Ragas (Migration) - [2025] ARTA 292

RAGAS (MIGRATION) [2025] ARTA 292 (28 FEBRUARY 2025)
DECISION AND
REASONS FOR DECISION
Applicant:Mr Chester Eloise Vivas Ragas
Respondent:  Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
Tribunal Number:  2313194

Tribunal: General MemberR Guemy
Place:Sydney
Date: 28 February 2025
Decision:The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:
·cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 28 February 2025 at 11:35am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant and compliance with conditions – applied after arriving on visitor visa – course at lower level than previous study – scope of specialised course and applicant’s attendance and progress – general offer of employment and future work prospects – consistent and credible evidence – sister in Australia and wife and young child in home country – work for employer in home country in mistaken belief that remote work permissible – decision under review remitted
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a), Schedule 8, condition 8101
STATEMENT OF REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 15 August 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 8 June 2023. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because they were not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.
Evidence given to the Department
In his student visa application form, the applicant gave the following biographical information:
i.He was born in 1993 in Naga City, Camarines Sur, Philippines;
ii.He is married and his wife and 2-year old daughter reside in the Philippines along with his father and siblings;
iii.He has a AUD33,000 deposit in a financial institution;
iv.His highest level of schooling completed outside of Australia was Bachelor of Science in Information Technology attained at Ateneo De Naga University in the Philippines;
v.He had previously worked as a software engineer for Seiko IT Solution Philippines Inc from August 2016 to February 2021, a web developer from March 2021 to March 2022 for Wise Agent, and then as a software developer for GHD Philippines from May 2022;
vi.He entered Australia on a Visitor Visa;
vii.He intended to study an Advanced Diploma of Information Technology at ANIT Australia Pty Ltd.
The applicant provided the following evidence and documents with his visa application:
i.Bio page of his passport issued by the Republic of the Philippines on 16 June 2018;
ii.Bachelor of Science in Information Technology certificate;
iii.Academic transcript of university studies;
iv.Curriculum vitae;
v.Letters from Seiko IT Solution Philippines, Wise Agent and GHD attesting to his employment with those businesses;
vi.Confirmation of health cover letter issued by nib;
vii.Marriage certificate;
viii.Statement of purpose where applicant explains his reasons for studying in Australia and the value it will have on his future.
The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because they were not satisfied that the applicant intended to genuinely stay temporarily in Australia.
Evidence given to the Tribunal
The applicant provided the following evidence and documents to the Tribunal:
i.Completed Request for Student Visa Information form;
ii.Confirmation of enrolment letter dated 18/11/2024 issued by Albright Institute of Business and Language confirming applicant’s 97% attendance and completed units in his Advanced Diploma of Information Technology course;
Tribunal hearing – 24 February 2025
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 February 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. He was not represented and participated in the Tribunal hearing in English. The Tribunal is satisfied that he had a meaningful opportunity to participate in the hearing and to present his case to the Tribunal.
Evidence given at hearing
The applicant confirmed that he was married and that his wife and 2-year old daughter are currently living in Naga City in the Philippines.
The applicant confirmed that he obtained a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, during which his study focused on software development and programming. He also took more general electives such as history, English language and other Filipino subjects.
The applicant told the Tribunal that three months after he finished his university studies, he got his first job in Manila working in web development and software development. He said that his career path has since meant that his skills have narrowed down to software development. The applicant gave detailed evidence about his employment history firstly with Seiko where he gathered data and put it through a desktop and web application which then produced a report for management to analyse. He then worked with Viast and developed an application for their client, a U.S.-based company called Wise Agent, which generated template correspondence to be sent to prospective homebuyers. After this he worked for GhD where he developed another a bids and tender application which he described as being similar to Upwork, where a project manager would post a project and a supplier would bid on it. He said that he was earning PHP80,000 per month in this role when he last worked in the Philippines.
The Tribunal asked the applicant what he had been studying since arriving and living in Australia. He said that he was studying an Advanced Diploma in IT at Albright Institute while living with sister in Mount Duneed. He said that he had been learning hands-on computer networking and this had enabled him to protect applications that he develops from being hacked by identifying vulnerabilities in a computer network and knowing where to look for potential hacking activity. He had also learned about how to produce documentation to present to managers in an appropriate manner where they may not have familiarity with computer technology. The applicant said that despite having already studied a Bachelor of Science in Information Technology, he had not learned about computer networking and securing those networks. He said that the Advanced Diploma in IT that he was studying had given him this knowledge and that he now knew how to protect his applications from hacking or other security breaches.
The applicant said that he hoped to earn a pay rise or promotion to a senior or managerial role with GhD upon his return to the Philippines and that his objective was earn a six-digit salary per month. He said that with an Advanced Diploma of IT there was a high chance of doing so. He said that he intended to return to the Philippines in July 2025 upon completion of his studies.
The Tribunal raised its concern that there may be financial incentive for him use his Australian qualification upon completion of his current studies to find work as a software or web developer and pursue a visa to allow him to remain in Australia. In response, the applicant said that his current employer GhD is waiting for him to return to work and that he is perfectly happy working for them in the Philippines as they allow him to work remotely, which is of benefit with his young family. He said that he had intended to return to the Philippines at the end of each term of his studies but because of the Department’s decision to refuse his student visa application, he had to apply for Bridging Visa B twice to return there to see his family. He said that he had no need to stay in Australia, that he just needed to finish his studies and then return to the Philippines to get a higher role with GhD.
The applicant confirmed that he had no military service obligations in the Philippines. He said that he could not think of any civil or political disturbances there that might be an incentive for him to remain in Australia, stressing that he was a good citizen. He also indicated that he had not experienced any problems, threats or harm from Filipino authorities or anyone else in the Philippines.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl 500.211 to cl 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student in Australia.
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 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 found the applicant to be a credible witness at hearing. His oral evidence was consistent with the information contained in his student visa application and the supporting documents he provided with it, namely his study and employment history before arriving in Australia.
The Tribunal has placed favourable weight on the applicant’s evidence about the value of his Advanced Diploma in IT to his future employment and salary prospects. In this respect, his evidence was logical and clearly explained how his studies would enable him to move beyond software development and be able to undertake work in computer networking. Although an Advanced Diploma in IT appears to be an inferior qualification in comparison to the Bachelor Degree he attained in the Philippines, the content of the Advanced Diploma in IT is different to the subjects that he took during his Bachelor studies as outlined in his academic transcript for that course. As such, the Tribunal has no concerns about the fact that he is studying a course that on its face is inferior to the one he already holds. The Tribunal accepts that a qualification obtained in Australia would be viewed favourably in the Philippines and allow him to seek a promotion or pay raise upon return there.
The Tribunal has also placed favourable weight on the fact that the applicant’s current studies are consistent with his previous study and career path, further reinforcing its view that he is undertaking the course for the purposes of securing a higher salary and/or job promotion with his employer GhD upon return to the Philippines. The applicant gave logical and persuasive evidence that he felt that his professional skills and experience had narrowed down to software development and that he wanted to address this by engaging in the current studies that he is undertaking in Australia. The Tribunal further places favourable weight on the fact that he has been consistently attending (with a 97% attendance rate) and completing the units in his current course. On the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s actions do not evidence and intention to use the student visa programme to circumvent the intentions of the migration programme. As the applicant has only ever applied for a single student visa (which was refused and is now the subject of this review application), the Tribunal finds that the student visa is not being used to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
Although the applicant has a sister here in Australia that he has lived with while living and studying in Australia, the Tribunal also places greater weight on the fact that the applicant’s wife and young daughter remain in the Philippines and that this would be a significant incentive for him to return there to be with them rather than continuing to reside in Australia to study or pursue work opportunities.
The Tribunal considered the applicant’s migration history. He first entered Australia on Subclass 600 visa and has since returned to the Philippines on a Bridging Visa B in October 2023 and December 2024 to visit his family and re-entered Australia to continue his studies here. There is no information before the Tribunal to suggest that he has not been compliant with visa conditions in respect of his past travels, nor with respect to his time in Australia.
As the applicant is not a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant is not a relevant consideration.
On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant cl 500.212(a).
Does the applicant intend to comply with visa conditions?
For the applicant to meet cl 500.212(b), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to the applicant’s record of compliance with any condition of any visa they previously held, and the applicant’s stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject.
A visa granted to an applicant who meets the primary criteria must have the following conditions imposed (cl 500.611(1)): 8105 (work limitation), 8202 (enrolment/course progress/course attendance), 8501 (health insurance), 8516 (continue to satisfy criteria), 8517 (dependents’ education), 8532 (arrangements for under 18s) and 8533 (notify address/education provider). For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2022, condition 8208 (no critical technology related study without approval) must also be imposed. The following conditions may also be imposed in some cases (cl 500.611(2)): 8303 (no disruptive or violent activity) and 8534 (limited visa entitlement).
The applicant verbally confirmed to the Tribunal at hearing that he intended to comply with visa conditions that would be imposed on his student visa if granted. There was a similar declaration in his student visa application form. However, the applicant told the Tribunal at hearing that he had been working for his employer based in the Philippines, GhD, the whole time he had been in Australia while holding a Bridging Visa A and a Bridging Visa B. The Tribunal finds that this is in breach of Condition 8101 imposed on those visas, which stipulates that the visa holder must not engage in work in Australia. Despite this ongoing non-compliance, the Tribunal finds that the applicant did not intentionally or deliberately breach this visa condition and was under the mistaken belief that he was not allowed to work for an Australian-based employer while in Australia and that undertaking work remotely for a foreign employer was permissible. The Tribunal finds that the applicant’s breach of Condition 8101 was a genuine mistake and if he had properly understood the scope of the visa condition, he would have complied with it.
Despite the applicant’s declared breach of Condition 8101 imposed on his Bridging Visa A and Bridging Visa B, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant intends to comply with the conditions subject to which the visa is granted as required by cl 500.212(b).
Is the applicant a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because of any other relevant matter?
For the applicant to meet cl 500.212(c), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because of any other relevant matter (in addition to the requirements in cl 500.212(a) and (b)).
The applicant did not raise, and nor are there any other relevant matters that the Tribunal has identified to be considered in this case.
Accordingly, the Tribunal is 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 appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:
·cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Dates of hearing(s): 24 February 2025
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.