Rafique (Migration)

Rafique (Migration) [2019] AATA 6249 (4 December 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Muhammad Fawad Rafique
CASE NUMBER:  1816059
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/1700613
MEMBER:Peter Booth
DATE:4 December 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Statement made on 04 December 2019 at 9:31am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met – lengthy periods of non-enrolment – poor record of completion of courses – unsatisfactory course progress – using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cl 500.212

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 30 May 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 17 April 2018. 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 (the Regulations) because the applicant was not an genuine temporary entrant.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 20 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by his registered migration agent.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)
Clause 500.212 requires as follows:
The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because:
(a)the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s circumstances; and
(ii)the applicant’s immigration history; and
(iii)if the applicant is a minor—the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
(iv)any other relevant matter; and
(b)the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to:
(i)the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of a visa previously held by the applicant (if any); and
(ii)the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject; and
(c)of any other relevant matter.
Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?
In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:
·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;
·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;
·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.
The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The applicant gave evidence at the hearing, the substance of which was as follows. The applicant had read the decision of the delegate dated 30 May 2018 refusing his application for a student visa. The applicant understood that the issue for determination was whether he was a genuine temporary entrant.
The applicant arrived in Australia on 2 March 2008. Since his arrival in Australia, the applicant has returned to his home country on several occasions, in January 2009 for five months, in October 2010 for eight months, in October 2012 for eight months, in November 2016 for four months, and in September 2019 for one month. When the applicant arrived in Australia he was the holder of a student (Subclass 572) visa. He said that he intended to study “a certificate in computing and a diploma in computing”. The first student visa expired in March 2002, he then obtained a 573 student visa which expired in August 2014, a second 573 visa which expired in March 2016, a third 573 visa which expired in August 2016 and then a Subclass VC485 visa which was valid from October 2016 to April 2018.
The applicant has undertaken significant study in Australia. He completed a University foundation study from January 2008 to October 2008, a Diploma of Computing between March 2009 and October 2012, and a Bachelor of Information Technology (Business Systems) between July 2013 and July 2016. He is currently studying a Graduate Certificate in Management (Learning), which he commenced in November 2019 and expects to complete in November 2020. He holds a future enrolment in a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership, which is due to commence in November 2020 and to be completed in November 2021.
The applicant’s most recent application for a student visa was made in April 2018. It was refused on 30 May 2018 and is the subject of the application for review to this Tribunal.
The Tribunal enquired as to the applicant’s intention when studying the degree in information technology and business. He said that when he was “doing business” most of the courses were basic. He added that “these courses are advanced and they will help me in Pakistan, they will help boost my career”. He did not elaborate.
The Tribunal enquired as to the applicant’s intention when he returns to Pakistan to which he said, “I want to start my career, in information technology field”. He did not elaborate. The Tribunal enquired whether he could undertake his intended courses in Pakistan to which he said “no not exactly but I can do an equivalent clause in Pakistan”. The Tribunal invited the applicant to explain the change in the nature of his study from higher education courses to vocational courses to which he said, “the leadership studies are basic, I am told these subjects will have higher prospects in Pakistan.” He did not elaborate. The applicant was asked to explain the change in direction of his studies from computing and information technology to leadership and vocational courses. He said that “most of the subjects were already in the bachelor degree courses but they were basic, degrees related to both management and IT subjects, these new courses are related to management”. He did not elaborate. The Tribunal enquired whether he had deferred his courses when he returned to Pakistan for extended periods. He said that he had no evidence to produce to the hearing. He went on to say that he deferred a diploma course in 2009 and that he had not deferred any other courses. He did not elaborate. The Tribunal observed that there have been lengthy periods when he was not enrolled to which he answered yes. It appeared that there were five instances when this occurred, which he said were “due to illness”. The tribunal invited the applicant to provide any evidence for the reasons for not being enrolled. He was unable to provide any response.
The Tribunal enquired as to his prospective income when he returns to Pakistan to which he said, “about AU$5,000 monthly or AU$96,000 annually”. He is not currently working in Australia. His immediate family in Pakistan comprises his mother, brother and sister. He has one brother living in Australia. His assets in Pakistan comprise a house, which he estimated to have a value of approximately AU$100,000.
The applicant’s migration agent was invited to make any submissions and he referred to a subvention dated 13 November 2019, which has been provided to the Tribunal. The Tribunal informed the migration agent that the submission had been read and would be taken into account. It is generally consistent with the applicant’s oral evidence at the hearing. Paragraph 6 of the submission helpfully clarifies the applicant’s study history and visa status from time to time:
6. For the purposes of clarity, a table has been produced below which contains a timeline of the Review Applicant's academic history in Australia.
Paragraph 10 of the migration agent submissions also, helpfully, summarises the periods of an enrolment as follows:
10. Throughout the course of the Review Applicant's study in Australia, the Review Applicant and his family have struggled with a number of serious health issues, which have necessitated the return of the Review Applicant to Pakistan for extended periods of time. These periods are outlined below:
Paragraph 14 of the migration agent submissions asserts that:
The Review Applicant has a demonstrated career plan in Pakistan, including identifying the kind of company he wishes to gain employment within and has clearly chosen courses that will give him the best chance to achieve this goal.
The Tribunal enquired whether there was evidence to support this assertion to which the migration agent said there was no evidence before the Tribunal. Similarly paragraph 27 of the migration agent submission asserts that:
The Review Applicant intends to obtain a position as a Senior Analyst in a large company in Pakistan, which would allow him to combine all his skills and qualifications. He instructs that positions in the IT industry are highly sought after in Pakistan's growing economy and that his management and leadership qualifications will make him more attractive to employers and enable him to secure a higher management position.
In answer to questions from the Tribunal, the migration agent said there was no evidence before the Tribunal to substantiate that assertion.
The applicant was invited to comment on the exchange between the Tribunal and the migration agent to which he said, “I would like to be an IT officer, I many school friends working in news channels, it would be good to get a job offer in Pakistan”. He did not elaborate.
In considering whether the applicant has met the genuine temporary entry criterion, the Tribunal had regard to the following factors consistent with cl.500.212 and the Direction. The factors were used to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether he has satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in his home country. The applicant is unmarried and is from Pakistan. The applicant has provided evidence of social, direct family and financial ties to his home country or other economic incentives to return. When considering the applicant’s circumstances in his home country, the Tribunal therefore finds that he has been able to demonstrate ties to act as an incentive to return to his home country at the completion of the proposed study. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have family ties to Pakistan, however given the time the applicant has spent in Australia and the intended period of future stay in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a significant incentive for the applicant to return to Pakistan.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. The applicant first arrived in Australia on 2 March 2008 as a holder of Subclass 572 visa. The proposed study would extend the applicant’s stay until at least November 2021. The Tribunal finds that the length of this proposed additional stay creates serious concerns that the applicant is studying for the purposes of staying in Australia. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that plans can change, this is not the conduct of a genuine student. Rather, it suggests the applicant has decided to extend his stay in Australia by utilising the student visa programme.
The Tribunal does not place weight on the value of the course to the applicant’s future, including remuneration and career prospects in the applicant’s home country. He gave extremely vague evidence in this regard.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s study history since arrival. He commenced study in October 2008. Since that time he has completed the University foundation course, a Diploma of Computing, Bachelor of Information Technology, the professional year and is currently studying a Graduate Certificate of Management. He then intends to study a graduate diploma in strategic leadership. The relevance of these courses to a future career plan was the subject of very vague evidence.
The Tribunal notes that this course plan is inconsistent with the applicant’s plans when he initially entered Australia. The applicant now wishes to pursue a Graduate Diploma of Strategic Leadership in Australia. The course is asserted to have relevance to very vague future plans.
The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established that study will provide him with significant benefits in his proposed career plan, considering the cost of the study and the fact that the applicant already has qualifications in computing, information technology and strategic leadership. The Tribunal is therefore not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed additional study has a realistic prospect of providing significant value to his future beyond the qualifications he already holds.
The Tribunal has given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter. The Tribunal finds that there are no other relevant matters to consider that may be beneficial or adverse to the applicant, and that this aspect is not relevant.
The Tribunal has considered all the information provided with the visa application. After weighing up these factors as a whole, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been able to satisfy it that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia as a student.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence and has taken into account the applicant’s economic circumstances in the applicant’s home country relative to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. Given the disparity in economic circumstances between Pakistan and Australia the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has a significant incentive to return to Pakistan. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate substantial ties or personal assets in the applicant’s home country which diminishes the applicant’s incentive to return to Pakistan
The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s intention to live in Australia may be motivated by factors other than study. The applicant has not demonstrated any clear and substantial improvements arising from the applicant’s proposed study which will outweigh the significant time and monetary commitment this course will require. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of the applicant’s proposed course to the applicant’s future.
The tribunal notes that since arriving in Australia in March 2008 the applicant has departed and returned to his home country on several occasions for a total of approximately 26 months. These occasions were generally said to coincide with periods of ill-health of his relatives. However notwithstanding the five occasions on which the applicant has returned to his home country and the total period that he has been outside Australia the Tribunal is not convinced that the applicant is significant reasons to return to Pakistan at the completion of his studies because of the extended period that he has been living in Australia.
On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for a further stay as a full-time student. Whilst the applicant clearly wishes to stay and continue to study in Australia, it is noted that the applicant was previously granted several visas specifically to enable the applicant to achieve that goal. It therefore appears to the Tribunal that the applicant has commenced studying for the purposes of the visa application only in order to secure a further stay in Australia rather than due to a genuine interest in this area of study. The Tribunal has also given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter and finds there to be no other relevant matter to the assessment of the applicant’s intentions to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal has considered all information provided by the applicant in support of the applicant’s application. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the information the applicant has provided regarding the applicant’s circumstances in the applicant’s home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future, the applicant’s immigration history and other relevant matters are sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.
On the contrary, the factors indicate that the applicant appears to have enrolled in the present course for the purposes of securing a further student visa rather than a view to a genuine interest in study and overall academic progress. The applicant appears to be using the student visa programme as a means of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia and does not have a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction No.69: economic circumstances of the applicant; any potential military service in Pakistan; political or civil unrest circumstances in Pakistan; remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in Pakistan or a third country compared with Australia; circumstances in Pakistan relative to Australia or any other country; and the applicant’s circumstances in Pakistan relative to others in that country.
The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances, which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia. Given the amount of time the applicant has now spent in Australia, the Tribunal is concerned the student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.
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.
Peter Booth
Member

Attachment – Direction No.69
DIRECTION NUMBER 69 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, PETER DUTTON, Minister for Immigration and Border Protection give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated: 18 April 2016
Peter Dutton

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection
Note: Section 499(1) of the Act empowers the Minister to give a written direction to a person or body having functions or powers under the Act if the directions are about the performance of those functions; or the exercise of those powers. Under section 499(2) of the Act, the direction must not be inconsistent with the Act or the Migration Regulations 1994. Under section 499(2A) of the Act, the person or body must comply with the Direction.
Part 1 of Direction No. 69 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 69 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 69.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 1 July 2016.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Genuine temporary entrant means a person who satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa or Student Guardian visa applications.
Genuine temporary entrant criterion refers to clause 500.212(a), 500.312(a) and 590.215(a) at Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Home country has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Regulations mean the Migration Regulations 1994.
Relative has the same meaning as the definition of that term in regulation 1.03 in Part 1 of the Regulations.
Spouse has the same meaning as the definition of the term in section 5F of the Act.
Student visa means a Subclass 500 (Student) visa
Student Guardian visa means a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
Application
This Direction applies to delegates performing functions or exercising powers under section 65 of the Act in relation to assessing an applicant’s temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications in Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa application.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for either a Student visa seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Student Guardian visa.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa programme that enables people who are not Australian citizens or Australian permanent residents to undertake study in Australia. A person who wants to undertake a course of study under the student visa programme must obtain a student visa before they can commence a course of study in Australia. A successful applicant must be both a genuine temporary entrant and a genuine student.
An applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances that support a genuine intention to temporarily enter and remain in Australia, notwithstanding the potential for this intention to change over time to an intention to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia for an extended period of time or permanently.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications requires the Minister to be satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to:
a.the applicant’s circumstances; and
b.the applicant’s immigration history; and
c.if the applicant is a minor — the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
d.any other relevant matter.
This Direction provides guidance to decision makers on what factors require consideration when assessing the above paragraphs a to d, to determine whether the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily.
Decision makers must take a reasonable and balanced approach between the need to make a timely decision on a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application and the need to identify those applicants who, at time of decision, do not genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily
Part 2 of Direction No. 69 - Directions
Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion
1.Decision makers should not use the factors specified in this Direction as a checklist. The listed factors are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
2.Decision makers should assess whether, on balance, the genuine temporary entrant criterion is satisfied, by:
a.considering the applicant against all factors specified in this Direction; and
b.considering any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker).
3.Decision makers may request additional information and/or further evidence from the applicant to demonstrate that they are a genuine temporary entrant, where closer scrutiny of the applicant's circumstances is considered appropriate.
4.Circumstances where further scrutiny may be appropriate include but are not limited to:
a.information in statistical, intelligence and analysis reports on migration fraud and immigration compliance compiled by the department indicates the need for further scrutiny;
b.the applicant or a relative of the applicant has an immigration history of reasonable concern;
c.the applicant intends to study in a field unrelated to their previous studies or employment; and
d.apparent inconsistencies in information provided by the applicant in their Student visa application.
5.An application for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa should be refused if, after weighing up the applicant’s circumstances, immigration history and any other relevant matter, the decision maker is not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances
6.Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.
7.For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
8.Weight should be placed on an applicant’s circumstances that indicate that the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is intended primarily for maintaining residence in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances in their home country
9.When considering the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.whether the applicant has reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in their home country or region if a similar course is already available there. Decision makers should allow for any reasonable motives established by the applicant;
b.the extent of the applicant’s personal ties to their home country (for example family, community and employment) and whether those circumstances would serve as a significant incentive to return to their home country;
c.economic circumstances of the applicant that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country. These circumstances may include consideration of the applicant’s circumstances relative to the home country and to Australia;
d.military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to their home country; and
e.political and civil unrest in the applicant’s home country. This includes situations of a nature that may induce the applicant to apply for a Student visa or Student Guardian visa as means of obtaining entry to Australia for the purpose of remaining indefinitely. Decision makers should be aware of the changing circumstances in the applicant’s home country and the influence these may have on an applicant’s motivations for applying for a Student visa or a Student Guardian visa.
10.Decision makers may have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country.
The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia
11.In considering the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.The applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia. This may include family and community ties;
b.evidence that the student visa programme is being used to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme;
c.whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence;
dwhether the primary and secondary applicant(s) have entered into a relationship of concern for a successful Student visa outcome. Where a decision maker determines that an applicant and dependant have contrived their relationship for a successful Student visa outcomes, the decision maker may find that both applicants do not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion; and
e.the applicant’s knowledge of living in Australia and their intended course of study and the associated education provider; including previous study and qualifications, what is a realistic level of knowledge an applicant is expected to know and the level of research the applicant has undertaken into their proposed course of study and living arrangements.
Value of the course to the applicant’s future
12.Decision makers should have regard to the following factors when considering the value of the course to the applicant’s future:
a.whether the student is seeking to undertake a course that is consistent with their current level of education and whether the course will assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve employment prospects in their home country. Decision makers should allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; and
b.relevance of the course to the student’s past or proposed future employment either in their home country or a third country; and
c.remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in the home country or a third country, compared with Australia, using the qualifications to be gained from the proposed course of study.
The applicant's immigration history
13.An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.
14.When considering the applicant’s immigration history, decision makers should have regard to the following factors:
a.Previous visa applications for Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously applied for an Australian temporary or permanent visa, whether those visa applications are yet to be finally determined (within the meaning of subsection 5(9) of the Act), were granted, or grounds on which the application(s) were refused; and
ii.if the applicant has previously applied for visa(s) to other countries, whether the applicant was refused a visa and the circumstances that led to visa refusal.
b.Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
i.if the applicant previously travelled to Australia, whether they complied with the conditions of their visa and left before their visa ceased, and if not, were there circumstances beyond their control;
ii.whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
iii.the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia and whether the Student visa or Student Guardian visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence, including whether the applicant has undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses, or has been onshore for some time without successfully completing a qualification; and
iv.if the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia, whether they complied with the migration laws of that country and the circumstances around any non-compliance
If the applicant is a minor— the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant
15.If the primary or secondary applicant for a Subclass 500 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.
Any other relevant matters
16.Decision makers should also have regard to any other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the decision maker) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia. This includes information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

[2019] AATA 6249

4 December 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction

Jurisdiction