Sandhu (Migration)

[2022] AATA 418

Sandhu (Migration) [2022] AATA 418 (1 March 2022)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Arvinder Singh Sandhu

REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Suresh Wickramasinghe (MARN: 0960532)

CASE NUMBER:  2113396

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2021/27970

MEMBER:T. Quinn

DATE:1 March 2022

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:

·Clause 500.212 (a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 01 March 2022 at 2:25pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – academic progression – failed English course and never started masters – application made just before previous visa expired – completion of certificate courses in different subject area and enrolment in diploma while holding bridging visa – no similar course available in home country – detailed business plan submitted – family and community ties in home country and no strong community ties in Australia – no return to home country – COVID-19 prevalence and restrictions – closely balanced factors – decision made without hearing necessary – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65, 338(2), 347, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)

CASES
Kaur v MHA [2019] FCCA 1372
Khan v Minister for Immigration [2019] FCCA 565
Tshering v MHA [2019] FCCA 2667

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 Home Affairs (‘the delegate’) on 23 September 2021 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 24 February 2021 (‘the application’).   At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian).  The applicant applied for the visa (being a Subclass 500 (Student) visa) to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

3. On 23 September 2021, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’), namely that the applicant was not considered to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the applicant’s review application.

4. On 1 October 2021, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.

5. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review.

6. In coming to consider the merits of the application for review, the Tribunal recognises the applicant’s personal circumstances bearing upon their visa application may have changed since he made his initial application. The Tribunal considered that it would be beneficial for the applicant to provide updated and further information to the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the outcome of their application for review. To this end, on 2 December 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting them to provide information in writing about the course(s) of study the applicant was undertaking and their entry and stay in Australia as a student (‘the s359(2) letter’). The applicant responded to the s359(2) letter on 16 December 2021 which was within the prescribed timeframe. In that response the applicant completed the questionnaire which the s359(2) letter requested he complete (‘the questionnaire’).

7. The applicant was listed to appear before the Tribunal via telephone hearing on 2 March 2022 to give evidence and present arguments.  However, upon considering the material filed by the applicant, the Tribunal determined that it could make a decision without the need for a hearing.  

8. The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the Department file and all material and evidence provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.

9. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

   STATUTORY FRAMEWORK

10. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in clause 500.211 to clause 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant.

11. 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?

12. In considering whether the applicant satisfies clause 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’ (‘the Direction’), made under section 499 of the Act. The Direction 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.

13. 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.

14. The Direction is a lawful direction of the Minister made in accordance with section 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent that its terms are relevant, apply it to the applicant’s case.[1]  Accordingly, the terms of the Direction and their application to the applicant’s case have been considered in relation to material before the Tribunal.  The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body.  It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor in the Direction is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate.  In this regard, the Tribunal also notes the decision of Judge McNab in Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667 (at [44]-[47]), wherein his Honour referred to the decisions of Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1372 (at [49] and [51]) and Khan v Minister for Immigration & Another [2019] FCCA 565 (at [35]) in relation to the proper approach to the consideration of guidelines such as the Direction. Most pertinently, his Honour endorses the view espoused in those cases, that such guidelines may not be relevant where the matters raised by an applicant, either upon the application or at merits review, do not raise facts which engage particular matters identified by those guidelines.

    [1]FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555, [10], [34]; Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46, [29]; Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112, [60]-[73]; Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482, [8]; Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145, [10]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, [53] Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345, [27]-[28].

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

15. The applicant in this case is a 29-year-old male Indian citizen who first arrived in Australia on 23 November 2018 on a student visas which expired in March 2021.[2]  The applicant made the application which is the subject of this review weeks before the expiry of his previous visa.  This timing raises concerns for the tribunal about the true nature of the applicant’s intentions onshore and whether he may be using the student visa migration programme as a means of maintaining residence.

    [2]           See delegate’s decision and the questionnaire.

16. Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed a Bachelor of Technology in India in 2017.[3]  The applicant initially arrived in Australia to undertake an English for Academic Purposes course (‘EAP’) and a Master of Project Management.  However, he failed the EAP and never started the Master of Project Management.  The applicant has explained in submissions dated 28 February 2022 that his enrolment in the Master course was conditional upon successful completion of the EAP and that he did study and attend the EAP but his unsatisfactory performance related to the difference in study standards between Australia and India.  The applicant has provided corroborating materials in relation to this history including his ELICOS report, requests that were made of him from course providers in relation to his English studies and applications to complete further study.

    [3]           See delegate’s decision and the questionnaire.

17. The applicant’s application which is the subject of this review was to undertake a package of automotive courses.[4]  However, he did not provide a genuine temporary entrant statement to the Department.  This is a critical form in a student visa application and the Tribunal is troubled by the fact that the applicant never submitted same.

    [4]           See delegate’s decision.

18. Due to delays in this matter coming before the Tribunal, the applicant has now commenced two different Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology courses – he has explained in submissions filed 28 February 2022 that he commenced the first of these courses in Melbourne but wanted to move to Adelaide as he considers the scope of learning in the automotive industry is greater in Adelaide than Melbourne.  He goes on to state that he received credits for his previous study and went on to complete same.  He has corroborating documents in this regard, including a statement of completion dated 23 July 2021.[5]  The applicant has also completed a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis and supplied a corroborating certificate for same dated 20 February 2022.[6]  He is enrolled in a Diploma of Automotive Technology with a proposed completion date in September 2022 and intends also to complete a Bachelor of Leadership and Management from July 2022-November 2024.[7]

    [5]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

    [6]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

    [7]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

19. The Tribunal considers the applicant has made good academic progress since he commenced studying and commends him in this regard, particularly in circumstances where he has been onshore during a Global Pandemic, on the basis of a bridging visa, managing the uncertainty of the outcome of this application.  This has been a strong factor weighing in the applicant’s favour in this case.

20. The applicant has provided a detailed and persuasive Business Plan for his automotive plant in India, which he plans to operate in partnership with his father (who has already commenced the set-up phase) upon his return to India manufacturing cables for two wheelers SUV, MUV and farming equipment.[8]  The Tribunal allows for reasonable changes to study and career pathways and accepts that these courses are relevant to and likely to assist and improve his future career.  The Tribunal is concerned, however, by the downgrade that the courses he has been studying represent from the applicant’s existing Bachelor level of education, although the Tribunal notes that he intends to commence a Bachelor qualification later this year.

    [8]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

21. The applicant has been working in Australia casually in various fields: baking, painting, Human resources, warehousing, menu log, and uber earning AUD1,800-8,000 per annum.[9]  Some of these roles have been undertaken simultaneously such that there have been periods when the applicant was earning AUD14,000 per annum.[10]  The applicant has expenses onshore of AUD18,000 per annum.[11]  The Tribunal notes that the United Nations Human Development Index, which is a statistical comparison of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators by country, ranks India as 131^st in the world as compared to Australia’s ranking of 8^th in the world.[12]  The applicant and his father own assets which have a total value of AUD59,000 equivalent in India.[13]  The Tribunal does not consider the evidence supports a finding that the applicant’s economic circumstances onshore are acting as a significant incentive for him to remain.  However, if the applicant makes an application for a further temporary visa upon completion of his study in November 2024, having given evidence to contrary in connection with this application, this Direction factor will need to be reconsidered.

    [9]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

    [10]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

    [11]See the questionnaire.

    [12]See Table 1 of United Nations’ Human Development Report 2020 commencing at page 343 < See also: Rathor v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2021] FCCA 1187 at [42]-[44].

    [13]         See the questionnaire and the Stat Dec.

22. The applicant states ‘no ties. Just a few work mates’ in the section of the questionnaire enquiring about his community ties to Australia.  However, the applicant has now been living onshore for over three years.  On balance, the Tribunal does not consider the evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant’s community ties to Australia are acting as a strong incentive for him to remain onshore.  However, if the applicant makes an application for a further temporary visa upon completion of his study in November 2024, having given evidence to contrary in connection with this application, this Direction factor will need to be reconsidered.

23. The applicant has not returned to India since his arrival.[14]  The Tribunal notes that the COVID19 Pandemic and associated travel restrictions have made such travel virtually impossible since early 2020.  The applicant’s parents and brother live in India and he speaks to them on a daily basis.[15]  The applicant states he is associated with many religious communities and volunteer services and that all of his relatives and school friends are back in India.[16]  He plans to work with his father upon his return to India.[17]  The Tribunal accepts the applicant has ties to his home country and to India acting as an incentive for him to return but does not consider the evidence supports a conclusion that these ties are acting as a significant incentive for him to return.

    [14] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [15]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [16]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [17]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

24. The applicant states, inter alia, that: work-based learning is not available in India and that a similar course is not available in India.[18]  The Tribunal considers that the applicant has provided reasonable reasons for not undertaking the proposed study in India.

    [18]See the questionnaire.

25. The applicant has had no travel, visa or immigration issues in the past.[19]  The applicant does not have any potential military service obligations or political or civil unrest concerns in India.[20]

    [19]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

    [20]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.

26. The Tribunal considers the factors for and against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant for study in Australia are closely balanced in this case.  Ultimately, the Tribunal deems it appropriate to give the benefit of the doubt to the applicant, particularly given his course progress over the last two years.  The applicant is due to complete his courses in November 2024 at which time he submits that he will return to India.[21]  Should the applicant make a further student visa application on the basis of an intention to undertake further study after this, his submissions and evidence in connection with this case will clearly be relevant to any assessment of his credibility and/or intention to stay in Australia temporarily only to study.

    [21]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 28 February 2022.

27. Having had regard to the applicant’s circumstances, his immigration history and all other relevant matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily as required by clause 500.212. Accordingly, the applicant meets clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

28. 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

29. The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:

    ·Clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

    Member

    T. Quinn

    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;

    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.

    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.