Patel (Migration)

Patel (Migration) [2020] AATA 5032 (14 September 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Umang Ashokbhai Patel
CASE NUMBER:  1923343
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/2015319
MEMBER:Michael Biviano
DATE:14 September 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 14 September 2020 at 5:10pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant as student – limited academic progress – applicant changed to Vocational courses – education provider closed – gap in studies – applicant retained employment in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359; Direction No 69
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.212
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 2 August 2019 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 20 April 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.
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) for the reason that he was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because he did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 31 August 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Gujarati and English languages.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
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.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
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 applicant for entry and stay as a student.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)
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?
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.
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.
The applicant is a 26-year-old Indian national who obtained an initial Student (Temporary) (Class TU 500) visa on 20 January 2017. He came to Australia on 13 February 2017.
The Decision Record of the delegate of the Department of Home Affairs dated 2 August 2019, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, confirms the applicant made the current application for a Student Class TU Subclass 500 visa on 20 April 2019 (Decision Record). The applicant has resided in Australia on a student visa and a bridging visa.
The Decision Record confirms that at the time of applying for the visa, he was enrolled to study a Certificate III and Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and Diploma of Hospitality Management (Hospitality Courses). The Statement of Purpose provided by the applicant revealed those studies were to be taken at Elite Training Institute from 8 April 2019 and would conclude on 21 June 2021.
On 18 May 2020 the applicant filed with the Tribunal a response within time pursuant to an invitation to supply student information about the courses he was studying and had studied in Australia, together with information about his entry and stay in Australia in accordance with s.359(2) of the Act (the Response). The applicant did not file with the Response or provide to the Tribunal at the hearing a Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) about the courses he was studying.
At the hearing the applicant gave evidence that he had obtained an enrolment in Hospitality Courses on 28 August 2020 and he had not had an opportunity to file the COEs. The applicant was aware from correspondence provided to him by the Tribunal prior to the hearing that the CoE was to be provided to the Tribunal prior to the hearing to confirm whether he was enrolled. The applicant was given until the end of the day of the hearing to provide a valid CoE.
On 31 August 2020, immediately after the hearing he filed with the Tribunal the following CoEs:-
a.CoE numbered BC968746 dated 28 August 2020, to study a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery at Australian College of Trade (ACOT) commencing on 7 September 2020 and concluding on 4 October 2021;
b.CoE numbered BC968997 dated 28 August 2020, to study a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery at ACOT commencing on 11 October 2021 and concluding on 11 April 2022; and
c.CoE numbered BC968C40 dated 28 August 2020, to study a Diploma of Hospitality Management at ACOT commencing on 18 April 2022 and concluding on 17 October 2022.
The applicant gave evidence that prior to coming to Australia he completed a Bachelor of Commerce in India. After completing the bachelor’s degree, he studied for IELTS and worked as an accountant. He obtained a student visa to study a Master of Professional Accounting at Charles Sturt University (CSU). He undertook 3 subjects in the Master of Professional Accounting in the first semester in the first half of 2017 and he failed all 3 subjects.
He then changed education providers and studied a Master of Professional Accounting at Holmes Institute. He studied that course for 9 months and he passed only 1 of 3 subjects. He claims that in September 2018, he changed courses based on the recommendation of his agent and enrolled in a Graduate Diploma of Management in September 2018 at Edith Cowan University, and claimed that he breached admission rules and he discontinued the course. He then enrolled in the Automotive Course at Elite Training Institute. He claims that Elite Training Institute closed down and he ceased studying that course. It appears that on 3 September 2019, the education provider had their registration suspended.
Based on the applicant’s evidence, there appear to be substantive gaps in his study from:-
a.The loss of his enrolment in the Graduate Diploma of Management in 2018 and enrolling in the Hospitality Courses at Elite which he was to commence studying in April 2019 which is a gap of at least 4 months; and
b.Gap between studying the Hospitality Courses at Elite Training Institute when the education provider was suspended on 3 September 2019 and obtaining the enrolment at ACOT on 28 August 2020, which is a gap of nearly 12 months.
Where there is a substantial gap in studies and there is no reasonable and acceptable explanation for the gap in studies, then the gap is inconsistent with the applicant being an applicant genuinely studying in Australia. Student visas are for genuine applicants who complete their studies, remain temporarily and return home.
The applicant claimed that he had struggled with studies at the Masters level and that he attempted to find a course that he could complete so that he could return to India and settle down. He claimed he had an interest in cooking, which he had outlined in the Statement of Purpose which he provided to the delegate. He gave evidence that he enrolled in the Hospitality Courses at Elite Training Institute. He claims that he was unable to study over the past few years due to stress. He claims that the stress is caused by his sister who married someone without consent, that brought shame on him and his family and he could not concentrate on his studies. He claims that his sister was disowned by his family. He did not present medical evidence regarding that he was suffering from stress and unable to study due to that condition.
The applicant is seeking to study in this country and wants to obtain a visa, and if he was serious about demonstrating his intention about studying the Hospitality Courses and studying in Australia on a temporary basis, he would have enrolled in the Hospitality Courses in September last year and he would have completed those courses. Instead he has not studied at all in the last 12 months. While the Tribunal accepts that he and his family may have been upset about his sister’s actions, they do not justify his actions and do not provide an acceptable explanation for not being enrolled during that period.
The applicant’s academic record in Australia is unsatisfactory. He has been in Australia for the last 3 years and 8 months and not completed any courses, or come close to completing a course. The Tribunal questions his motives in Australia and whether he intends to undertake studies in Australia.
The applicant in evidence claimed that if he completed the Hospitality Courses he would expect to earn 60,000 to 70,000 rupees per month as a chef in India which equates to A$1200 to $1300 per calendar month. The applicant gave evidence he had earlier worked in Australia part time as a cleaner and was paid $800–$900 per fortnight, which equates to at least $1600–$1800 per calendar month, which is a significant level of income, and would provide a substantial incentive to remain in Australia.
The Tribunal does accept that the completion of the Hospitality Courses, over and above his Bachelor of Commerce would improve his employment prospects and marginally improve the income that he is likely to receive in India.
The Tribunal recognises that it is important to allow for reasonable changes to career and study pathways. However, this is not the case when an applicant has merely decided to change careers through undertaking short vocational education training (VET) courses. The Hospitality Courses which the applicant has now commenced and is studying and proposes studying in Australia are all short VET courses. The Hospitality Courses which are certificates and a diploma, which he is studying, do not reveal progression in his course of study, having completed a bachelor’s degree in India and they are not consistent with his level of education.
The applicant in the Response claimed that he wanted to study in Australia rather than back in India, due to the international reputation of the education system and that Australian qualifications are recognised, and there is a multicultural mix of people and cuisine not available back home. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant had a reasonable motive to study this course in Australia rather than undertake the courses back in India.
As discussed above the applicant has worked as a cleaner and received income of approximately $1600–$1800 per calendar month, which is a significant level of income, and substantially higher than what he would earn in India. The applicant’s level of income, while in Australia, would provide the applicant with significant incentive to remain in Australia and not return home. The income of the job that the applicant intends obtaining in India is less than the income he has been receiving in his part-time job in Australia.
The applicant has changed his career pathway from Commerce, to Accounting, to Management and now to Commercial Cookery and Hospitality Management. The courses that the applicant has undertaken are not connected or complementary to each other.
The applicant has lived in Australia for more than 3 years and 8 months and intends to stay in Australia for a further 2 years and 1 month, resulting in a stay in Australia of at least 5 years and 9 months to complete 2 certificates and 1 diploma, which is a long period of time. The period of his intended stay is for a long period of time, which is inconsistent with the stay being temporary and the purpose of a temporary visa.
Due to the duration of his stay in Australia, the applicant has a substantial degree of knowledge of living in Australia. The applicant has not studied at ACOT and appears to have limited knowledge about the course provider. The applicant had previously enrolled in the Hospitality Courses at Elite Training Institute. The Tribunal accepts that he has a substantial degree of knowledge about the courses he is studying and intends on studying, in light of his previous enrolment but does not accept that the applicant has a substantial degree of knowledge of the course provider.
As discussed above, the applicant gave evidence about potential earnings he would receive in India, which are less than he would receive in Australia. The applicant accepted in evidence the level of income in Australia is higher than in India. The income that the applicant could earn in Australia if he completed his qualifications, would be higher than he would earn in India which would not present the applicant with a significant incentive to return to India and provide him with an incentive to remain in Australia.
The applicant gave evidence he has not returned home to India, during his stay in Australia. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s conduct in not returning home during this period of time is consistent with him wanting to stay in Australia permanently and not return home.
The applicant does not have any assets in India and that would not provide him with a significant incentive for him to return home.
The applicant has lived in Australia for the past 3 years and 8 months which is a substantial period of time. He intends to stay and study in Australia for at least a further 2 years and 1 month, when his course concludes on 17 October 2022 and coupled with his stable living arrangements, his circumstances in Australia and his level of income in Australia, they present the applicant with a significant incentive to stay in Australia.
The applicant confirmed in evidence that he did not have any concerns about returning to India and he had no concerns about military service commitments or political and civil unrest in his own country. The Tribunal finds that they do not present as a significant incentive for him not to return home.
The applicant has his parents at home in India, who have a house and business.
The Tribunal finds that based on the applicant’s evidence and circumstances in his home country (including the assets of his family, including substantial property holdings, together with his education and the support that he has and would receive from his family back home) relative to others in that country, he is in a good position and that would not provide a significant incentive for him not to return home.
The applicant has personal ties both in Australia and in India.
The applicant gave evidence that his parents reside in India and that would ordinarily provide him with a significant incentive to return home, however he has not seen them in person since 13 February 2017. He claims he is close with his parents and they have borne the stress associated with his sister’s conduct. He claims that he speaks to them weekly by telephone. However, he intends to stay in Australia for at least a further 2 years and 1 month. When coupled with his circumstances in Australia, his stable accommodation, the higher level of income in Australia and his intended stay in Australia, the Tribunal finds that such ties do not provide a significant incentive for him to return home to India.
The applicant has substantial ties to Australia. The applicant in the Response claimed that his sister was in Australia, but in evidence he stated he did not know where she was situated and had lost contact with her. He gave evidence that he has stable living arrangements and has lived with friends who he knew in India and he has lived with them in Australia for more than 3 and a half years. He gave evidence that he has relatives and cousins in Australia and close friends in Australia. The Tribunal finds that those ties demonstrate that he has a strong incentive to remain in Australia rather than to return home.
The applicant in his Response has not identified that he was refused any other visa or had a visa cancelled in Australia or elsewhere.
The applicant gave evidence that he is not in breach of any of his visa conditions.
The applicant has stayed in Australia for a substantial period of time and not completed any courses, now wishes to study short VET courses despite coming to Australia to undertake a Masters of Professional Accounting, and having regard to the fact he intends studying the Hospitality Courses for a further 2 years and 1 month which would only marginally improve his remuneration, in light of his current qualifications and experience, and his nearly 12-month gap in studies, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends to remain here temporarily.
Based on the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has made this application to gain a student visa to study temporarily and it considers that the primary objective of the application is to maintain an ongoing residence in Australia and to remain in Australia permanently.

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) of the Regulations.
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
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Michael Biviano
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.

[2020] AATA 5032

14 September 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction