Passotti Fernandes de Oliveira (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3064

Passotti Fernandes de Oliveira (Migration) [2019] AATA 3064 (2 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Andre Passotti Fernandes de Oliveira

CASE NUMBER:  1723733

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2294018

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:2 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 02 June 2019 at 3:51pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– applicant failed to provided requested information – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met – employment offer is unreliable –using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360, 363, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212, 500.218

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 12 September 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 28 June 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(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. The Tribunal formally wrote to the review applicant pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicant to provide further information to the Tribunal. The Tribunal did not receive a response to that written invitation within the prescribed period.

5. The Tribunal is satisfied that the review applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the review applicant’s nominated email address, being the email address provided by the review applicant in connection with this application for review.

6. Where an applicant is invited to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act and fails to provide that information within the prescribed period, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking any further action: section 359C(1).

7. The Tribunal finds that the review applicant did not provide further information as requested within the prescribed period. In these circumstances, the review applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

8. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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?

1. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

   ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

   ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

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

   ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

2. 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.

Overview of evidence

1. The Tribunal had before it a copy of both the delegate’s decision, which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and the Department’s file in relation to the application.

2. The applicant is a 31-year-old Brazilian national who first arrived in Australia on 20 January 2014 as the holder of a Student (Class TU subclass 570) visa. 

3. According to information submitted to the department by the applicant on his application for a student visa:

   a.He completed his studies in Brazil “in Administration with [an] emphasis in marketing”.

   b.He chose Australia as an international study destination for its “good lifestyle” stating that it “welcomes” a significant number of international students every year.

   c.His initial career objective in studying in Australia was to find a job in a “multinational company”, however, during his time onshore, he claims that “an old passion for Carpentry awoke”. 

   d.He states that he “always wanted to do this course [i.e. carpentry] since he was 14” as it was compulsory at his high school when his elder brother had completed it, but had dropped from the curriculum by the time he was of age.

   e.He decided to undertake the course in Australia, rather than Brazil, “because of the structure of the Carpentry course and experiences”.  He states that the course in Australia is “more intensive and technical in comparison to Brazilian methods”.  He states:

   In Brazil the course is delivered in one year and focus mainly on woodwork while here, the course chosen - Certificate Ill in Carpentry at Everthought, one of the best trade schools for international students in Perth – will take twice the length and also provide me the necessary skills, knowledge and experience to work on a building site in the area of construction carpentry. The course is primarily aimed at the residential sector, which I will be able to construct domestic framework, formwork, scaffolding and footings. In addition this is an overseas qualification, what means a strong addition to my CV for when I return to Brazil.

   f.As to his future career plans he states:

   I have my future plan very clearly. My mother and my sister work with Interior designer and I am pretty, sure my skill could help my family business to grow.

4. In submissions provided to the Tribunal on or about 17 April 2019 in support of his application, the applicant set out the following:

   My plans are to finish my current course (Certificate III in Carpentry) and then return to my country of origin, Brazil, to work at Vivere Móveis Planejados, a business specialised in tailored furniture and [cabinet] making. My current course will be, thus, primordial if I am to successfully fulfil my future position provided how central the skills I am attaining via this course are to my future deeds and the company's undertakings itself.

5. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a letter entitled “Job Offer Letter” purportedly  from a Mr Tiago Facanali on behalf of a company called Vivere Móveis Planejados (Vivere).  The letter is dated 16 June 2017 and states, materially, that Vivere “offers” the applicant “the position of carpenter”.  No salary is stated, no start date is nominated and the offer does not contain an expiry date; it is, on its face, open ended.

6. According to the evidence submitted by the applicant, since arriving onshore he has  successfully completed the following courses:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
General English	01/2014	07/2014
General English	08/2014	12/2014
General English	01/2015	06/2015
English – Certificate of Participation	08/2015	11/2015
Certificate IV in Business	11/2015	01/2016
Diploma of Business	03/2016	09/2016
Advanced Diploma in Leadership and Management	10/2016	04/2017

1. According to his evidence the applicant is presently studying a Certificate III in Carpentry which he commenced in June 2017 and is due to complete in June 2019.

2. Also submitted to the Tribunal was a letter from Everthought College of Construction dated 16 April 2019 stating, materially, that the applicant has maintained an 89% attendance rate (with a minimum requirement of 80%) and is “on track” to complete his course.

3. The Tribunal also had before it a number of documents provided by the applicant.  Save as required for the purposes of this decision it is unnecessary to list these documents in detail.  Relevant documents will be referred to as required.

Analysis and findings

1. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

2. The Tribunal initially shared the delegate’s concern, as outlined in their decision record, in respect of the applicant’s decision to undertake a Certificate III in carpentry having previously completed qualifications in business and management.  However the Tribunal considers that his justification for this change, that carpentry is an “old passion”, is plausible and is satisfied that his attendance record over the past two years at Everthought College bears out his dedication to acquiring the skills in this study pathway.  Overall the Tribunal is prepared to accept that his decision to change study pathways is for the reason he claims and the Tribunal places some weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

3. In respect of his employment prospects as a carpenter in Brazil the applicant has given two versions of his future across the evidence he has provided the department and the Tribunal.  In his application to the department (dated 28 June 2017) he expresses himself unequivocally, stating:

   I have my future plan very clearly. My mother and my sister work with Interior designer and I am pretty, sure my skill could help my family business to grow.

4. There is no further mention of this prospect in the materials the applicant submitted to the Tribunal in April 2019.  Rather he relies upon the written job offer from Vivere.  In assessing the veracity of Vivere’s offer the Tribunal is concerned that it is nearly two years old, it is lacking in essential detail and is apparently open ended.  Moreover, despite pre-dating his application to the department, the applicant made no mention of it in the application and there is no copy of the letter on the department’s file.  For these reasons the Tribunal considers the offer to be of doubtful veracity and places no weight upon it in assessing the applicant’s employment prospects in Brazil. 

5. Overall, given the two inconsistent employment prospects he has described, in circumstances where he would have been expected, and had the opportunity, to maintain consistency with one of them, the Tribunal considers this aspect of the applicant’s evidence to be unreliable and places no weight upon it.   

6. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that there is no specific reliable evidence before it as to how the proposed course of study will assist the applicant to obtain employment in Brazil.  There is a general sense in the applicant’s evidence that the carpentry skills he obtains through completing an Australian Certificate III will enhance his employment prospects in Brazil, which the Tribunal can accept, but places little weight upon. 

7. Given its conclusion in respect of the employment offer from Vivere, it follows that the Tribunal places no weight upon the applicant’s stated intention to return to Brazil to take it up completion of his Certificate III.

8. The Tribunal accepts that, having lived in Australia for five-and-a-half years, the applicant has sufficient knowledge of living in Australia, however the Tribunal places only minimal weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

9. There is no evidence or information before the Tribunal of any military service or civil or political incidents that would act as a clear incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal places minimal weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

10. It appears from the information supplied in his application to the department that the applicant’s parents and two siblings reside in Brazil with his third sibling resident in Australia.  The Tribunal accepts that these personal ties provide some incentive for the applicant to return to Brazil.  Balanced against this, however, is his evidence to the Tribunal that, since arriving onshore, he has visited three countries since he has been onshore: Indonesia (10 days), Malaysia (2 days) and India (30 days).  Notably, he has returned to Brazil only once in this period, in May 2018, raising a concern in the Tribunal’s mind regarding the strength of these ties.  Nonetheless, the Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in his favour.

11. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that the highest annual salary he earned in Brazil was AUD$4,076.   He states that his current annual salary, as a cleaner, is AUD$27,040 with his annual expenses totalling $13,524.  Despite the disparity in this figure, the Tribunal accepts the commensurately lower cost of living in Brazil and does not weigh the factor against the applicant.  The Tribunal also notes the applicant’s claimed moveable assets located in Brazil being some AUD$20,622 held in term deposit accounts and a “share portfolio” with a claimed value of AUD$13,473.  Being moveable assets the Tribunal places only minimal weight on this evidence in the applicant’s favour.

12. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant, or a relative of the applicant, has not complied with previous visas or previously held visas that were refused, cancelled or considered for cancellation.  The applicant’s immigration history does not raise concerns for the Tribunal. 

13. The Tribunal has turned its mind, and had regard, to the following factors as a guide to assessing the GTE criterion in this case:

    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;

    b.     the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country;

    c.     the applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia (including family and community ties);

    d.     whether the applicant has entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Applicant visa outcome;

    e.     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.

14. There is no evidence or information available to the Tribunal in respect of these factors as they apply to guide a decision the applicant’s case.  For the reasons stated above the Tribunal has rejected the applicant’s evidence in respect of his future employment prospects to the extent outlined.

15. The Tribunal has had regard to all other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the Tribunal) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant. 

16. In weighing the available information the Tribunal has taken care to draw no inferences adverse or unfavourable to the applicant from any absence(s) of evidence or information.  That said, in the absence of evidence (or reliable evidence) or information pertaining to a relevant factor or factors it is impossible for the Tribunal to weigh those factors in the applicant’s favour.

17. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has changed his study pathway for the reasons he states, particularly in view of his positive attendance record with his course provider.  This is, of course, the expectation of all students in Australia and weighing against the applicant is a lack of reliable evidence as to how this study pathway will enhance his employment prospects in Brazil beyond a generic suggestion that they will.   

18. Having concluded that the applicant’s evidence in respect of his employment offer from Vivere is unreliable as is, more significantly, his stated intention to return to Brazil to take it up, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is undertaking his current study or future study to enhance his employment prospects in his home country, as he claims, but rather is using it as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.

19. Overall, the evidence and information available to the Tribunal is insufficient to persuade it that the applicant meets the genuine temporary entrant criteria.

20. 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).

21. 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.

22. 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

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

Damian Creedon
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

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

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

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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

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

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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.