Sayumpron (Migration) - [2020] AATA 6105

Sayumpron (Migration) [2020] AATA 6105 (18 December 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Mudthana Sayumpron
CASE NUMBER:  1921934
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/1697372
MEMBER:D Triaca
DATE:18 December 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 18 December 2020 at 11:51am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– vague details about her future plans – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met–applicant has not completed course– no strong incentive to return to her home country– decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, 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 24 July 2019 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 5 April 2019. 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).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 17 December 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their 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.
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…

Grounds of appeal

[14] The appellant contends that the primary judge erred in finding that the respondent had discharged the onus of establishing the matters required under the relevant provision.

[15] It was submitted that his Honour failed to give adequate weight to the evidence of the second witness, and that the findings of fact were not reasonably open on the material before the Court.

[16] The respondent, for its part, submits that no error is disclosed, and that the conclusions reached were well within the range of outcomes available to the primary judge.

Consideration

[17] It is convenient to deal first with the question of construction, as the resolution of that issue informs the remaining grounds advanced by the appellant.

[18] For the reasons that follow, we are of the view that the appeal should be allowed in part and the matter remitted for further determination.

Keep reading for free

Create a free CaseChat account to read Sayumpron (Migration) and more:

Read every judgment in full
Ask AI and get answers linked to paragraphs
See how each paragraph was cited in later cases
Download judgments as PDF or Word

Continue with Google

One click creates your free account or signs you in.

By continuing you agree to the Terms and Privacy Policy.

Details

Case: [2020] AATA 6105
Decision Date

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Sayumpron, an applicant for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The dispute concerned whether Sayumpron met the criteria for this visa, specifically the requirement to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if Sayumpron satisfied clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires an applicant to be a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student. This clause has two main components: firstly, that the applicant genuinely intends to stay in Australia temporarily, and secondly, that the applicant intends to comply with the conditions of the visa. In assessing the first component, the Tribunal was required to have regard to Direction No. 69, which outlines various factors to consider, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the course to their future, their immigration history, and if a minor, the intentions of their parents or guardians.

The Tribunal reasoned that the term "genuine" should be interpreted in its ordinary and natural meaning as "authentic, real or true." It noted that the Regulations stipulate two elements for a genuine student visa applicant: a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily and an intention to comply with visa conditions. The Tribunal was guided by Direction No. 69, which mandates a holistic consideration of specified factors rather than a checklist approach, to determine if the applicant's intention to stay temporarily was unqualified and authentic. The Tribunal also considered the applicant's record of compliance with previous visa conditions and their stated intention to comply with future conditions.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed, indicating that Sayumpron did not satisfy the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

Orders

Orders of the court

Full text does not contain this section.

Background

Background to the litigation

Full text does not contain this section.

Evidence

Evidence Before The Court

Full text does not contain this section.

Decision

Reasons for decision

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.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. Whilst not defined in the Regulations, the word genuine may be taken to mean ‘authentic, real or true’ in according with its ordinary and natural meaning. The Regulations specify two constituent elements of a genuine student visa applicant. First, a genuine applicant is one who intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. The applicant must demonstrate an intention to stay in Australia for a limited time only, not permanently. That intention must be unqualified. This requirement reflects the temporary nature of being a student.[1] Secondly, a ‘genuine applicant’ is a person who intends to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject.[2] [1] See Singh [2019] (Migration) AATA 2993 at [13][2] See the discussion of the meaning of ‘genuine applicant’ in Vu Vu (Migration) [2019] AATA 5740 (18 December 2019) [22] – [25] upheld on appeal in Vu Vu & Ors v Minister for Immigration and anor [2020] FCCA 2292

Ratio Decidendi

Legal Principle Established

Full text does not contain this section.