Nguyen (Migration)

[2019] AATA 1543

Nguyen (Migration) [2019] AATA 1543 (16 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Thi Hong Lan Nguyen

CASE NUMBER:  1731617

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/3144522

MEMBER:T. Quinn

DATE:16 May 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 16 May 2019 at 2:45pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – overall lack of academic progress – length of time onshore – cultivated and established strong ties in Australia – value of course – future plans vague and inconsistent – previous non-compliance with visa conditions – non-enrolment period of 12 months – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212

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 (‘the delegate’) on 30 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 30 August 2017 (‘the application’).   At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).  The applicant applied for the visa (being a Subclass 500 (Student) visa) to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. On 30 November 2017, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’), namely that the applicant was not considered to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicant’s review application.

4. On 14 December 2017, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.

5. More than 17 months have elapsed since the making of the delegate’s decision and the applicant’s application for review with the Tribunal. In coming to consider the merits of the application for review, the Tribunal recognises the applicant’s personal circumstances bearing upon their visa application may have changed during that time. The Tribunal considered that it would be beneficial for the applicant to provide updated and further information to the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the outcome of her application for review. To this end, on 5 April 2019, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting her to provide information in writing about the course(s) of study the applicant was undertaking and her entry and stay in Australia as a student (‘the s359(2) letter’). The applicant provided the requested information on 3 and 10 April 2019 and submitted further material on 6 and 13 May 2019.

6. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 May 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.  The Tribunal hearing was arranged to be conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Vietnamese and English languages, however, after the introduction (which was interpreted by the interpreter) on the morning of the hearing the applicant requested that the hearing proceed in English.  The interpreter remained in the room available to assist if and when necessary.

7. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

8. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. The decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. Whilst the concept of onus of proof does not apply to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case must be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as necessary to enable the decision maker to properly consider the case that is being put.

9. The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the material and evidence provided by the applicant on the day of the hearing.

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

    STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

11. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in clause 500.211 to clause 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant.

12. 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?

13. In considering whether the applicant satisfies clause 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’ (‘the Direction’), made under section 499 of the Act. The 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.

14. 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.

15. The Direction is a lawful direction of the Minister made in accordance with section 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent that its terms are relevant, apply it to the applicant’s case.[1]  Accordingly, the terms of the Direction and their application to the applicant’s case have been considered in relation to material before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body.  It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor in the Direction is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate.

    [1]FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555, [10], [34]; Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46, [29]; Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112, [60]-[73]; Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482, [8]; Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145, [10]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, [53] Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345, [27]-[28].

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

16. The applicant in this case is a 25 year old female Vietnamese citizen who first arrived in Australia on 12 September 2013 pursuant to a Student (TU 573) Higher Education Sector Visa which was valid until 30 August 2017.[2]  The delegate’s decision outlines the applicant’s subsequent history being that she enrolled in but cancelled the following courses:

    [2]           See delegate’s decision.

    a.Certificate IV in EAL (Further Study);

    b.Certificate IV in ESL (Further Study);

    c.Bachelor of Accounting – cancelled for non-commencement; and

    d.Bachelor of Business (Management) – cancelled after 7 months for non-payment of fees.

    The delegate’s decision lists the following courses as having been finished by the applicant and this is confirmed by material including certificates filed by the applicant with the Tribunal:

    e.Certificate III in ESL (Further Study); 

    f.Certificate IV in EAL (Further Study);

    g.Certificate III in Business; and

    h.Diploma of Management.

    The delegate’s decision also notes that the applicant did not undertake any study from 28 October 2016 to 30 August 2017 when her previous student visa expired.

17. Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed secondary school in 2012 in Vietnam.[3]  She states she has not been employed in her time in Australia.

    [3]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

18. At the time of the delegate’s decision in 2017, the applicant was studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management.  However, in her submissions of 3 April 2019, the applicant indicated she did not complete this Advanced Diploma.  Her evidence at hearing was that she re-enrolled with a different course provider in October 2017 and to date has completed 8 subjects in this course and anticipates finishing in late June 2019, with only three subjects left to complete. 

19. Whilst the applicant’s more recent study progress is commendable, she has had a considerable period living in Australia in breach of her visa condition 8202 which requires she be enrolled and engaging with her study and this is very troubling for the Tribunal.  For approximately twelve months from October 2016 to October 2017, the applicant was not studying.  The applicant has made written and verbal submissions in relation to her parent’s marital problems.  The Tribunal accepts that this must have been a difficult time emotionally for the applicant and her family but it was at all times open to the applicant to return home to Vietnam to ensure she was not breaching her visa conditions and/or to seek deferral of her studies and/or to consult a medical professional who could help her with her emotional and/or psychological difficulties.  When asked about this at hearing, the applicant stated that she could not go home as her mother did not want her there, that she could not focus on her study and that she just stayed at home for that entire period.  When asked why she did not attend upon a doctor, she said she did not want to.  The applicant’s agent made submissions in relation to the applicant’s honesty and the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was forthright with her evidence on this subject but considers the evidence unfavourable to the applicant’s application given her breach of a condition of her visa for such a lengthy period.

20. In addition to breaching condition 8202 of her previous student visa, the applicant also breached the condition that she remain enrolled in a Higher Education Sector course.  On the day of hearing, the applicant supplied a confirmation of enrolment for a Bachelor of Business which she enrolled in three days prior to hearing and which is due to commence on 22 July 2019.  When asked about whether she knew she was breaching the Higher Education Sector visa condition when she was not enrolled in a Bachelor’s course during the course of her previous student visa, the applicant said that she did know she was breaching the condition but she did not feel ready to study the Bachelor of Accounting or Business at those times.  When asked if she considered applying to downgrade to a Vocational Sector Visa the applicant said she did not know about this.  The Tribunal is concerned by the applicant’s lengthy breaches of her previous student visa and considers it demonstrates a lack of intention to adhere to and abide by conditions of a visa.

21. In her genuine temporary entrant statement which the delegate refers to, the applicant states that after completion of her Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, she plans to open her own business in Vietnam related to importing and distributing some Australian products.  She goes on to mention ‘my own restaurant business in the near future’ and that she ‘need only 1 and half year’.  The Tribunal notes that, in fact, the applicant has remained onshore for the period of time she requested from the Department due to delays in her matter being heard by this Tribunal.  The Tribunal would have expected that the applicant should now be in a position to depart Australia, reunite with her family and put in motion any future plan.  However, the applicant is now seeking a further two years to complete Bachelor’s degree, which was not mentioned in her statement to the Department and was only enrolled in three days prior to her hearing before the Tribunal.  This causes concerns for the Tribunal about the applicant’s true intentions.

22. Further, the applicant stated at hearing that her plan was to return to Vietnam to manage her parent’s farming and exporting business.  She stated that her father runs a farm growing and then selling animal feed and that presently he is managing this business but she will manage it upon her return.  When asked, then, about the need for a Bachelor’s Degree she said her parents want her to move to the City (in Vietnam) and get a good manager’s job.  When asked where such a job would take place, what sort of business and what sort of remuneration she would receive, the applicant’s responses were vague and/or she stated that she did not know.  The Tribunal allows for reasonable changes in study and career pathways, however, in this case the Tribunal had considerable difficulty ascertaining what the applicant’s actual future plan is and how, therefore, the proposed courses are relevant to and would assist and/or improve her employment prospects in that regard.

23. The applicant stated she is in a relationship with an Australian citizen and has been for a period of five-six months and that she and her boyfriend are living together, along with one of her boyfriend’s friends.  She said her boyfriend is a Manager at Hungry Jacks and when asked about what would happen with the relationship if she returns to Vietnam, the applicant said ‘I don’t know what will happens’.  The Tribunal considers that given her relationship and length of stay in Australia for in excess of five years, in addition to her application to extend that stay for a further two years, that the applicant has a preference to remain onshore.  In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has cultivated and established strong ties to the Australian community.  As each day passes, those ties strengthen.

    The applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter, which was confirmed at hearing, indicated that she travelled home to visit her family for three weeks in February 2016, two weeks in June 2016 and 11 days in March 2018. She has both parents, two brothers and a sister living in Vietnam. She has not travelled home since March 2018 and has not undertaken any other international travel. She stated that she speaks to her family every couple of days. The Tribunal accepts that, particularly given the impact of her parent’s marital problems upon her, the applicant has significant personal ties to Vietnam. However, given the limited travel home, the length of time she has been onshore for in excess of five years and her application to extend that stay for a further two years, it appears to the Tribunal the such ties are outweighed by the applicant’s desires and incentives to remain onshore.

24. The applicant indicated at hearing that her parents are supporting her financially with all expenses in Australia which total approximately $1300AUD per month[4].  She stated that she pays her boyfriend cash for rent but that she is not working.  The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s economic circumstances in Australia would appear to be an incentive for her to return home, however, it considers such incentives are outweighed by her desire to remain onshore.

    [4] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

25. The Tribunal notes that the applicant in both written and verbal submissions had a good grasp of what subjects and courses she had undertaken and was due to undertake in the remainder of her Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management and gives weight in the applicant’s favour in this regard.

26. The applicant gave evidence at hearing that she could undertake the proposed courses in Vietnam but that a certificate from Vietnam is not better than Australia.  Her agent also made submissions that the employment market is very competitive in Asian countries and that without a Bachelor’s level qualification, obtaining employment can be difficult.  The Tribunal accepts these submissions.

27. The applicant stated she has had no visa or immigration issues in the past and does not have any potential military service obligations or political or civil unrest circumstances in Vietnam.  The Tribunal accepts this evidence.

28. The Tribunal again notes that the applicant’s submissions to the Department indicated she only required one and a half years more time to complete her Advanced Diploma and that she would then return to Vietnam.  Given the delays in this matter coming before the Tribunal, if the applicant had engaged with her studies as proposed she ought now to have finished all studies and be in a position to return to Vietnam, reunite with her family and put into motion whatever her plan may be in relation to her future employment.

29. The Tribunal has empathy for the applicant and the difficult period she faced with her parent’s marital problems.  However, the applicant’s overall lack of academic progress over a period of in excess of five years, her inconsistent submissions in relation to her future plan, her breaches of her previous student visa and her application to stay onshore well beyond the period initially applied for cause the Tribunal to consider that the applicant is motivated by factors other than study and is using the student visa program as a means of maintaining residence in Australia.  The Tribunal cannot be satisfied on the material and evidence before it that the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.

30. Having had regard to the applicant’s circumstances, her immigration history and all other relevant matters, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily as required by clause 500.212. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet clause 500.212.

31. 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. Therefore, the decision under review must be affirmed.

    DECISION

32. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

    T. Quinn
    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.