Kumar (Migration)

[2021] AATA 293

Kumar (Migration) [2021] AATA 293 (11 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Rakesh Kumar
Mrs Anita Kumari Aggarwal

CASE NUMBER:  1925408

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/3772124

MEMBER:D Triaca

DATE:11 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 11 February 2021 at 12:47pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – applied for student visa soon after arriving on visitor visa – study at lower than previous highest level – consistent study and reasonable progress – value of course to applicant’s future – already operating business in home country – member of family unit – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)

CASE
Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2020) FCAFC 16
Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2993
Vu Vu (Migration) [2019] AATA 5740
Vu Vu v Minister for Immigration [2020] FCCA 2292

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 Home Affairs on 27 August 2019 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 30 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.

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).

4. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 28 January 2021 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.

   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 applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. This made plain from the following statement of Logan J in Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2020) FCAFC 16 at [4], ‘Of course the Minister’s directions were a relevant consideration. How could it be otherwise in light of s 499 of the Act? But they were guidelines. Reading them as a whole, the Minister did not purport to elevate them beyond that, only to offer guidance to the end of consistency in public administration. Moreover, as Derrington and Thawley JJ explain, the Minister explicitly counselled against a mechanical, “checklist” approach. He recognised that factors might not be all one way; hence his reference to, “on balance”. All this was done in respect of a visa eligibility for which has as a criterion a subject which inherently involves, “a matter of opinion or policy or taste” in terms of satisfaction as to whether an applicant is a genuine student.’

12. Whilst not defined in the Regulations, the word genuine may be taken to mean ‘authentic, real or true’ in according with its ordinary and natural meaning. The Regulations specify two constituent elements of a genuine student visa applicant. First, a genuine applicant is one who intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. The applicant must demonstrate an intention to stay in Australia for a limited time only, not permanently. That intention must be unqualified. This requirement reflects the temporary nature of being a student.[1] Secondly, a ‘genuine applicant’ is a person who intends to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject.[2]

    [1] See Singh [2019] (Migration) AATA 2993 at [13]

    [2] See the discussion of the meaning of ‘genuine applicant’ in Vu Vu (Migration) [2019] AATA 5740 (18 December 2019) [22] – [25] upheld on appeal in Vu Vu & Ors v Minister for Immigration and anor [2020] FCCA 2292

13. The main applicant is a 38 year old citizen of India (applicant). He first arrived in Australia on 27 May 2019. There is a secondary applicant on the application, the applicant’s wife. The applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visa. He applied for a student visa on 30 July 2019. On 27 August 2019 a delegate of the Department refused his application (delegate’s decision). On 10 September 2019 the applicant applied to the tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision and provided the tribunal with a copy of that decision.

14. The tribunal has read and had regard to documents provided by the applicant to the Department and the Tribunal including:

    (a)The delegate’s decision 27 August 2019;

    (b)The applicant’s visa application 30 July 2019;

    (c)The oral evidence and arguments of the applicant presented at the hearing;

    (d)All written material filed by or on behalf of the applicant in relation to this case;

    (e)Other relevant documents on the Department and Tribunal files;

    (f)Applicant’s written response to the Tribunal’s request for further information pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, including detailed written submissions dated 17 June 2020;

    (g)Letter from Yes College 15 June 2020 and Statement of Results;

    (h)Confirmation of Enrolment documents.

15. For the following reasons, the tribunal refuses the application.

16. The applicant is presently enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at Yes College. He completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management at that institution in 2020. He is due to complete his current course in September 2021. By this application he is seeking to remain in Australia to enable him to complete this course.

17. Prior to arriving in Australia, the applicant completed a Bachelor of Arts in his home country in 2016. He says that since April 2017 he has been running a business RK Salon and Spa until coming to Australia. He says that since moving to Australia, his parents have been running this business.

18. The applicant says his plan for the future, is to return home and return to the RK Salon Business. He says that he plans to open more branches of that salon and employ more staff. He says that he will employ up to 25 staff.

19. There are a number of matters that are in the applicant’s favour and I have weighed these matters positively towards the applicant. He has studied consistently in approved courses since the time of his application. He has made reasonable progress and has provided evidence to this effect. The fact that he continued to study during the period since the delegate’s decision, with uncertainty surrounding the delegate’s decision, is also in his favour.

20. The difficulty with the applicant’s argument is that he appears to be studying for a position he has already attained. His evidence is that he is the owner of the RK Salon and has operated that business. He intends to return home to India and expand that business.

21. The tribunal does not consider that there is any utility in the applicant undertaking further study in Australia. It may be the case that the applicant is able to utilise the skills and knowledge of a Diploma of Leadership and Advanced Diploma of Leadership in his future. If this is so, he is not likely to be disadvantaged as he has already acquired many of those skills in relation to leadership and management in his already completed Diploma course and initial study of the Advanced Diploma. The Tribunal does not consider that further study is likely to improve the applicant’s prospects of employment or assist him in finding employment. He will return to the family business and this pathway will be open to him irrespective of successfully completing a further qualification. It follows that the tribunal considers completing the study will not improve the applicant’s remuneration in his home country.

22. In these circumstances, I specifically reject the submissions made to the effect that the applicant plans to utilise his qualifications to ‘seek a senior position in business management sector’ in addition to running his business. This was not his evidence at the hearing. This may be a product of the fact that submissions were prepared over 6 months prior to the hearing, and the inconsistency is not adverse to the application. However, I find that the applicant’s intention is to return home and grow the family business, as opposed to seeking outside employment and it follows that I find that the continued study of an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management has little or no value to his future.

23. The tribunal is concerned that the applicant has come to Australia and studied solely at a level below his university accomplishments. Studying at a lower level does not equate to academic progress. The tribunal considers that the applicant’s Arts degree is designed to provide the applicant with skills in critical thinking and analysis that are transferrable to other areas including the matters such as marketing that will assist the applicant expanding his family business in accordance with his plans.

24. The tribunal considers that at this stage, the applicant has reasonable reasons for seeking to study in Australia, as opposed to undertaking further study at home. He is enrolled and studying in a course that follows on from his Diploma. It is reasonable that his preference is to complete his study in Australia. He appears to have a reasonable understanding of living in Australia and his course provider, although this is not surprising, noting he has completed a Diploma with the same provider. These matters weigh in his favour, although they are minor considerations.

25. Save that the applicant appears to be in a good financial position in his home country, noting his evidence in relation to his business interests, there is no specific evidence in relation to the applicant’s circumstances in his home country relative to others there.

26. The applicant states, and the Tribunal accepts that he has no concerns in relation to political or civil unrest in his home country.

27. The applicant states, and the Tribunal accepts, that he has no concerns in relation to military service commitments in his home country.

28. The applicant’s family in India is stated to be his parents, siblings and three children aged 14, 10 and 8 years old. He says that his parents look after the children and run the RK Salon business in his absence. The applicant says he is in regular contact with his family, which I accept. Whilst the presence of the applicant’s immediate family would generally be considered a strong tie to India, the tribunal does not place much weight on these ties in this case as the granting of the application will enable the applicant’s children to apply for a dependent student visa. In circumstances in which the applicant is seeking to extend his stay here, I consider that his ties personal and family to India do not operate as a significant incentive for him to return home.

29. The applicant’s wife resides with him in Australia. The couple live with her sister in Blacktown. The tribunal considers the applicant and his wife have a close family tie to that operates as a strong incentive for him to remain here.

30. The tribunal is concerned by the circumstances in which the applicant and the Secondary Applicant arrived in Australia on a visitor visas, and changed their intention applying for a student visa a short time later. Whilst a change in career or study pathway is not uncommon and Direction 69 contemplates that reasonable changes should be accommodated, the tribunal does not accept the applicant’s evidence that he arrived in Australia for a holiday, and once here realised the study opportunities available to him and decided he should extend his stay here for approximately 2 years to enable him to study. Whilst making such an application is not prohibited by the Act or Regulations, the tribunal considers it is inherently unlikely that the applicant and his wife would make such a significant change of plans on relatively short notice, in circumstances in which they had three young children and, according to the applicant, a thriving business. Given these circumstances, the tribunal does not accept that the applicant’s arrived here for a short holiday and then changed their plan. It is more likely that they applied for a visitor visa as a means of entering Australia without the added scrutiny of applying for a student or other visa to allow for a lengthy stay. These matters weigh against the application.

31. The applicant’s evidence in relation to his economic circumstances are that neither he nor his wife work in Australia. He says his wife is ‘not doing anything’ in Australia. I take this to mean she does not work or study. He says they both brought $10,000AUD with them when they arrived here and have lived off these savings. He says he is entirely reliant on family financial support. He makes no provision for his family in India. He lives with his Sister in law. The family lives on the profits from the RK Salon which continues to be run by his family in India. He states that his family own property in India including rental accommodation. The Tribunal does not consider that family owned property in India constitutes an incentive for the applicant to return. Such property may be readily sold or retained and utilised to produce income. Neither scenario requires him to return home. There is no evidence that the applicant works here. However, the tribunal considers the applicant could, if he wished, earn Australian dollars in the course of ordinary employment and this option is likely to operate as an incentive for him to remain here. I do not consider the evidence supports the proposition that the RK Salon business acts as an incentive for him to return home. His evidence was that he arrived in Australia and decided to stay here for a lengthy period despite his involvement in the business. It follows that his business interests do not operate as a significant incentive for him to return. Overall, the evidence is insufficient to conclude that economic factors operate as either an incentive for the applicant to return home or remain here. These matters are neutral to the application.

32. The applicant appears to have travelled between Australia and India without any issues. He also appears to have complied with the terms of his various visas since arriving here. I make no adverse findings in relation to his travel and immigration history.

33. I reject the applicant’s submission that the fact he is studying successfully is ‘prima facie evidence that the applicant is a genuine student.’ No authority was cited for such a proposition and I am not aware of it. I have stated, that the applicant’s continued application to his studies weighs in his favour. However, it is not prima facie evidence of genuineness. It is not determinative. The tribunal accepts that the applicant has applied himself to his studies. However, the fact he has studied is but one factor, and it does not allay my concerns in relation to the genuineness of the application, particularly in circumstances in which the applicant is not seeking to study at a higher level and is studying a course that has minimal apparent value.

34. I accept the submission that the applicant has attended classes, paid fees and progressed These matters do not demonstrate genuineness of the application.  I accept that the applicant is unsuitable for skilled migration visas as submitted. I do not accept the submission that it follows he will not lodge any further visa applications and will depart Australia after the completion of his studies.

35. There do not appear to be any other relevant matters.

36. The tribunal has considered all the evidence before it. It does not consider the applicant to be a genuine applicant. In all the circumstances,

37. 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).

38. 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.

39. 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.

    Secondary Application.

40. In circumstances in which the main applicant has not met the criteria for the granting of a student visa, the Secondary Applicant also fails to meet that criteria.

    DECISION

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

    D Triaca
    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.