given by the primary applicant for undertaking studies in Australia rather than at home in India;

    b.the primary applicant has ties in India (her parents and sister and her family and her husband’s family) but her conduct in remaining in Australia to continue studying even in the face of her father’s illness, which the primary applicant advised is causing her much stress, does not serve as a significant incentive for her to return home;

    c.the Tribunal places little weight on the job offer from Raja Rana Traders because it considers it inherently unlikely that an employer who advertised for employment of staff would wait in approximately 18 months to employ someone and also because of the matters referred to in paragraph 25 above that in her SOP and GTE Statement received by the Tribunal on 7 February 2019, there was no mention by the primary applicant in the Future Career Plans section of that Statement of the job offer which was dated 20 December 2018;

    d.because the primary applicant’s family are financially supporting her stay and studies in Australia, there is a significant incentive for her not to return to India;

    e.there are no requirements for military service commitments affecting the primary applicant which would present as a significant incentive for her not to return to her home country;

    f.there are no circumstances of political and civil unrest in the primary applicant’s home country;

    g.in considering the primary applicant’s circumstances in her home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country, the Tribunal finds that the primary applicant comes from a well settled property owning family but otherwise does not make any findings in that regard which are other than entirely neutral towards the primary applicant;

    h.the primary applicant has ties in Australia, namely her immediate family and her studies and the funding and support to stay in Australia which present a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia;

    i.while the Tribunal can accept that the primary applicant initially came to Australia to undertake a Master of Public Health course and was prevented from doing so because of a deficit in her English language skills which prompted her to make a career change, the further change to undertake more accounting studies does lead the Tribunal to conclude that the Student visa program is being used by the primary applicant to circumvent the intentions of the migration program;

    j.for similar reasons, the Tribunal finds that as far as the primary applicant is concerned, the Student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence in Australia;

    k.because the primary applicant and the secondary applicant Daljit Singh were married when they arrived in Australia, there is no evidence to suggest they have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome;

    l.the primary applicant has demonstrated adequate knowledge of living in Australia and her intended course of study and the associated education provider;

    m.while the current course of study is inconsistent with the primary applicant’s initial intentions and existing qualifications, the Tribunal accepts the primary applicant’s change to career pathway and that this will assist her to obtain employment in her home country;

    n.the study the primary applicant is now undertaking is relevant to her proposed future employment but the Tribunal considers that the qualifications she completed in 2018 are sufficient and that she need not be undertaking the additional study;

    o.while the Tribunal accepts that the primary applicant believes she will be able to secure more remunerative employment in India with her qualifications gained in Australia instead of her Indian based pharmacy qualifications, there is no direct comparable independent evidence before the Tribunal to compare what the primary applicant could possibly earn as a pharmacist as compared to what she could earn as an accountant;

    p.as to compliance with visa conditions, the Tribunal accepts the primary applicant’s explanation in relation to the non-commencement of her Master of Public Health course and overall does not draw any adverse conclusions as to the primary applicant’s compliance with her visa conditions and finds there is no evidence of any visa cancellations for the primary applicant;

    q.based on the Information Form supplied to the Tribunal by the primary applicant, she has not previously travelled to Australia prior to her arrival on 6 December 2014 or travelled to any other country and, accordingly, there is no issue in relation to visa compliance or cancellation for the Tribunal to consider in respect of previous visits to Australia or travel to other countries;

    r.were the primary applicant to remain in Australia to completion of her current studies, she will have been in Australia some five years and seven months in circumstances where, as noted in sub-paragraph 30 n., the Tribunal is concerned as to the necessity of those studies which leads the Tribunal to the conclusion that the use of the primary applicant’s Student visa is primarily for the maintenance of ongoing residence in Australia;

    s.with respect to the situation of the secondary applicant Harfateh Singh, the Tribunal finds that due to his young age his circumstances are covered by the intentions of his mother, the primary applicant about whom the Tribunal has made certain findings; and

    t.there are no other relevant matters that bear upon the conduct of the review as to the primary applicant’s status as a genuine temporary entrant.

31. Balancing all these findings, the Tribunal considers that the weight of the evidence points more to those factors not favouring the primary applicant’s case rather than those factors which are supportive of her case.  The matters in sub-paragraphs 30 b., c., d., h., i., j., n., o. and r. weigh more heavily in the view of the Tribunal to establish that there is not a significant incentive for the primary applicant to return to her home country and that the Student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence in Australia than do the other sub-paragraphs in paragraph 30 above.

32. Having regard to all matters, including the Direction 69 requirements to which regard is required, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the primary applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the primary applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

    Conclusion on cl.500.212

33. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the primary applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.

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

    Secondary applicants

35. The secondary applicants’ visa applications are dependent on the success or otherwise of the primary applicant’s visa application. In particular, cl.500.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires the secondary applicants, namely Mr Daljit Singh and Mr Harfateh Singh to be members of the family unit of a person who satisfies, or has satisfied, the primary criteria for a student visa.

1. It follows that because the primary applicant has been found not to meet the criteria for the grant of a Student visa, the secondary applicants do not meet the secondary criteria for the grant of Subclass 500 (Student) visas and the decision under review must be affirmed.

   DECISION

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

   Robert Cumming
   Member

   
   

   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:

   c.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;

   d.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;

   e.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;

   f.whether 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

   g.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;

   i.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

   ii.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

   iii.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country

   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.