Kaur (Migration)

The applicant, Ms Kaur, sought judicial review of a decision by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) which affirmed a delegate's decision to refuse her application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The core of the dispute concerned whether Ms Kaur met the criterion of being a "genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student" under clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The AAT was required to determine whether Ms Kaur genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily and whether she intended to comply with the conditions of the visa. In making this determination, the Tribunal was bound to consider Direction No. 69, which outlines factors to be taken into account when assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and in Australia, the value of the course to their future, and their immigration history.

The Tribunal found that Ms Kaur's explanation for her previous cancelled enrolments in IT courses due to non-payment of fees was not persuasive. Despite having obtained two degrees in India, she had applied to study IT overseas, which the Tribunal considered required significant pre-meditation and was inconsistent with her being a "passive agent" of her parents' wishes. Furthermore, her later explanation that her ex-husband wished for her to study IT in Australia, but that she would be the primary applicant due to his educational background, was also not accepted by the Tribunal. The Tribunal was not satisfied that Ms Kaur met the genuine temporary entrant criterion.