PALANIAPPAN (Migration)

[2020] AATA 72

PALANIAPPAN (Migration) [2020] AATA 72 (2 January 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Parthipan PALANIAPPAN

CASE NUMBER:  1732304

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/1027480

MEMBER:Vanessa Plain

DATE:2 January 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 02 January 2020 at 7:39pm

CATCHWORDS

MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – fourth student visa – reason for not studying in Malaysia – incentives to return to home country – value of course – limited travel home – short inexpensive 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 Immigration and Border Protection on 30 November 2017 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 15 March 2017. 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 29 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Tamil (Indian) and English languages.

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

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for the purpose of study in Australia.

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 applicant in this case is a Malaysian male who first arrived in Australia on 22 September 2015.  Since his arrival in Australia, he has held three student visas between March 2016 and July 2019.  The applicant applied for a fourth student visa which is the subject of this application for review and for a proposed course of study which ceases on 4 October 2020, thereby extending the applicant’s stay in Australia for a period in excess of 5 years.   

12. Before arriving in Australia, the applicant completed high school in his home country.       

13. Since arriving in Australia in 2015, the applicant has never returned home to Malaysia. 

14. Further since arriving in Australia, the applicant has undertaken and completed the following studies:

    ·English Program from January 2016 to January 2017

    ·A Diploma of Leadership and Management from October 2017 to July 2018

    ·Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management from July 2018 to 3 March 2019

15. The applicant commenced a Certificate IV in New Small Business on 3 April 2017, however there is no evidence before the Tribunal of completion of this course.

16. The applicant is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Business which is scheduled to conclude in October 2020. 

17. The applicant provided a GTE statement to the department.  The applicant also provided to the Tribunal a response to a request to provide information (Response) which has been considered at the hearing, together with the applicant’s oral evidence. 

18. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s circumstances in Malaysia, as follows:

    ·As to the reason for not studying in his home country, the applicant asserts that the company he was working for wants to start a business in Australia, so he thought he’d study here.  He conceded that he could study in Malaysia, but it would assist his English to study in Australia  He also contended, in his Response, that it was cheaper to study the course in Australia, than in Malaysia;

    ·As to the applicant’s personal ties to Malaysia, the applicant’s mother and three siblings are in Malaysia.  He contends that he owns a house and a car situated in Malaysia;

    ·The applicant has never returned home to visit his family in Malaysia since being onshore; 

    ·The applicant has a consistent work history in Australia as mechanic.  He contends that between May 2018 and October 2019 he was working as an NRMA Contractor mechanic for $34,000 per annum.  In evidence at hearing, he said that he works part-time for NRMA, 20 hours per week and receives $200.00 per day net wages; 

    ·He contends that a Malaysian company he worked for pays for his tuition fees; and

    ·The applicant has no military service commitment concerns or concerns about civil and political unrest in Malaysia. 

19. The Tribunal is unable to accept the applicant’s reasons for not studying in Malaysia as sounds.  He has not demonstrated any significant research into the availability of the course in his home country, nor produced any objective evidence of the difference in alleged fees. 

20. Further, the Tribunal finds that although the applicant’s family are in Malaysia, they do not present s significant incentive for him to return to Malaysia at the conclusion of his studies, demonstrated by the fact that he hasn’t returned to visit them in five years. 

21. Further, the Tribunal is unable to be satisfied that the applicant has significant economic incentive to return to Malaysia as he has not produced any objective evidence of his alleged land and vehicle holdings in his home country. 

22. Further, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has demonstrated a significant incentive to remain in Australia, evidenced by his on-going employment with NRMA, which is consistent with the employment he held as a mechanic in Malaysia, prior to arriving in Australia. 

23. These aforementioned matters considered in their totality suggest that the applicant may be motivated to remain in Australia on a more permanent basis.

24. The Tribunal also has regard to the fact that the applicant has been in Australia since 2015 and undertaken a series of short courses which are not consistent with the applicant’s extensive work history as a mechanic.  While the Tribunal acknowledges that students may change their study or work paths in life, the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the current course in which the applicant is enrolled will further assist his career development or earning potential as a mechanic, in view of the qualifications he already holds and the work experience he already has. 

25. Therefore, the Tribunal does not consider, on balance, that there are significant enough incentives for the applicant to return to Malaysia after he completes his studies.

26. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, based on his evidence at the hearing, as follows: 

    ·The applicant contends he has no significant ties to Australia;

    ·He wants to return to Malaysia after his studies to open his own garage;

    ·He lives in a share house with four other people and is not in a significant relationship; and

    ·He became familiar with his current course provider by doing a Google search and from the course being recommended by his friends.

27. Based on the above, the Tribunal is unable to conclude that the applicant has undertaken any significant research into his proposed course, course contents or educational objectives.     

28. Further, the Tribunal is unable to accept the applicant’s assertion that he has no significant ties to Australia.  On the contrary, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s has a significant economic tie to Australia, in the form of ongoing part-time employment for which he receives a salary of $34,000 per annum. 

29. On the basis of the aforementioned matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant’s primary purpose of being in Australia is for the purpose of study.     

30. The Tribunal has had regard to the value of the course of study to the applicant’s future.  In his evidence, the applicant makes the following claim:

    ·In his oral evidence, the applicant asserted that his former employer in Malaysia will give him a better job, a managerial position; and

    ·In his Response, the applicant contended that he wants to run his own business and if three mechanics are working in the business, he estimates he can earn around $28,000 AUD which is a good salary in Malaysia. 

31. The Tribunal is unable to accept the applicant’s assertion as to the value of the course to his future, because the answers given by the applicant in his oral evidence conflict with the answers given in his written Response.  Further, the applicant has not provided any evidence to the Tribunal as to a business plan evidencing the applicant’s plans to open a mechanical garage business in Malaysia.

32. Further, based on the applicant’s admissions, he is currently earning a greater salary in Australia as a mechanic working part-time, than he would if he were to employ several mechanics in his own business in Malaysia.  This provides significant economic incentive to remain in Australia on a more permanent basis.    

33. Further, given the extent of the applicant’s study and work history, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has objectively demonstrated that the completion of the nominated course of study will improve his remuneration prospects in his home country to an extent that is outweighed by the current cost of completing the course.  On that basis, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of the proposed course to his future.  

34. The Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s immigration history.  The applicant has never returned home to Malaysia since being onshore.  He further contends that he has not had visa refusals or cancellations previously.   

35. The applicant’s visa history and study history indicate that the applicant has spent over 5 years in Australia, working consistently and completing a series of inexpensive short courses.  The Tribunal does not find this behaviour to be consistent with that of a genuine student who intends to remain in Australia temporarily.  Rather, the Tribunal finds that this behaviour demonstrates an intention to use the student migration program to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.    

36. The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia.   

37. Although the applicant provided information to the Tribunal demonstrating that he has successfully completed studies undertaken to date, considering all the circumstances and all the evidence before the Tribunal, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s claims to be those of a genuine temporary entrant.

38. 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).

39. 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.

40. 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

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

    Vanessa Plain
    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.