Patric (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 889

PATRIC (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 889 (10 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Patric
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2307493

Tribunal:David Thompson
Place:Perth
Date: 10 February 2025
Decision:The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 10 February 2025 at 2:46pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine student – genuine temporary entrant – limited value of studies to benefit future career – community ties in home country – property ownership in home country – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 499; Direction No 108
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.212
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 May 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 2 April 2023. 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 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because he was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay temporarily in Australia.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 25 September 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers 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 meets the requirements of cl 500.212.
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.
Evidence
As well as giving oral evidence at hearing, the applicant provided the following items of documentary evidence to the Tribunal:
a.the delegate’s decision record and notification letter, both dated 12 May 2023;
b.a completed ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form, provided in response to a request made by the Tribunal on 15 July 2024 pursuant to s 359(2) of the Act (as it then stood);
c.Confirmation of Enrolment FB99C141, recording the applicant’s enrolment in a General English (Starter – Advanced 6 levels) course at Intellect English, scheduled to run from 6 August 2024 to 1 August 2025;
d.a valuation report dated 26 September 2024 prepared by Kalsi Associates Architects & Engineers, in respect of property at Village Birring, Jalandhar, stated to be owned by the applicant and his wife; and
e.a deed of sale with respect to the abovementioned property, effecting its sale to the applicant and his wife, dated 29 June 2021.
Prior to constitution of this matter for hearing, the Tribunal obtained the Departmental file on the applicant’s student visa application. That file contained the following relevant documents provided by the applicant and not already listed above:
a.the applicant’s student visa application, lodged electronically on 2 April 2023; and
b.identification pages from the applicant’s Indian passport.
The Tribunal has also had regard to the applicant’s movement record and his record from the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS). Those records are uncomplicated and, while they form a convenient reference source, with only one exception contain no relevant information that the applicant did not provide separately, either at hearing or beforehand. One item of information contained in his PRISMS record was put to the applicant pursuant to s 359AA of the Act (as it then stood). This will be discussed below.
Where in the course of these reasons the Tribunal refers to any of the documents listed above, it does so by reference to the paragraph number against which the document is listed. Thus, the document listed at paragraph 9(a) is referred to simply as ‘document 9(a)’, and so on for the other documents listed.
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 108, ‘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.
Background findings
The following paragraphs 16 to 23 set out the Tribunal’s findings of fact on matters of background relevant to this case.
The applicant is a citizen of the Republic of India, and is 57 years old at the date of these reasons.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 2 January 2023, as the holder of an FA-600 visitor visa granted on 20 December 2022.
On 2 April 2023, the applicant applied for a TU-500 student visa, and was granted a Bridging Visa A pending a decision on his student visa application.
At that date, he was enrolled in a General English course at Pacific English Institute, scheduled to run from 17 April 2023 to 14 April 2024.
The applicant’s student visa application was refused on 12 May 2023.
The applicant initiated these review proceedings on 29 May 2023.
On or about 20 June 2023, the applicant’s enrolment at Pacific English Institute was cancelled.
The applicant was granted a further Bridging Visa A on 13 December 2023.
The applicant enrolled in a General English (Starter – Advanced 6 levels) course at Intellect English. That course was scheduled to run from 6 August 2024 to 1 August 2025
On 16 July 2024, the applicant was granted a third Bridging Visa A.
The applicant’s circumstances in his home country
The applicant gave evidence that he has family in India, namely, his wife and son, and that he is in contact with them by telephone 7 to 8 times each week, and sometimes more frequently. He stated in document 9(b) that his parents lived in India also, but at hearing stated that both his parents are deceased. When asked why he had signed document 9(b) if it contained false information, the applicant disclaimed knowledge of the document. Even allowing for the fact that English is not the applicant’s first language, and for the fact that the hearing was held by video conference on the MS Teams platform, this is scarcely satisfactory. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has family in India, but is not satisfied that the applicant’s relationship with them is so close that it constitutes a significant incentive to return to that country once the applicant has completed his studies.
The applicant gave evidence of community ties in India, in the form of membership of a church known as St Mary Catholic Church. He stated at hearing that he preaches at his church from time to time. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has community ties in his home country, but is not satisfied that those ties are so strong as to amount to a significant incentive to return there at the end of his studies in Australia.
The applicant’s evidence at hearing was that the highest level of education he achieved in India was the completion of the equivalent of Year 10. He has not provided any documentary evidence in support of that statement, but the Tribunal is prepared to accept it nonetheless. He stated at hearing that after he finished school, he worked as a driver, and that for the last 14 to 15 years before coming to Australia he did this on a self-employed basis. It was difficult to understand the precise nature of this work, but the Tribunal gathers that the applicant was driving a light truck or utility, transporting small loads. He stated that latterly, he had also been working giving driving lessons. His evidence was that he was making INR 40,000 to INR 50,000 (at current exchange rates approximately AUD 720 to AUD 910) per month before he came to Australia. Against, the applicant has provided no documentary corroboration for any of these statements. The Tribunal is, however prepared to accept them.
The applicant has given evidence that, with his wife, he owns real estate in India, in the form of a residential house with a market value of approximately AUD 55,000 at current exchange rates (see documents 9(d) and (e)). The Tribunal accepts this evidence.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant has economic ties to India, which would give him some incentive to return there when he has finished his studies in Australia. The Tribunal assesses that incentive to be relatively weak: There is no evidence that there is anything about the applicant’s line of work that fits it particularly for the applicant’s home country. To the contrary, the applicant’s skills as a driver could be gainfully employed in Australia as easily as in India. However, it should be said that there is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant has any economic reason to avoid returning to India.
The applicant stated at hearing that he has no military service obligations to perform on his return to India, and no concerns regarding civil or political unrest in that country. Relevant country information supports these claims, and the applicant’s age renders them entirely plausible. The Tribunal finds that these factors will not prevent the applicant from returning to India at the end of his studies.
The applicant was asked at hearing whether there were English courses available to him in India, and if so, why he had decided not to study there. He stated that there were courses available, but that they were not very good. He also stated that he preferred to learn English in an English-speaking country, where he could immerse himself in the language. That explanation is reasonable so far as it goes, but there is no evidence before the Tribunal of any research or investigation the applicant may have performed to identify available courses in India. The Tribunal therefore gives the applicant’s explanation only limited weight in his favour.
The applicant’s circumstances in Australia
The applicant gave evidence that he has a cousin in Australia, of whom he sees a good deal, but has no other family in this country. He also gave evidence that he is a member of a Punjabi church in Shepparton, Victoria, and is living with a friend from home, who has permanent residency and is working as a fruit picker. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has some personal ties in Australia that would give him an incentive to remain in this country once he finishes his courses.
The applicant gave evidence at hearing that he has no property in Australia, and has not worked in this country. There is nothing before the Tribunal to contradict that evidence. The Tribunal accepts it and finds that the applicant has no economic ties to Australia that would give him an incentive to remain in this country once he concludes his studies.
The applicant stated at hearing that he has not entered into any relationship in Australia, referring to the fact that he is married and that his Christian faith would prevent him from doing any such thing. Be that as it may, there is no evidence to the contrary before the Tribunal. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has not entered into any relationship of concern in Australia, in the sense of a relationship contracted or contrived to improve the applicant’s chances of a successful outcome for his visa application. Nor is there any direct evidence that the applicant is attempting to use the student visa system primarily to maintain residence in Australia, or that he is attempting to circumvent the intentions of the Australian migration programme in any other way. That does not, of course, exclude the possibility of inferring such intentions from indirect evidence.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that the applicant made any particular preparations for life or study in Australia before arriving in this country. Given his evidence that he arrived as the holder of an FA-600 visitor visa in order to explore Australia, that is perhaps not surprising. It does, however, raise some doubts as to whether he is a genuine student, or is seeking a student visa to maintain residence.
The applicant gave evidence at hearing as to the manner in which he chose his course provider. That evidence is, in effect, that he was referred to his provider by his migration agent, and that as a friend had recommended the same provider he did not consider any other provider, although he visited his current provider before enrolling. This is very much less in the way of investigation and assessment than one might reasonably expect from a genuine student. These circumstances weigh against the applicant.
Although the Tribunal has some reservations arising from the applicant’s circumstances in Australia, on the whole his evidence on this point weighs in his favour, although only marginally.
The value of the applicant’s courses for his future
The applicant’s evidence at hearing was that the highest level of education he reached in India was the completion of the equivalent of Year 10. He is currently studying English. Although it is difficult to say at what level the applicant is currently studying, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant has not regressed in his level of study.
The applicant was hard-pressed to explain at hearing to explain what precisely his plans for using his English language skills are. The only definite proposed use that he stated was to allow him to preach in English at English-language services at his church in India. The evidence before the Tribunal is insufficient to allow it to identify that church, to verify that it conducts English language services, or to verify that it allows lay preaching. It is clear, however, that the applicant has no plan to use his improved English language skills to improve his remuneration, or to seek work in a new field. There is, of course, no rigid rule that in order to obtain a student visa, a prospective students studies must be aimed at improving their economic situation. However, it is very difficult to see how the applicant can justify the expense and time involved in residing and studying in Australia.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s studies have little, if any, value for his future. This weighs strongly against accepting his claim to be a genuine temporary entrant.
The applicant’s immigration history
The applicant gave evidence that he had never travelled internationally before coming to Australia, and has not left this country since he arrived. He also stated that he had never before been refused a visa, and had never had a visa issued to him cancelled. He also gave evidence that he had no other Australian visa application on foot as at the date of hearing.
The applicant has now resided in Australia for approximately 2 years and 1 month. On the evidence before the Tribunal (which includes the applicant’s PRISMS record) he originally enrolled in a General English course, scheduled to run from 17 April 2023 to 14 April 2024. His PRISMS record indicates that he withdrew from that course on or about 20 June 2023, although when this was put to him pursuant to s 359AA of the Act (as it then stood) he stated (in effect) that this was incorrect that that the college itself had cancelled his enrolment on the basis that he had been refused a student visa and because he was too old to study. The Tribunal has some doubts as to the latter of those reasons, but considers the former plausible. Although the reason given in the applicant’s PRISMS record is on its face different to the applicant’s explanation, the Tribunal (as presently constituted) notes that the information entered into PRISMS is from time to time inaccurate.
The applicant enrolled in his current course on or about 30 July 2024, over a year from the date upon which his first enrolment was cancelled. Although the applicant was not obliged by any condition on his visa to maintain enrolment (having never been granted a student visa), that is a long period of non-enrolment for a genuine student. The Tribunal questioned the applicant as to why it took him so long to re-enrol. His response was that it took a long time for him to find a new college, and that he had investigated many of them, at least one as far away as Sydney. This evidence is inconsistent with that given by the applicant as to the manner in which he chose his course provider. His evidence on that point was that he had not considered any other provider. The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant investigated many colleges. The applicant has failed to give any good explanation for his gap in enrolment.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant enrolled some days after the date of the Tribunal’s request for information pursuant to s 359(2) of the Act (mentioned in paragraph 9(b) above). That request contained the following words:
As you applied for the visa on the basis of undertaking a course of study in Australia, it is a requirement of the visa for the applicant to be:
· enrolled in a registered course of study; and
· a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
Accordingly, you will need to provide sufficient information to satisfy us that you meet both of these visa requirements and you are now invited to give, in writing, all relevant information about the course(s) of study the main applicant is undertaking.

It is open to the Tribunal to infer, and the Tribunal does infer, that the applicant enrolled in his current course in order to remove this basic reason for affirmation of the delegate’s decision, and not primarily through any genuine desire or intention to study. This a very strong indication, albeit an indirect one, that the applicant is using the student visa system primarily in order to maintain evidence.
Taking these matters together, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s immigration history weighs against finding that he is a genuine temporary entrant.
Conclusion on cl 500.212(a)
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).
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.
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.
Dates of hearing(s): 25 September 2024
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Harpal Bajwa (MARN: 0955800)
Attachment – Direction No 108
DIRECTION NUMBER 108 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, CLARE O’NEIL, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated:
Clare O’Neil

Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security
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 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 108 – Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 108.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 23 March 2024.
Revocation
Direction No. 69, given under section 499 of the Act, is revoked.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Finally determined has the same meaning as is set out in subsections 5(9) and (9A) of the Act.
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 against the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications (as applicable).
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application.
This Direction applies in relation to Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made before 23 March 2024 but not finally determined on that date, including such visa applications that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for a Student visa and seek to satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, or an application for a Student Guardian visa and seek to satisfy the primary criteria.
Note: Direction No. 106 applies in relation to Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made on or after 23 March 2024, including visa applications made on or after that date that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa program 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 program 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 – 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 or Student Guardian 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 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;
d)whether 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.
iii.b. Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
iv.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;
v.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
vi.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
vii.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 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.