Sandhu (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Sandhu against a decision to refuse him a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether Mr. Sandhu met the genuine temporary entrant criterion as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. The decision was made by a member of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether Mr. Sandhu was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. This required the Tribunal to assess whether he genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to his circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters, as well as his intention to comply with visa conditions. The Tribunal was guided by Direction No. 69, which outlines factors to consider when assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

The Tribunal considered that Mr. Sandhu had been resident in Australia since August 2009, holding successive student (dependent) and then student visas (TU-570 and TU-572). At the time of the decision, he held a Bridging visa, his application for a further Subclass 500 student visa having been rejected by the Department. The Tribunal concluded that, based on this history of prolonged residence in Australia on student visas, it was not satisfied that Mr. Sandhu genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily. Consequently, he did not satisfy clause 500.212(a) of the Regulations.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mr. Sandhu a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, finding that he was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.