Oorloff (Migration)

[2020] AATA 4344

Oorloff (Migration) [2020] AATA 4344 (10 October 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Marlon Aravinda Oorloff

CASE NUMBER:  1933032

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/4574804

MEMBER:D Triaca

DATE:10 October 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 10 October 2020 at 1:03pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – visa, travel, study and work history – change of study area and enrolment at lower level than previous study – value of course to applicant’s future – credibility – vague and inconsistent evidence – decision under review affirmed

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

CASES
Saini v Minister for Immigration [2015] FCCA 2379
Saini v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 858
Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 2993
Vu Vu (Migration) [2019] AATA 5740
Vu Vu v Minister for Immigration [2020] FCCA 2292

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 October 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 12 September 2019. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). 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 visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 8 October 2020 to give evidence and present arguments.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria.

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

7. 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?

8. 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.

9. 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.

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

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

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

11. The issues in this case arose in the following circumstances, the applicant is a 31year old citizen of Sri Lanka. He first arrived in Australia on 1 December 2008. He has resided in Australia since that time on a series of student, temporary graduate and associated bridging visas. O 12 September 2019 he applied for a further student visa. On 30 October 2019 a delegate of the Department refused his application (delegate’s decision). ON 20 November 2019 he applied to the tribunal for a review of the delegates decision and he provided the tribunal with a copy of that decision.

12. The tribunal has read and had regard to documentation provided by the applicant to the Department and the tribunal including the delegates decision, application for a student visa, GTE Statement, passport, documents evidencing the applicant’s previous studies completed in Australia including academic transcripts and certificates, CoE, Birth Certificate. On 9 June 2020 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant and invited him to provide further information in relation to the student visa application pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act. On 23 June 2020 the applicant responded to the Tribunal in writing (359 Response). The Tribunal has read and had regard to the applicant’s 359 Response.

13. The applicant is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Community Services at Australian Institute of Business and Technology (current study). He commenced this course in July 2020 and is due to complete it in July 2021. He says that his future plan is to return home and find work in and eventually own an aged care facility in his home country. He says that he has identified there is a market for the aged care facilities in his home country and is intent on pursuing a career in this industry.

14. The applicant’s academic record is well set out in his 359 Response. Since arriving in Australia, he has completed a Bachelor of Business (Accounting) in 2015, a Diploma of Accounting in 2011 and a Certificate IV in Financial Services.

15. He has worked consistently as a cleaner throughout his stay in Australia, declaring this employment as early as 2011.

16. There are a number of concerns that the Tribunal has in relation to this application.

17. The applicant holds a Bachelor of Business (Accounting), Diploma of Accounting and a Certificate IV in Financial Services. On any objective view he is well placed to return home and find suitable employment. Instead he is seeking to remain in Australia and study lower level vocational courses. The Tribunal does not consider that the current study offers any real value to the applicant’s future.

18. The current study is not consistent with the applicant’s previous study or employment. It is at a lower level than his previous study. It does not represent academic progress.

19. The applicant’s evidence is that he considers the community service course will assist him in his future endeavours in the aged care sector. It is not clear how this is the case. It appears the applicant considers the fact that he will do some units that are related to aged care is sufficient connection to justify the study of a Diploma of Community Services. The Tribunal does not consider his evidence demonstrated this to be the case. A Diploma of Community services is not specifically directed at aged care study and it does not appear to specifically train a student for the role of managing or owning an aged care facility. Rather, it appears that aged care is relevant to the course, but only on the periphery. The Tribunal does not consider the course offers real value to the applicant’s future.

20. The Tribunal does not consider the proposed course is likely to assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve his employment prospects in his home country, or a third country. It follows that the Tribunal does not consider the proposed study is likely to increase the applicant’s remuneration in his home country.

21. Direction No. 69 contemplates a reasonable change in career or study pathway should be accommodated, and a change in pathway is not adverse to the application. However, the applicant has not demonstrated any reason why his change from Bachelor of Accounting to community service is warranted and the Tribunal is concerned that his reasons for studying at a lower level in Australia, as opposed to returning home to Sri Lanka and seeking to use his qualifications, is to enable him to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.

22. The Tribunal is concerned by the applicant’s evidence in relation to his future plans. There are some significant differences between the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing in relation to his future plans and his previous statements. In his 359 Response he says that his reason for enrolling in the diploma of community services was to ‘help me get a job in Tasmania and to help him to get an Australian permanent residency. He says further, ‘the purpose to study in Australia is upon completion to apply for permanent residency, therefore it requires an Australian certified and recognised course.’ In his evidence before the Tribunal he denied that he was planning to apply for permanent residency. He says that he would prefer to return home and explore opportunities in the aged care business. In his GTE Statement he spoke about going home to work in his father’s business and said he could easily join the state sector to the financial divisions. In his 359 Response he states, ‘at the completion of the course I intend to be a qualified community development worker in any charity organisation and NGO.’ The Tribunal regards the applicant’s evidence in relation to his future plans as vague and non-specific, making it difficult to attribute any real value to the current study. It is difficult to assess the value of a course when it is unclear what purpose it is likely to be utilised for in the future.

23. These discrepancies concern the Tribunal. In addition to rendering it difficult to assess the value of the current study to the applicant’s future, the applicant’s apparent change of heart since preparing the 359 Response in June is without any real explanation as to why he has made such a change, and weighs against the credibility of his evidence.

24. The Tribunal is very concerned by the applicant’s vague evidence in relation to his future plans, to the extent that he has previously stated the purpose of his study is to enable him to apply for permanent residency. Whilst acknowledging that his oral evidence to deny this was the case, the Tribunal does not accept his oral evidence on this point for the following reasons. First, the applicant’s multiple different explanations for his future plans lead the Tribunal to find that he is not a witness of credit in relation to his future. Second, the lack of any significant connection between the applicant’s current study and is now stated future career in the aged care business, suggests that he enrolled in the current study for the purpose of assisting a permanent residency application as opposed to a career in aged care. It seems logical that he could have applied for a more specific aged care related course had he wished to do so. Third, the applicant has resided in Australia for over a decade. He is settled here and seems to enjoy living here. Leaving Australia is likely to result in a significant upheaval in his life and becoming a permanent resident would avoid this. Accordingly, the tribunal finds that the applicant has not evinced an unqualified intention to return home at the completion of his studies.

25. It is necessary that the applicant’s intention to return home is unqualified, in order to be considered a genuine temporary entrant. In Saini v & Anor v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2015] FCCA 2379 at [23] Cameron FCJ stated “genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily”, a form of words which does not suggest that an applicant may harbour the hope of something more than a temporary stay. The clause’s use of the word “genuinely” reinforces the impression that the applicant must unqualifiedly intend his or her stay to be temporary. Its use points only to that conclusion.[3]

    [3] The decision upheld in Saini v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2016] FCA 858

26. The Tribunal, considering the applicant’s evidence in totality, does not consider his intention is unqualified. It follows that the Tribunal does not consider the applicant holds an unqualified intention to “genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.”

27. The current study is not consistent with the applicant’s current level of education. It is at a level below his Bachelor degree. The Diploma of community service is not relevant to the applicant’s previous studies. It is unclear how it relates to his future plans. This is the case in part due to the applicant’s lack of clarity surrounding his future plans and part due to the Tribunal’s uncertainty as to how a Diploma of community services really relates to owning an aged care facility.

28. The applicant’s stated purpose of studying in Australia[4] was to assist his permanent residency application. There is no evidence to suggest he has really investigated studying in his home country. This is not surprising given the length of time he has resided here. The Tribunal finds he has not provided reasonable reasons for not undertaking study in his home country.

    [4] 359 Response

29. The applicant has a well-developed understanding of living in Australia and his course provider. This would be expected given that he has resided here for over a decade.

30. There is no evidence in relation to the applicant’s circumstances in his home country relative to others there.

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

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

33. The applicant’s family is said to be his parents and sister in Sri Lanka and his brother, living in Australia. He says he speaks to his family regularly via telephone and social media. He has returned to visit Sri Lanka on approximately 4 occasions. He is unmarried and has no dependents. The Tribunal considers that the applicant has resided in Australia for a significant period and is seeking to extend his stay, he has managed his familial relationships via telephone and social media and visiting. In these circumstances the tribunal does not consider his family ties to Sri Lanka operate as a significant incentive to return home.

34. There is no specific evidence to suggest that the applicant has ties to Australia that may operate as a strong incentive for him to remain here. The Tribunal notes the presence of the applicant’s brother and Uncle in Australia but there is no evidence to suggest that these relationships are of such a nature that they operate as a strong incentive for him to remain here.

35. The evidence in relation to the applicant’s economic circumstances is as follows. On his evidence, he has worked in Australia consistently as a cleaner for almost a decade. He has not declared any assets in either Australia or Sri Lanka. He does not appear to earn substantial sums in Australia working as a cleaner. He is financially supported by his Uncle. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s evidence in relation to his economic circumstances is such that it results in a conclusion that economic factors operate as a significant incentive to either remain in Australia or return home. These factors are a neutral factor on the application.

36. The applicant’s evidence is that he has travelled to Sri Lanka on a number of occasions without any issues. He appears to have complied with the requirements of his various visas since arriving in Australia. In these circumstances, the Tribunal makes no adverse findings in relation to his travel or immigration history.

37. There do not appear to be any further matters relevant to the application.

    Conclusions

38. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it. It does not consider the applicant to be a genuine applicant. The applicant’s failure to hold an unqualified intention to remain in Australia temporarily is fatal to the application. If I am wrong about this conclusion, I consider that the applicant has failed, in any event, to demonstrate he is a genuine temporary entrant for the purpose of study. He has not demonstrated any real value in his current course, leading the Tribunal to consider he is studying in Australia as a means of maintaining an ongoing residence here. This conclusion also follows logically from the applicant’s continued study of lower level, unrelated, courses following the successful completion of a Bachelor Degree. Furthermore, the Tribunal has difficulty in reconciling the applicant’s stay in Australia of over a decade with the meaning of ‘temporary.’

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

40. 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.

41. 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.

    DECISION

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

    D Triaca

    Member

    Attachment – Direction No.69

    DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS

    (Section 499)

    I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

    Dated: 18 April 2016

    Peter Dutton

    
    

    Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

    Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.

    Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary

    Name of Direction

    This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.

    It may be cited as Direction No. 69.

    Commencement

    This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.

    Interpretation

    Act means the Migration Act 1958.

    Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.

    Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

    Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.

    Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

    Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.

    Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa

    Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

    Application

    This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.

    The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.

    Preamble

    The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia.  A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.

    An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.

    The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

    a.the applicant’s circumstances; and

    b.the applicant’s immigration history; and

    c.if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    d.any other relevant matter.

    This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.

    Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily

    Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions

    Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion

    1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

    2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:

    a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and

    b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).

    3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.

    4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:

    a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;

    b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;

    c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and

    d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.

    5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.

    The applicant’s circumstances

    6.Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

    7.For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

    8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.

    The applicant’s circumstances in their home country

    9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;

    b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;

    c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;

    d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and

    e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.

    10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.

    The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

    11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;

    b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;

    c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;

    dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and

    e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.

    Value of the course to the applicant’s future

    12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:

    a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and

    b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and

    c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.

    The applicant's immigration history

    13.An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.

    14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

    a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:

    i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and

    ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.

    b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:

    i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;

    ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

    iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and

    iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance

    If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant

    15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.

    Any other relevant matters

    16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.