Lee (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2133

Lee (Migration) [2019] AATA 2133 (5 March 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Ms Ting-Yi Lee
Mr Chung-Yu Yeh

CASE NUMBER:  1709132

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2016/4228785

MEMBER:Roger Maguire

DATE:5 March 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 05 March 2019 at 3:36pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant – completion of studies for which visa originally granted – stated intention to return to home country – circumstances of decision to undertake further studies – evidence of enrolment in an approved course – value of new studies – immigration history – incentive to return to home country – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212, 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 10 April 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 14 December 2016. 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) because the delegate found that the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

5. 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 applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for the purposes of cl.500.212.

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

6. 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?

7. 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 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.

8. 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.

9. The applicant’s student visa application was refused on 10 April 2017, on the ground that she did not appear to be a genuine temporary entrant, i.e. she did not meet cl. 500.212.   At that time, both the applicant and her husband were granted Bridging A (class WA) (subclass 010) visas which gave them full permission to study and do limited work.

10. On 9 January 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant saying in part:

    “As you applied for the Visa on the basis of undertaking a course of study in Australia it is a requirement for you to be:

    ·Enrolled in a registered course of study; and

    ·A genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

    Accordingly you are now invited to give in writing, information about the course(s) you are undertaking and your entry and stay in Australia as a student stop specific details about the information requested is set out in the Request for Student Visa Information form, which you can access by clicking on the link below. The information may be given by completing the online form.”

11. The applicant was required to provide information by 23 January 2019.

12. On 21 January 2019 the applicant made a request for an extension of time of two weeks to provide the information, and an extension of time was given to 6 February 2019.

13. On 6 February 2019, the applicant delivered to the tribunal a completed request for student visa information form, (“the form”) together with the following documents:

    1.    Household Registration Transcript

    2.    Marriage Certificate

    3.    Overseas Student Confirmation of Enrolment

    4.    Job Offer

    5.    A bank statement dated 4 February 2019 showing a balance of AUD $44,766.23

    6.    Photocopies of photo pages of passports of both applicants

    7.    Applicant’s Certificate of Graduation from Nanya Institute of Technology

    8.    A work statement in Chinese

    9.    A Diploma of Remedial Massage from Skills Institute Australia and records

    10.  A document headed Information of the Insured of the Labour Insurance

    11.  A further document in Chinese called Work History

    12.  Chinese and English versions of “Father Rewards”.

14. In the body of the form, the applicant consented to the tribunal deciding the review without hearing. Accordingly, the tribunal is proceeding to decide this matter on the basis of the documents submitted by the applicant on the 6 February 2019 together with material held on file as at the date of this decision.

15. The form submitted by the applicant states that since coming to Australia, she has completed a Diploma of Remedial Massage with an Educational Institution named Skills Service Australia. The Tribunal notes that information provided is somewhat anomalous, as the applicant states that she first enrolled in 01/2017, yet the course started 01/2016, and ended 01/2018. The form also states that the applicant enrolled in and completed an Advanced Diploma of Business with the same institution from 01/2018 to 01/2019.  On the basis of this evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has completed the studies for which she originally sought the grant of a student visa. Both the applicant and her husband had previously stated to the Department that it was their intention to return to Taiwan on completion of those studies. The most recent form from the applicant indicates that they have changed their minds, and that she now wishes to undertake further study.

16. Among the documents delivered to the Tribunal on 6 February 2019 the applicant produced a Confirmation of Enrolment in a Graduate Certificate in Management (Learning) for a course scheduled to start 25 February 2019 and end on 28^th February 2020, showing initial prepaid tuition fee of $500 from 25 February 2019 to 15 March 2019 and other prepaid non-tuition fees of $500 and a total tuition fee of $8500.  The Tribunal accepts this evidence as establishing that the applicant is enrolled in a course of study as required by Clause 500.211(a).

    Applicant’s circumstances in Taiwan.

17. The applicant has not provided any information to the Tribunal as to whether a similar course is available in her home country or region, or why she is not undertaking it there. On the basis of this, the Tribunal is not satisfied that no similar course is available in the applicant’s home country, and further, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has provided no reasonable reasons for not undertaking the proposed study in her home country. This weighs against the applicant.

18. Having regard to information on file and the form recently provided by the applicant, it appears that the applicant has strong personal ties to Taiwan, particularly in the form of her family and two infant children. She also has a home worth approximately $500,000 Australian, and approximately $44,000 cash in the bank. The applicant says that she contacts her family every day by Lime and Wechat and calls on special occasions. She says that her siblings miss her very much and that she intends to go back to Taiwan to visit them during school holidays in April.  The applicant says her father in law works for the Taiwanese Government and is well respected. He also has a lot of contacts who are able to offer her husband work in the Engineering industry.  There do not appear to be any economic, political or civil circumstances, or military commitments, which would present as a significant incentive not to return to her home country. This weighs in favour of the applicant.

    The applicant has stated that she previously worked for Chen Ju Treatment Centre as a Massage Therapist from 03/2010 to 08/2013, with an annual salary of AUD $ 30,000, and later worked for Taichung Government Co as Assistant Administration from 04/2105 to 11/2016 at an annual salary of AUD25,000.  The applicant has stated that after completing her currently proposed course of study, her likely earning capacity would increase from AUD $30,000 to AUD$50,000 plus bonus based on sales performance per annum.  The prospective employer Chen Ju Spa did not say how much money he was prepared to pay the applicant, and did not mention bonuses.  Based on the applicant’s evidence the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s current earning capacity in Taiwan does not present a significant incentive to return to her home country.

    Applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

19. The applicant has not disclosed any particular family or community ties to Australia, which would present as a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia.

20. The applicant has lived in Australia since late 2016. She has completed two courses during that time, a Diploma in Remedial Massage, and an Advanced Diploma of Business. Following her completion of these, the applicant has decided to enrol in a Graduate Certificate in Management, and has coincidentally, and apparently almost simultaneously received an associated job offer, to be taken up following completion of that course. The Tribunal has not been informed as to how the decision to seek to undertake further study came about, or how the associated job offer came about, or which came first. Neither has the Tribunal received any explanation as to what became of the previous job offer, and why it was not taken up.

21. The applicant’s recent decision to seek to extend her studies in Australia after previously stating that she had intended to return to Taiwan following successful completion of her recent studies raises concerns that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme, and to maintain ongoing residence. The Tribunal gives weight to this.

    Value of the course to the applicant.

22. The course proposed by the applicant is consistent with her current level of education, but based on information provided by the applicant, it is difficult to say to what extent it will improve her economic prospects in her home country because of the gap in the evidence provided by the applicant and her prospective employer regarding remuneration.  There is no evidence that the prospective employer plans to pay what the applicant hopes to receive.

23. The applicant has provided a letter from Chen Ju Spa Treament Centre in Taiwan which says in part:

    “Due to her great working attitude and job performance during her employment period, we would like to offer her a new job position to be our business manager after she successfully completes her management qualification in postgraduate level in Australia.”

24. Chen Ju Spa Treatment Centre had previously sponsored the applicant to undertake recently completed study with a view to employing her as a “Physical Therapist” at an unstated remuneration.  The Tribunal finds it intriguing that the author of the letter should speak in such glowing terms of the applicant, particularly having regard to the fact that the applicant left their employ to take a lower paying job.  The recent letter made no mention of the proposed remuneration, or what has become of the previous offer of employment as a Physical Therapist and what remuneration the applicant would have received for that job. Neither has the author explained how he came to write it, or why there has been a change in plans.  The letter is of little value in determining the economic benefit to the applicant of the proposed course.

25. The applicant has stated that after the current proposed course of study, her likely earning capacity will increase from the $30,000 which she earned in 2013, whilst working for Chen Ju Spa Treatment Centre as a Massage Therapist, to $50,000 as business manager. The Tribunal gives little weight to this evidence for the following reasons.  The courses recently undertaken and completed by the applicant were selected and studied after consultation with her financial sponsor and prospective employer to enable her to work for the sponsor as a “Physical Therapist.” The applicant was earning $30,000 per annum six years ago as a Massage Therapist prior to completing the courses she has recently undertaken in Australia to gain employment as a “Physical Therapist.” To suggest that the 2013 income of $30,000 per annum as a base figure of what the applicant might presently command puts zero value on the courses she has recently undertaken, and assumes no upward movement in wages due to other factors. Presumably the applicant’s new qualifications and skills are worth something in the market place.  The unanswered question is: how much?  There is not sufficient evidence of what income the applicant might presently command with her recently attained qualifications, for the Tribunal to be able to confidently make a finding on this point, and it is not possible to evaluate the net benefit to the applicant of the currently proposed study.  The Tribunal finds that it is not satisfied as to what the actual value of the course to the applicant is.

26. Having regard to the applicant’s successful completion of her previously stated academic objectives, and her stated intention of returning to Taiwan upon completion of those studies, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s current enrolment is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia, and the Tribunal gives weight to this.

    Applicant’s immigration history.

27. The applicant’s previous applications for temporary visas to Australia for a working holiday and as a visitor were both granted.

28. The applicant was granted a three month visitor visa on 3 November 2016, and arrived in Australia on 22 November 2016, with her husband, and they have remained here since.  On 14 December 2016, the applicant made application for a student visa, including her husband as a dependent. It was her stated ambition to undertake a Diploma in Remedial Massage, and an Advanced Diploma of Business over a period of two years.  At the time, she had two sons, both of whom remained in Taiwan. One was aged two years, and the other seven.  In a statement provided in support of her application for a student visa, the applicant stated that she had, in that year (2016) received a job offer from Ju Spa Treatment Centre as a Physical Therapist, and that the prospective employer had offered her financial support to “take massage course in Australia in order to complete my qualification with good knowledge and skill. So I came to Australia and enrolled for massage courses in Skills Institute Australia. My course will start in Jan 2017 so I really wish that I can be granted a student visa. After my course finishes I will go back to Taiwan and works for my company.”

29. The applicant’s husband, in his statement to the Department, repeated the applicant’s assertions about the prior offer of a job and sponsorship for study, as well as her stated intention of returning to Taiwan.

30. It is clear from the statements provided by each of the applicants, that the decision to undertake study in Australia was taken before they entered Australia on the basis that they were only visiting for up to three months. The Tribunal considers it highly improbable that the applicants would leave two infant children behind in Taiwan without first undertaking considerable preparation and planning for their wellbeing during the absence of their parents, particularly when that absence was to be for several years.

31. Having regard to the matters referred to above, the Tribunal is left with the strong impression that the applicants were disingenuous in their representations to Immigration authorities in regard to their proposed entry to Australia as visitors. This raises concerns as to whether they continue to be disingenuous having regard to all of the circumstances discussed in these reasons.  The Tribunal gives some weight to this.

    Other relevant information

32. Having achieved her previously stated objectives in regard to study in Australia, both the applicant and her husband have abandoned their previously stated intention of returning to Taiwan at the conclusion of those studies so that the applicant could take up employment with her sponsor as a “Physical Therapist.”  The Tribunal accepts that people are entitled to change their minds, however the Tribunal has been given no explanation as to whether the offer of a position as a “Physical Therapist” has been rejected, withdrawn, or remains current, and if so, the remuneration on offer.

33. On the basis of all of the above circumstances, 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).

34. 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.

35. As the primary applicant has failed to satisfy the primary requirements for the grant of a student visa, the Tribunal finds that the secondary applicant does not meet cl.500.311 which requires the applicant to be a member of the family unit who holds a student visa.

    DECISION

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

    Roger Maguire
    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.