Pawandeep Kaur (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 1468

PAWANDEEP KAUR (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 1468 (28 JULY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicants:Mrs Pawandeep Kaur
Mr Sukhjinder Singh
Master Japinder Singh Purewal
Ms Japji Kaur
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
Tribunal Number:  2506750

Tribunal:General Member W Banfield
Place:Canberra
Date: 28 July 2025
Decision:The decisions under review are affirmed.

Statement made on 28 July 2025 at 5:47pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – Federal Circuit and Family Court remittal – genuine student – genuine temporary entrant – courses completed – limited plans to establish a business – return visit to India – family commitments in home country – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 499; Direction No 108
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.212; r 1.12
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of decisions made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 4 September 2023 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 7 July 2023. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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 visas 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 they were not satisfied the primary applicant met the criteria of a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, as required for the grant of a student visa.
The matter is before the Tribunal because of a Federal Circuit Court order remitting the matter for reconsideration.
The applicants Pawandeep Kaur (the applicant) and Sukhjinder Singh (the secondary applicant) appeared before the Tribunal on 10 June 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The secondary applicants Japinder Singh Purewal and Japji Kaur are the minor children of the applicants and were not required to attend. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Hindi and English languages.
The applicants were assisted in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
The applicants submitted the following documents to the Tribunal in support of the application for review. This included the information submitted to the Tribunal (differently constituted) when the applicants appeared on 15 January 2024.
·Department of Home Affairs (the Department) notification and decision record dated 4 September 2023.
·Completed Request for Student Visa Information form received on 11 October 2023.
·Valuations for a house and agricultural land in Jalandhar in the name of Paramjit Singh dated 17 October 2023.
·Valuation of agricultural land in the name of Sarabjit Kaur dated 17 October 2023.
·Attendance letter and transcript from Lead College dated 23 October 2023 in the name of the applicant in relation to enrolment in a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery.
·Confirmation of Enrolment certificates (COEs) for a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery, Certificate IV in Kitchen Management, and Diploma of Hospitality Management.
·Certification and transcript for a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery dated 27 October 2024.
·Certification and transcript for a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management dated 16 April 2025.
·Attendance letter and transcript from Lead College dated 27 May 2025 in the name of the applicant for a Diploma of Hospitality Management.
·Applicants’ Indian passport biometric information.
The Tribunal also considered the evidence provided to the Department at the time of application.
Tribunal had access to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record which accurately lists Ms Kaur’s enrolment history in Australia and is consistent with her own evidence about her current and previous studies.
Evidence at the hearing - Pawandeep Kaur
Ms Kaur said she first came to Australia on 7 August 2022 because her sister was pregnant, and she came to help her. She said her husband and children came on 14 December 2022 to attend a party. Ms Kaur confirmed she has two children who were born in India. The Tribunal asked the applicant why she decided to apply for a student visa and study in Australia. She said she planned to go back to India and start a business. She completed her Plus 2 at high school in India and had worked in a restaurant. The secondary applicant Mr Singh had worked in agriculture in their home country.
In Australia Ms Kaur has a married sister with two children. Her parents and her mother-in-law and father-in-law remain in India. She said she has a brother who is living in Canada. Ms Kaur is currently studying a Diploma of Hospitality Management that is due to be completed in October 2025. She said she is not planning any further study and will return to India afterwards. Ms Kaur advised she lives with her sister who supports her financially. Neither she nor her husband are currently employed. It was claimed her sister pays for all expenses for Ms Kaur’s family including her children who are attending school. When asked where her sister’s income is derived from, Ms Kaur said her brother-in-law has a trucking business. Her sister does not work because she has young children. The Tribunal asked Ms Kaur how her brother-in-law is able to pay all expenses for four adults and four children. She replied that he is able to manage.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about property documents that were submitted in evidence. Ms Kaur confirmed they relate to a house and agricultural land owned by her parents-in-law. When asked about the relevance of those documents, Ms Kaur advised they derive income from the land. Ms Kaur clarified that her sister supports her but if they need funds, it is sent from India.
Regarding her reasons for choosing to study in the field of hospitality, Ms Kaur stated she plans to return to India and open a business because she loves cooking. Ms Kaur was asked about her experience working in cooking or hospitality. She replied that she worked as a chef in India but in Australia she is only studying. Ms Kaur stated she plans to work in India and then open a hotel. The Tribunal asked her to provide more details about her plans. Ms Kaur then said she will open a restaurant in India. When asked how she will accomplish that, Ms Kaur did not respond. She was asked if she has any savings or property in hers or her husband’s name. Ms Kaur replied “parents-in-law”. She was asked how her parents-in-law having a house and agricultural land will assist her. She said they will provide money to open a restaurant.
Ms Kaur said her incentive to return to India is her parents and in-laws because they are old, and she and her husband will look after them. Asked if she has any other incentive to return, Ms Kaur hesitated and then referred to agricultural land. The Tribunal asked the representative who was accompanying Ms Kaur not to prompt her answers as he appeared to be doing. The Tribunal asked if the applicants have returned to India since they arrived. Ms Kaur replied they returned once in 2022 but since then have not done so due to her studies.
It was submitted Ms Kaur has completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery and a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management while in Australia. She is currently studying a Diploma of Hospitality Management. Mr Singh’s activities in Australia were said to be dropping off and picking up their children from school and taking Ms Kaur to college. Ms Kaur was asked if she had any further submissions and she said she did not.
Evidence at the hearing - Sukhjinder Singh
Mr Singh confirmed his wife had travelled to Australia to visit her sister. He said Ms Kaur came because her sister had a baby then after three months he came with their children. They had been invited to attend a party following the birth of the baby. Mr Singh said he had worked in farming and agriculture in India on his father’s land, and land that he leased. He said he has not worked in Australia and neither has Ms Kaur. The Tribunal asked how his family of four are supported financially in Australia. Mr Singh said his father in India pays his brother in Australia from his agricultural income. He was asked how much money is received from India and the applicant said approximately 30,000 Indian rupees per month. He was asked how they pay for the study fees for their children and Ms Kaur. He said his brother and sister-in-law do, because of his brother’s transport business. Mr Singh explained his brother is married to his wife’s sister.
Mr Singh was asked if he works for his brother’s trucking business, and he said he does not. As to how his brother can support him as well as his own family, Mr Singh said it is a large business with six or seven trucks that is doing really well. Regarding their plans after Ms Kaur finishes studying in October 2025, Mr Singh said they will go back to India to open a restaurant. He advised Ms Kaur is not planning any more study. It was submitted the applicants’ children are going to school in Australia, but they will return to India with the family. According to Mr Singh, he does not have property or assets in his name in India but will inherit the family property because his brother is an Australian citizen.
Mr Singh said his incentive to return to India are his parents and his wife’s parents as they are alone, and they will look after them. He submitted that they have land and will start a restaurant on that land. Mr Singh advised he only has one brother. Neither Mr Singh nor Ms Kaur had any further submissions.
Representative’s submissions
Mr Malhotra submitted Ms Kaur has demonstrated a genuine intention to study during her time in Australia and has not wasted any time at any stage of the visa process. He confirmed her current enrolment at Leads College where she has been maintaining attendance. He advised Ms Kaur has completed her studies in line with future goals and she has demonstrated that she has close family ties and substantial assets. When asked what the substantial assets are, Mr Malhotra referred to the property of her parents-in-law that her husband will inherit. It was submitted Mr Singh’s intentions are to support his wife while she is here as they share the same commitments. The Tribunal was asked to reconsider the application in a favourable manner.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decisions 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 primary applicant Pawandeep Kaur is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because she intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
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 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.
The Tribunal considered the applicants’ circumstances in India, including whether the primary applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking study in her home country or region if a similar course is available there. In her Student Visa Information form submitted to the Tribunal on 11 October 2023 Ms Kaur stated course curricula in India focuses on theory and graduates lack practical experience. It was claimed that due to a lack of resources, local institutions in small towns in India are not technologically competent or advanced and do not provide students with current skills. Ms Kaur referred to her education provider, Lead College in Perth, as offering high quality education. The Tribunal is satisfied Ms Kaur has provided reasonable reasons for not undertaking hospitality studies in her region of India.
Regarding personal and economic ties to her home country, Ms Kaur declared she has parents and her parents-in-law in India. Neither her nor Ms Kaur’s or her husband’s siblings live in India. Both applicants claimed they will return to India in future to take care of their parents and to open a restaurant. The Tribunal accepts Ms Kaur has ongoing personal ties to India due to the presence of her parents and parents-in-law but is not satisfied those ties serve as a significant incentive to return to her home country. It was submitted Ms Kaur’s parents-in-law own residential and agricultural land which the Tribunal accepts, however, there is no evidence of property or assets in India in the name of the applicant or her spouse. It was reported that Mr Singh was previously employed in farming and agriculture in India. Ms Kaur did not provide any details of a work history or past employment. Ms Kaur and Mr Singh claim they plan to open a restaurant on land that their family owns. It was not explained how they propose to open a restaurant either in a residential property or on agricultural land. The Tribunal found the evidence regarding plans for a restaurant in India to be vague and lacking in detail and therefore unreliable. In addition, the Tribunal is not satisfied an inheritance of property in future provides an incentive to return to India as property and assets can be sold, transferred, or managed by others in the absence of the owner.
Ms Kaur recorded in her Application for a Student Visa that her employment status in India was ‘Housewife’ from January 2014. In the Student Visa Information form submitted to the Tribunal Ms Kaur did not list any work experience before arriving in Australia. During the Tribunal hearing Ms Kaur was asked if she had any work experience in hospitality. She said she had worked as a chef in India, but in Australia she is only studying. The Tribunal notes Ms Kaur did submit some evidence to the Tribunal (differently constituted) at a previous hearing regarding a work history in India. The Tribunal is prepared to accept Ms Kaur has some relevant work experience in her home country.
In Australia the applicant has a sister and brother-in-law (her brother-in-law being her husband’s brother) and is accompanied by her spouse and two minor children. The children who are aged 10 and 5 are said to be attending school while in Australia. Ms Kaur has a brother who is living in Canada. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s immediate family and her and her husband’s siblings being in Australia provide an incentive for her to remain.
The Tribunal considered Ms Kaur’s knowledge of living in Australia, her course of study and the associated education provider. The Tribunal accepts Ms Kaur has been enrolled and studying since she applied for a Student visa on 7 July 2023 and has so far completed two certificate level courses in commercial cookery and kitchen management. The Tribunal places some weight in her favour on having continued studying up to and including diploma level. Nevertheless, considering her potential circumstances in Australia, the Tribunal finds Ms Kaur’s qualifications have application in Australia where economic conditions are more favourable than India and provides an incentive for her remain in Australia.
The Tribunal assessed whether Ms Kaur is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with her current level of education and whether the course will assist her to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in her home country. The evidence indicates Ms Kaur completed secondary school in India. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied vocational studies in cookery and hospitality are consistent with her education level.
Ms Kaur claimed she and her husband plan to return to India after she completes her current course in October 2025 and that she is not planning to undertake any further study. It was claimed Ms Kaur plans to work in the hospitality field and open a restaurant in future. She referred to property and land owned by her parents-in-law as being the proposed site for a business and their income as a source of financial support. The Tribunal accepts studies in commercial cookery, kitchen management and hospitality management are relevant to Ms Kaur’s claims about proposed future employment in her home country. Australian qualifications would also be of value to a career in either commercial cookery or hospitality management in India. However, the Tribunal found the evidence provided about Ms Kaur’s career plans once she returns to India to be vague and lacking in detail. As Ms Kaur and Mr Singh declared they and their children will be returning to India quite soon, in October 2025, the Tribunal expects a greater level of detail would be provided.
During the Tribunal hearing, both Ms Kaur and Mr Singh stated they plan to start a business in India. The Tribunal does not find bare assertions that Ms Kaur plans to work in hospitality and open or start a restaurant in India without any specific details to be persuasive. No evidence was provided regarding the feasibility of such a plan, how it would be developed or operated, or the remuneration Ms Kaur could expect to receive using the qualifications to be gained from her studies in Australia. The Tribunal finds the applicants have had ample opportunity to present their case prior to and during the hearing. They also had the assistance of a migration agent. Based on the evidence provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied Ms Kaur has demonstrated she genuinely intends to return to India to work, or to establish a restaurant in India on land owned by her parents-in-law as claimed.

An applicant’s immigration history refers to both their visa and travel history. Ms Kaur arrived in Australia on 7 August 2022 and returned to India after two months. She travelled to Australia again on 29 May 2023 and applied for the visa that is the subject of this review on 7 July 2023. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the applicant has not complied with conditions attached to any visa either currently or previously held.
The Tribunal has assessed the evidence individually and cumulatively. While there are some aspects of the applicant’s case that weigh somewhat in her favour such as enrolment to study and completion of courses, on balance the Tribunal finds the weight of evidence is against the applicant in assessing whether she is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student who intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. 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).
In conclusion, 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.
Members of Family Unit – Secondary visa applicants
The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one member of the family unit. Other members of the family unit who are applicants for a visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. Member of the family unit is defined in reg 1.12 and includes spouse or de facto partner, dependent child and relatives of the family head or spouse of the family head who does not have a spouse or de facto partner and is usually resident in the family head’s household and is dependent on the family head.
As the Tribunal does not accept that the first named visa applicant satisfies the primary criteria, the secondary applicants are unable to meet the criteria because they are not members of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in cl. 500.212. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to indicate the secondary applicants satisfy the criteria to be granted student visas as primary applicants.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Dates of hearing(s): 10 June 2025
Representative for the Applicant: Mr Aman Malhotra (MARN: 1568950)
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.