Poowapatthanon (Migration)

[2019] AATA 6222

Poowapatthanon (Migration) [2019] AATA 6222 (25 November 2019)

.

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Thannaree Poowapatthanon

CASE NUMBER:  1727670

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/2163353

MEMBER:Peter Newton

DATE:25 November 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 25 November 2019 at 1:48pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– genuine temporary entrant criterion not met– in Australia for a long time –immigration history –  using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212, 500.218

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1.    This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection on 26 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Act).

2.    The applicant applied for the visa on 19 June 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 (a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia. 

4.    The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 4 September 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

6. 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 intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)

7.    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.

Cl.500.212 (a) - Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

8. 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 (Direction). The 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.

9.    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.  I have considered and weighed-up all of the evidence and submissions of the applicant against the factors specified in the Direction.

The applicant’s circumstances in her home country

1. In relation to paragraph 9 (a) of the Direction, the applicant was born in Thailand on 24 August 1973.  At the time of the hearing, the applicant had recently completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management Course with the Westminster College and had commenced studying the Advance Diploma of Leadership and Management course at Westminster College.  The course has a start date of 8 April 2019 and a course end date of 12 January 2020.

2. During the hearing, I asked the applicant whether she had made any enquires to ascertain if a similar course, to her current course of study, was available in her home country.  She said she did not make any such enquiries.  The applicant said that the courses in Thailand mainly focus on theory whereas the Australian colleges focus on theory and practice.  The applicant provided to the Tribunal a Request for Student Visa Information (Request).  In the Request, in the part inviting the applicant to give details of the reasons for not undertaking any similar course in her home country or region, the applicant stated: “Studying in Australia gives me more practical experiences where I would only gain Theoretical knowledge in Thailand setting . . .”.  Implicitly, the applicant acknowledges that there are similar courses, to the course the applicant is currently studying, available in Thailand.  As the applicant acknowledges that she has not made any enquiries in relation to similar courses in Thailand it does not seem to me that she has the requisite knowledge to make an assessment of how any such courses compare to her current course of study.  For this reason, the applicant was unable to present any informed reason for not undertaking the study in her home country.  I give this factor some weight against the applicant.

3. In relation to paragraph 9 (b) of the Direction, the applicant was born in Thailand on 24 August 1973. She first arrived in Australia on 8 May 2011.  Since first arriving in Australia, she has returned to her home country on five separate occasions with each stay varying from between one week to one month.  The last time the applicant returned to her home country was in September 2016 for two weeks.

4. Before coming to Australia, the applicant studied accounting for three years (1988 to 1991) and studied for a Bachelor of Management at Nakorn Ratchasima Rajabhat University in Thailand (1998 to 2000).  The applicant also worked for a large milk company (Dumex Limited) as a trade marketing officer in Thailand from 2001 to 2011.

5. The applicant’s parents and three sisters continue to live in Thailand.  The applicant adduced evidence that her father owns land in Thailand.  She says the land is in a very good location.  She says it is located on the main road which is close to a department store and shopping centre.  The applicant says she plans to complete her current course of study and return to Thailand to establish a café.  She plans to open the café in the house where her family lives, which I presume stands on the land her father owns. 

6. The applicant’s ties to her home country give her some incentive to return to her home country.  However, the applicant has been here for over 8 years.  She has not completed any course above the vocational education sector and save for the Advanced Diploma of Hospitality which she studied for two years, the applicant has maintained enrolment in short courses of no more than one year.  Overall, I consider that the applicant’s personal ties to her home country do not serve as a significant incentive for her to return to her home country.  I give this factor some weight against the applicant. 

7. In relation to paragraph 9 (c) of the Direction, during the hearing the applicant accepted that the economic circumstances in Australia are better than the economic circumstances in Thailand.  Since first arriving in Australia, the applicant has worked almost continuously in three successive jobs on a part time basis.  Since November 2016 the applicant has worked as a pastry chef.  In the Request, the applicant declared that her part time salary was $AUD22,640 per annum.  In the Request the applicant also declared that she would expect to receive between approximately 30,000 to 50,000 Baht per month (360,000 to 600,000 Baht per annum) in Thailand using the qualifications she will gain from her current course of study.  Using the current currency conversion rate of 1 THB = 0.04869 AUD, the annual income the applicant currently earns on a part time basis exceeds the annual income the applicant could hope to earn using the qualifications she will gain from her current course of study if she returns to her home country and secures paid work.  The applicant gave no evidence of any assets of significance she personally owns in Thailand.  Having regard to all of the evidence, the length of time the applicant has been in Australia, the continuity of work she has obtained whilst in Australia and the disparity between incomes she currently receives and could expect to receive upon returning to her home country if she obtains paid work, I consider that the economic circumstances of the applicant would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to her home country.  I give this factor some weight against the applicant.

8. In relation to paragraph 9 (d) of the Direction, in the Request the applicant declared that she had concerns about military service commitments in her home country.  However, during the hearing when I asked the applicant what her concerns were, she said she had none.   Therefore there are no military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to his home country.  I consider this factor to be neutral. 

9. In relation to paragraph 9 (e) of the Direction, in the Request the applicant declared:

   “I believe that political has a nature of un-stability and it is very common for Thailand to have political conflicts or disagreements , however, the situation will reach an agreed point where all qualified leaders can eventually start running the country fairly and respectful”

10. During the hearing the applicant said that she was concerned about political unrest and the economy in Thailand.  However, she said she believed the current government had the ability to develop the economy and deal with each crisis as it arises. Overall I consider this factor neutral. 

11. In relation to paragraph 10 of the Direction, the evidence does not enable me to make an assessment of the applicant’s circumstances in her home country relative to the circumstances of others in his home country.  Accordingly, I regard this factor as neutral.

The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia 

1. As stated, the applicant first arrived in Australia on 8 May 2011.  Since first arriving in Australia, she has returned to her home country on five separate occasions with varying stays of between one week and up to one month on each occasion.  The last time the applicant returned to her home country was in September 2016 for two weeks.

2. The Request discloses that since first arriving in Australia the applicant has worked almost continuously in three successive jobs on a part time basis.  Since November 2016 the applicant has worked as a pastry chef.    

3. In the Request, the applicant declared that she has completed the following courses and is currently studying the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management course shown below:

Education Institution	Course name	Course start date	Course completion date
Lloyds International College	English Course	05/2011	10/2011
Lloyds International College	English Course	01/2012	03/2012
Evolution Hospitality Institute	Certificate III in Patisserie	01/2013	11/2013
Australian College	Advanced Diploma of Hospitality	05/2015	05/2017
Westminster College	Certificate IV in Business Administration	07/2017	07/2018
Westminster College	Diploma of Leadership and Management	07/2018	06/2019
Westminster College	Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management	07/2018	06/2019

1. During the hearing, the applicant accepted that since first arriving in Australia, she has developed and maintained friendships with persons she has studied and worked with.  She said that most of the people she has studied with have returned to Thailand.

2. During the hearing, the applicant said that she has lived in her current place of residence for approximately six years.  She shares the accommodation with others.  She has become acquainted with the family that live next door and other people who live in the surrounding units in the building the applicant lives in.

3. The applicant said that her younger brother has lived in Australia for between eight to nine years.  He is in Australia on a work visa.

4. In relation to paragraph 11(a) of the Direction, the evidence set out in paragraphs 21 to 26 above establishes that the applicant has established ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia.  I give this factor significant weight against the applicant.

5. In relation to paragraph 11(b) of the Direction, overall I am not satisfied that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme.  At all times she has been enrolled in a registered course of study.  I would expect applicants to comply with their visa obligations and not to use the student visa programme for ulterior purposes.  I do not think applicants should be given credit for acting lawfully.  Accordingly, I consider that this factor is neutral. 

6. In relation to paragraph 11(c) of the Direction, overall the evidence indicates that the student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence.  This evidence includes the length of time the applicant has been in Australia, the fact that since first arriving in Australia the applicant has not completed any course above the vocational education sector and save for the Advanced Diploma of Hospitality which she studied for two years, the applicant has maintained enrolment in short courses of no more than one year.  The applicant also studied and I infer obtaining a Bachelor of Management and Accounting in Thailand before coming to Australia.  The courses of study the applicant has studied in Thailand and has and is currently studying in Australia indicates the applicant is not seeking to advance her tertiary education.  Accordingly, I give this factor some weight against the applicant. 

7. In relation to paragraph 11(d) of the Direction, there is no evidence that the applicant has entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome.  I do not think applicants should be given credit for not contriving a relationship for a successful Student visa outcome.  Accordingly, I consider this factor is neutral.

8. In relation to paragraph 11(e) of the Direction, at the time of the hearing, the applicant had completed various courses of study.  She has lived and worked in in Australia since 8 May 2011.  She demonstrated basic English skills.  I infer from the evidence that the applicant has acquired a sound knowledge of living in Australia.  The evidence establishes that she has attained a reasonably informed knowledge of her current course of study and of the education provider (Westminster College).  Overall I give these factors some weight in favour of the applicant.     

Value of course to the applicant’s future

1. In relation to paragraph 12(a) of the Direction, the applicant says that she wishes to utilise the knowledge she has acquired and will acquire from her current course of study to open a café in Thailand.  She has provided a detailed business plan for the café business and during the hearing outlined her plans to open a café in Thailand.  During the hearing, I asked whether there was any reason preventing the applicant returning now to her home country with the knowledge and skills she has acquired since first coming to Australia and set up a cafe.  The applicant said she would like to complete her current course of study and not go “half finished”.  She said that completing her current course of study will give her greater confidence to open her own business.  During the hearing, the applicant explained how completing her current course of study will assist her in establishing a café in Thailand. 

2. The applicant’s current course of study is in education terms less than the courses of study she undertook and completed in Thailand before arriving in Australia.  It appears to me that the skills the applicant says she will acquire from the proposed course of study will in assist her with setting up a café, obtaining employment or improving employment prospects in her home country.  Overall I assess this factor as neutral. 

3. In relation to paragraph 12(b) of the Direction, I am satisfied that the applicant’s current course of study is relevant to the applicant’s past employment in Australia and proposed future business venture.  I give this factor some weight in favour of the applicants. 

4. In relation to paragraph 12(c) of the Direction, during the hearing the applicant accepted that the remuneration she could expect to receive in her home country is less than compared with Australia using the qualifications to be gained from her current course of study.  I give this factor some weight against the applicant.

Applicant’s immigration history 

1. In relation to paragraph 14(a) (i) of the Direction, the Decision Record indicates that: - the applicant was granted the initial Student (Class TU subclass 570) visa on 25 March 2011 which was valid until 9 November 2011; since first arriving in Australia the applicant has held either a student visa or associated bridging visas; and at the time the application under review was lodged, the applicant held a Student (Class TU subclass 572) visa granted on 26 February 2015 which was valid until 12 July 2017. This is confirmed by the applicant in the Request.  Save for the application under review, the applicant has not applied for any other visas.  I consider this factor to be neutral.   

2. In relation to paragraph 14(a) (ii) of the Direction, the applicant has not previously applied for visas to other countries.  I do not consider that this factor applies.

3. In relation to paragraph 14(b) (i) of the Direction, the applicant said she has not travelled to Australia prior to first arriving on 25 March 2011.  The evidence establishes that the applicant has complied with the conditions of the visas previously issued to her.  I would expect all visa holders to lawfully comply with conditions of a visa.  I do not think applicants should be given credit for acting lawfully. Accordingly, I consider that this factor is neutral. 

4. In relation to paragraph 14(b) (ii) of the Direction, there is no evidence that the applicant previously held visas that were cancelled or considered for cancellation.  In the circumstances, I consider this factor neutral.

1. In relation to paragraph 14(b) (iii) of the Direction, the applicant has been in Australia since 25 March 2011 save for the periods of time she has returned to Thailand.  I consider that the student visa program is being used to maintain residency in Australia rather than due to a genuine interest in study and academic progress. Accordingly, I give this factor some weight against the applicant.

2. In relation to paragraph 14(b) (iv) of the Direction, the applicant says she has not travelled to countries other than Australia.  Accordingly, this factor does not apply.

If the applicant is a minor – the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant

1. In relation to paragraph 15 of the Direction, the applicant is not a minor.  Accordingly, the consideration of the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicants is not relevant to my determination. 

Any other relevant matter 

1. Having regard to all of the evidence, I do not consider that there are any other matters that are relevant to the assessment of the applicant’s genuine intention to temporarily stay in Australia.

Conclusion

1. I have used the factors specified in the Direction as a guide and not a checklist for the purpose of assessing the applicant’s genuine intention to temporarily stay in Australia.  Overall, when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, I consider that the factors against the applicant outweigh the factors in favour of the applicant.  After weighing up these factors as a whole, I am not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.  Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212 (a).

2. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

DECISION

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

Peter Newton
Member

Attachment – Direction No.69

DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS

(Section 499)

I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

Dated: 18 April 2016

Peter Dutton

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection

Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.

Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary

Name of Direction

This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.

It may be cited as Direction No. 69.

Commencement

This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.

Interpretation

Act means the Migration Act 1958.

Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.

Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.

Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.

Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.

Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa

Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

Application

This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.

The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.

Preamble

The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia.  A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.

An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.

The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:

a.the applicant’s circumstances; and

b.the applicant’s immigration history; and

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

d.any other relevant matter.

This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.

Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily

Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions

Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion

1. Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

2. Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:

   a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and

   b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).

3. Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.

4. Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:

   a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;

   b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;

   c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and

   d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.

5. An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.

The applicant’s circumstances

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

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

3. Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.

The applicant’s circumstances in their home country

1. When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

   a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;

   b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;

   c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;

   d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and

   e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.

2. Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.

The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia

1. In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

   a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;

   b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;

   c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;

   dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and

   e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.

Value of the course to the applicant’s future

1. Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:

   a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and

   b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and

   c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.

The applicant's immigration history

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

2. When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:

   a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:

   i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and

   ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.

   b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:

   i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;

   ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;

   iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and

   iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance

If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant

1. If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.

Any other relevant matters

1. Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.