Koirala (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a minor applicant for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant, a criterion for the visa. The applicant's mother and sister also arrived in Australia on visitor visas.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This involved assessing the applicant's circumstances, immigration history, and, as the applicant was a minor, the intentions of their parent. The Tribunal also had regard to Direction No. 69, which provides guidance on assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's mother had declared an intention to travel to Australia for a holiday of approximately 10 days when applying for visitor visas for herself and the applicant. Furthermore, the family had declared they had no relatives in Australia in that application. However, the applicant was enrolled in a school only 17 days after arrival, suggesting a strong incentive to remain in Australia beyond a short holiday. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had previously provided incorrect information in a visa application by declaring no relatives in Australia, when in fact a niece resided in Darwin. These factors led the Tribunal to conclude that the applicant did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.