Nuamjitr (Migration)

[2021] AATA 893

Nuamjitr (Migration) [2021] AATA 893 (11 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Miss Sasicha Nuamjitr
Miss Navapaan Karndet

CASE NUMBER:  1911514

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1027227

MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno

DATE:11 March 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 March 2021 at 12:53pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – reason for undertaking studies in Australia – personal ties to Thailand – applicant’s economic circumstances – length of time spent in Australia – value of courses to applicant’s future – Leadership and Management courses – 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 Home Affairs on 18 April 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 1 March 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). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant met the genuine temporary entrant requirement for the grant of a student visa.

4. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by telephone. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 9 November 2020 by telephone to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the applicant’s partner, the second applicant.  The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent who attended the hearing and made submissions.  The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decisions 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. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

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. The Tribunal has had regard to the oral evidence of the applicant and her partner at the hearing, her migration agent’s submissions, the documents she provided to the Tribunal and also the contents of the Department’s file.

12. The applicant is a 41 year old woman from Thailand, who arrived in Australia on 31 March 2016 after being granted a student visa in order to study English, IELTS preparation as well as a Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management.  She completed two English language courses in 2016 but never started the IELTS course or the Diploma courses in Leadership and Management.  Instead, she enrolled in and completed a Certificate IV in Human Resources and a Diploma of Human Resources Management.  The applicant has applied for this second student visa in order to complete the following the courses (having provided to the Tribunal confirmation of enrolment in such courses):

    ·     Certificate III in Business – commenced on 13 May 2019 and completed on 10 May 2020;

    ·     Certificate IV in Leadership and Management – commenced on 11 May 2020 and ending on 9 May 2021;

    ·     Diploma of Leadership and Management – commencing on 10 May 2021 and ending on 8 May 2022; and

    ·     Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management – commencing on 9 May 2022 and ending on 7 May 2023. (“the proposed courses”)

13. In relation to why the applicant is not undertaking the proposed courses in her home country of Thailand, she stated in her questionnaire response the following:

    The reason that I didn’t choose similar courses that are available in my country because I want to improve my English at the same time.  And it also helps to enhance my business skills that I need in this modern world because I only study tourism in my university.  Feeling that skills are not enough to compete in the workplace Most of the time, in different situations it is better for me to gain business knowledge and critical thinking skills because it will help me build my own business in the future after I come back from Australia.  In Thailand, I will have no chance to improve my English which is vital in moden world.  Additionally, the environment and the culture do not support me to strive with my English skills as well as the fees of the course are not much different when I look at well known institutions of business in Thailand compare with Crowns Institute [where she is enrolled in Australia].  Therefore, I truly believe that I would gain more knowledge and benefits by choosing this path of my study.  [sic]

14. At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that there are similar courses taught in Thailand, but she wants to learn in English.  Taking into consideration the explanation provided by the applicant as to why she wants to study in Australia rather than Thailand, the Tribunal considers the applicant is mainly concerned about studying in English rather than her mother language.  There are similar courses available in Thailand that have similar tuition fees.  Whilst the applicant did refer to needing to gain business skills, the Tribunal considers this is something that can be gained from similar courses in either Australia or in Thailand and the applicant did not specify that these skills would not be taught Thai education providers.  Taking these matters into consideration, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has sound reasons for not studying similar courses in her home country.  She has now been residing in Australia for nearly 5 years, has been working in Australia and has had ample opportunity to learn and improve her English language skills.  The Tribunal does not consider studying the proposed courses in English should be the main purpose of studying leadership and management where she intends on returning to work in her home country.

15. As to the applicant’s personal ties to Thailand, the Tribunal takes into account that her parents and brother all reside there.  She said that she is in contact with her family every day by Facebook, messages and video calls.  She provided no other detail of personal ties to her home country.  While the Tribunal considers having family in Thailand does show some personal ties to her home country, the Tribunal notes that the applicant has not returned to visit her home country since arriving in Australia in March 2016, some 5 years ago.  She explained that she has not returned to Thailand because she took the opportunity to travel in Australia during school holidays and that after her applicant or student visa was refused, she was on a bridging visa that did not permit travel. 

16. Thailand is relatively close to Australia when compared to many other countries and is also relatively inexpensive.  The Tribunal considers the lack of return visits over the last five years together with the fact she has been able to maintain contact with family members whilst residing in Australia demonstrates that family is not a significant incentive to return to Thailand. 

17. In relation to the applicant’s economic circumstances, she provided evidence of her partner’s savings in a Thai bank account, which is substantial.  Her partner stated at the hearing that she also owns two apartments in Thailand that she rents out.  In relation to the applicant’s own assets or property, she said in her questionnaire that she owns an estate (which would appear to be her family’s coconut business), an apartment and a house.  At the hearing, she advised that this property all belongs to her mother and father and that the only asset or property she owns in Thailand is a car.  She and her partner have been supported financially by her partner’s family whilst in Australia.  The applicant has had employment in Australia but is not working at present due to the Covid-19 pandemic.   Prior to coming to Australia, she worked in various jobs including as wholesale distribution and also as a tourism teacher and then language teacher.  The applicant has said that when she returns to Thailand, she wants to work in the family coconut business.  Other than a business plan prepared by the applicant together with some photographs of a coconut plantation, there is not a great deal of information about the applicant’s family coconut business.  Certainly, no financial or property documents were provided which would confirm that her parents own the estate and second, how the business is currently faring.  The applicant estimates that if she makes changes to the business, she could earn BHT 1,200,000 per annum (approximately AUS $50,500).  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the documents and evidence available to it confirms whether or not this is a realistic amount. 

18. Taking into account that the applicant is a 40 year old woman whose only asset to her name is a car and is relying upon the financial circumstances of her partner and parents business, the Tribunal is not satisfied that her economic circumstances would be a significant incentive to return to Thailand in two years after the completion of the proposed courses. 

19. There is no evidence that the applicant is using the student visa to avoid military service commitments or because of any political or civil unrest in her home country.

20. With regards to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, the Tribunal notes that the applicant met her partner here in 2016 when they both worked at the same restaurant.  They started their relationship in 2017.  Her partner, Miss Navapaan Karndet, is also from Thailand and she came to Australia in 2013 to study.  The last course she studied was a management course in 2018.  She has not continued with any further study because she has joined the applicant as a dependant to this student visa application. 

21. The applicant has worked as a waitress for a Thai restaurant for around one year, as an “all rounder” at a café for around seven months and most recently as a barista for a café/bar.  She does not currently work due to the Covid-19 restrictions that have affected the hospitality industry. 

22. The applicant claims that it has always been her intention “from the beginning” to study leadership and management.  Her migration agent also made the submission that from the very beginning, this has been the applicant’s plan.  The applicant said that she realised that she should have studied business first but after consulting with her education agent she discovered she did not have enough time to enrol and the only college that would accept her was Strathfield College.  She did not explain why she should have studied business first.  The Tribunal has difficulty accepting this evidence.  Whilst she enrolled at Strathfield College for her initial English and Leadership and Management courses in 2016, she left after completing the general English courses.  Instead of enrolling elsewhere in a business course, she then enrolled at Victoria Institute of Australia and studied human resources for two years.  This has delayed her starting the Diploma and Advanced Diploma in Leadership and Management from 2016 to instead, 2021, some five years later.  Instead of studying the courses that she claims to have always wanted to study, she instead has spent the last five years studying human resources and business courses. 

23. Taking into account the length of time the applicant has spent in Australia studying courses that do not seem to have been part of her original plan, the fact that she met her partner here (who has been residing in Australia on her own student visa since 2013) and has had steady employment up until the Covid-19 pandemic struck, the applicant appears to have ties to Australia that would be an incentive to want to remain here.  Particularly when considering the length of time the applicant has spent in Australia without ever leaving Australian shores, the Tribunal considers that the applicant may be using the student visa so that she and her partner can maintain ongoing residence here and in doing so, they are using the student visa to circumvent the intentions of the migration program.  

24. The Tribunal has also considered the value of the proposed courses to the applicant’s future.  It notes that prior to coming to Australia, the applicant studied a Tourism degree at the Dhurakijpundit University in Thailand.  Since coming to Australia, she has studied English courses and has previously been enrolled in the Diploma and Advanced Diploma courses she is presently enrolled in.  She claimed that she realised she needed to study a business course before being able to study these two Diploma courses in Leadership and Management, however she did not explain why this was necessary.  She is currently studying at a level lower than the Diploma course (namely, the Certificate IV in Leadership and Management), without any explanation as to why this is necessary.  Having considered these matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed courses are at a level consistent with the applicant’s current level of education.

25. At the hearing, the applicant said that the proposed courses will help here because they are important in learning how to manage all aspects of a business.  She said leadership is essential to make “everything work together”.  In her statement to the Department, the applicant said that the proposed courses would help her start her own business running a dance school and fitness gym plus a café.  However, in her questionnaire response to the Tribunal, her plans had changed to include establishing a coconut export business, a “coconut garden resort business, a café, a dance facility and a gym.  She went on to state that her main plan is to focus on “matching the costs of my existing family business”, which is the coconut planting business.  The Tribunal considers that the description she provided as to how the proposed courses was vague and lacked detail when she stated,

    I try to focus on the sell, promotion, export management as well Therefore, I decided to study at the Crown Institute as intended from the beginning.  The Crowns Institute offered a quality management course for 4 years, according to my original objectives.  It gives me a strong management foundation to start my own business. So I will start my course from Certificate III in the Business Certificate IV in Leadership Management, Leadership Management Certificate.  And the certificate for advanced leadership management.  For this reason, I truly believe that the management course at Crown Institute will help fulfil my dreams and help me acquire the skills I need to prepare to tackle problems and build my business in the future according to my business plan. [sic]

26. While her business plan details her ideas for a “fragrant coconut plantation in Thailand, it does not explain how the leadership and management courses are going to assist her.  It makes no reference to the need for staff, what role she herself and her partner would be performing in the business, how finance would be obtained to start the business, ongoing costs involved such as storage, utilities or wages.  It is not a detailed business plan, instead it appears to be simply some ideas about what might be involved in running such a business.  It also does not explain how this ties in with the applicant’s parents’ coconut business.

27. In addition to the applicant’s evidence, including her business plan, the Tribunal has also had regard to Ms Karndet’s evidence.  She said that the proposed courses will help the applicant do business in Thailand.  She said that the only business she plans on conducting is the coconut export business.  The courses would help the applicant look for an export market and to manage international trade and cargo.  Ms Karndet would help with the shipping and “preparation”.

28. The applicant’s migration agent said that the applicant’s plans included a property management business as well as the coconut export business and that the applicant’s parents told her not to worry about the dance facility.  It is noted that the applicant’s business plan made no reference to any property management business.

29. Taking into account the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed courses are going to assist the applicant in obtaining employment or improving her employment prospects in her home country.  The Tribunal is not satisfied that the evidence demonstrates the applicant holds a genuine intention to start a coconut export business, café, property management business, or any other type of business. 

1. In any event, the Tribunal considers that the proposed courses have only minimal relevance to her employment in Thailand and it is not convinced that they are relevant to her future employment. 

2. It follows that the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s assertion that she would be able to increase the BHT 480,000 that the family business currently earns to around BHT 1,200,000 per annum.

3. Lastly, in relation to the applicant’s immigration history, the Tribunal notes that there is no evidence to suggest that the applicant has any other Australian visa applicant pending a decision.  Nor is there evidence suggesting the applicant has ever been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled by Australia or by another country. 

4. However, the applicant has now been residing in Australia for 1807 days and has not ever left Australia during that time.  She is proposing to continue to remain in Australia for a further 788 (2 years and 1 month), taking the total amount of time she will have spent in Australia to 8 years.  This is a very long time to have spent in Australia studying English and general business vocational level courses, especially when the applicant has studied at the university level in her home country. 

5. There were no other relevant matters raised by the applicants or her migration agent for consideration. 

6. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and therefore the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

7. 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.

8. 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.

9. It follows that the decision in relation to the second applicant must also be affirmed. 

   DECISION

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

    Elizabeth Tueno
    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.