SEO (Migration)

SEO (Migration) [2019] AATA 4407 (4 October 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mr Young Ho Seo
Ms Sunhwa Kim
CASE NUMBER:  1728917
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2811044
MEMBER:Frank Russo
DATE:4 October 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 04 October 2019 at 5:15pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Permanent) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily – no current enrolment or offer of enrolment – plans to leave Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cls 500.211(a), 500.212(a)
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 Immigration and Border Protection on 15 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 7 August 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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 visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 1 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Korean and English languages.
The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent, although their agent did not attend the hearing.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that 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.
While the issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant. However, at the date of the hearing the applicant was no longer enrolled in a registered course of study as he had completed his intended course prior to the hearing. Therefore, the issue is now whether the applicant meets the enrolment requirement in cl.500.211(a) for the Student visa.
Background
The applicant is a 40-year-old national of the Republic of Korea (Korea). The secondary applicant is the applicant’s wife, a 36-year-old Korean national. At the time the applicant made his application for the visa currently under review, he was enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and a Diploma of Hospitality, both at Holmes Institute.
In addition to the application form, the applicant provided the Tribunal with the following documents:
a.Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) in the Diploma of Hospitality Management at Holmes Institute, commencing on 11 February 2019 and ending 27 September 2019, created on 6 March 2019;
b.A s.359(2) response, received by the Tribunal on 29 May 2019;
c.Certificate of completion of Intensive General English Course, issued by Lloyds International College on 9 July 2008;
d.Copy of Diploma of Business, issued by Lloyds International College on 10 August 2009, together with a statement of Units of Competency completed, and a letter from Lloyds International College, dated 24 November 2017, confirming completion of this course
e.Copies of the following documents from Australian Pacific College:
i.Certificate III in Business, dated 2 April 2010, together with a Record of Results for this course;
ii.Certificate IV in Marketing, dated 10 December 2010, together with a Record of Results for this course;
iii.Diploma of Management, dated 23 September 2011, together with a Record of Results for this course;
iv.Diploma of Marketing, dated 14 September 2012, together with a Record of Results for this course;
v.Advanced Diploma of Marketing, dated 13 September 2013, together with a Record of Results for this course;
vi.Statement of Attainment for the Advanced Diploma of Management, dated 27 June 2014, together with a Record of Results for this course, as well as a letter indicating the applicant’s enrolment status in this course is not indicative that the student is eligible to be awarded the qualification;
vii.A Statement of Enrolment, dated 23 November 2017, listing the applicant’s previous enrolments in the Certificate III in Business, Certificate IV in Marketing, Diploma of Management, Diploma of Marketing and Advanced Diploma of Marketing;
f.Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, issued by Holmes Institute, together with a letter confirming the applicant’s completion of this course and an Academic Transcript dated 25 February 2019;
g.Letter from Holmes Institute, dated 27 May 2019, confirming the applicant’s enrolment in the Diploma of Hospitality;
h.A Certificate of Family Relations (Birth), dated 27 May 2019 and a Household Register, dated 19 September 2019, both translated into English;
i.Certified translation of a certificate of ownership of a part of a building, issued on 12 February 2015; and
j.Letter from the applicant’s father, signed in September 2019, indicating he will provide one of his commercial properties to his son for the purpose of him opening his own restaurant when he completes his course of study;
The Tribunal has had regard to these documents. The Tribunal also has a copy of the Department’s file and has had regard to the documents on that file.
Enrolment (cl.500.211)
Clause 500.211 relevantly requires that at the time of this decision the applicant is enrolled in a course of study: cl.500.211(a). The applicant does not claim to meet any of the alternative criteria in cl.500.211.
‘Course of study’ is relevantly defined in cl.500.111 of the Regulations as a ‘full-time registered course’. ‘Registered course’ is defined in r.1.03 of the Regulations as a course of education or training provided by an institution, body or person that is registered, under Division 3 of Part 2 of the Education Services for Overseas Students Act 2000, to provide the course to overseas students.
The applicant confirmed at hearing that he does not hold a current CoE, explaining that his course ended on 27 September 2019, in the week before the hearing. The applicant confirmed that he has obtained the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery (for which he has provided a copy of the certificate) and completed the requirements for the Diploma of Hospitality. He stated that he is waiting on the results of the Diploma of Hospitality.
The Tribunal informed the applicant that given his evidence that he is no longer enrolled in a course of study, the enrolment requirement had become the determinative issue. The Tribunal confirmed with the applicant that he understood that the determinative issue before the Tribunal had changed.
The applicant confirmed with the Tribunal that he does not have any intention to obtain another CoE as he plans to leave Australia.
The Tribunal asked the applicant about his plans, now that his enrolment in the Diploma of Hospitality has ended. The applicant gave evidence that he intends to return to Korea. He stated that his father owns a commercial property and has promised to support him in opening his own restaurant. The applicant confirmed that he does not intend to enrol in any further courses in Australia and his plans are to return to Korea to open his own business. The applicant requested that, given his enrolment has recently ended, he be assessed in relation to the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he has plans in place for when he will leave. He stated that he plans to arrange departure after he receives the Tribunal’s decision, and stated that he had heard that if the Delegate’s decision is affirmed, he would normally have 35 days to remain in Australia following the Tribunal’s decision.
The applicant asked the Tribunal whether it could allow him more than 35 days to remain in Australia following its decision. The applicant explained that his employer would like him to continue working until he leaves, as his employer has advertised for a replacement, but has not been successful in the role. The applicant also indicated that he and his wife have not had time to travel around Australia since their arrival, due to their concentration on study and part-time work, and so he would like to have some time to travel around Australia before returning to Korea.
The Tribunal explained that if it were to affirm the Delegate’s decision, he could apply for a Bridging visa to finalise his affairs in Australia prior to departing, which is usually of 35 days duration. The Tribunal explained that a Bridging visa application would need to be made to the Department. The Tribunal explained that this is a separate visa application and is not a matter which is currently before the Tribunal.
The applicant also asked the Tribunal how long it would take to make its decision and asked whether it could delay making its decision. The Tribunal explained that it cannot unduly delay the giving of a decision, and a request to do so would in effect be a request that the Tribunal not perform its review function. The Tribunal noted that the applicant requested the Tribunal consider his application against the genuine temporary entrant criterion despite him not meeting the enrolment requirement, which would mean the Tribunal would need to hear evidence from him about his claim to be a genuine temporary entrant, and would need some time to consider all of the material and evidence and finalise its reasons for decision.
Adopting the procedure in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant that it had on file a copy of his enrolment records from the Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) database. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of his PRISMS enrolment records. The Tribunal explained to the applicant what the PRISMS database is and the relevance of the records to the review before the Tribunal. The Tribunal explained to the applicant the consequences of relying upon the information. The Tribunal confirmed that the applicant understood the relevance and consequences of the information being relied on. The Tribunal asked the applicant whether he had any comments or wished to respond in relation to the information contained in his PRISMS enrolment records and advised that he may be granted time to comment on or respond to the information if needed.
The applicant indicated that he wished to respond to the information at the hearing, and indicated that the record contained within the PRISMS database is accurate. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s PRISMS record confirms that his enrolment in the Diploma of Hospitality ended on 27 September 2019 and he has no other current enrolments.
On the applicant’s evidence, and on the documentary evidence before the Tribunal, there is no evidence that the applicant is now enrolled in or has a current offer of enrolment in any applicable course of study.
Therefore, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.
As cl.500.211 is not met, in the usual course of events the Tribunal would not need to consider the genuine temporary applicant criterion, however the applicant indicated that given he completed this course on 27 September 2019, a few days before the hearing, he requested that the Tribunal consider his application against the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s visa application was refused by the Department on 15 November 2017 and his application for review was lodged with the Tribunal on 20 November 2017. The Tribunal notes that the delay in bringing this review to hearing is the result of the workload of the Tribunal and the consequent delays in matters being heard. It is through no fault of the applicant that he has completed his intended studies prior to the date of the hearing and therefore did not meet the enrolment requirement. Nonetheless, the Tribunal informed the applicant that the enrolment requirement in cl.500.211 is a mandatory requirement, and that, as he is not enrolled at the time of the Tribunal’s decision, the only decision open to the Tribunal is to affirm the decision of the Department. However, in light of the applicant’s request that the Tribunal hear his evidence with respect to the genuine temporary entrant criterion, the Tribunal has proceeded to consider the applicant’s circumstances against that criterion.
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 that he first arrived in Australia in 2005 on a Tourist visa. He later enrolled in the Diploma of Business at Australian Pacific College in January 2008. Following his completion of this course he also completed a Certificate III in Business, Certificate IV in Marketing, Diploma of Management, Diploma of Marketing and an Advanced Diploma of Marketing at Australian Pacific College. At the time of his application to the Department for the visa currently under review he was enrolled in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and the Diploma of Hospitality at Holmes Institute, both of which he has now completed. He has obtained the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and is awaiting his results for the award of the Diploma of Hospitality.
The applicant explained to the Tribunal that although he had started a Bachelor degree with a major in Economics at University in Korea, he did only two years of this course and did not obtain a qualification. He gave evidence as to his motivations for the various courses he has enrolled in.
The applicant told the Tribunal that at the time he applied to study Commercial Cookery and Hospitality, cooking was very popular in Korea. He gave evidence of his plans to open a restaurant, with the financial support of his father. He stated that his father owns a commercial property which can be used for the restaurant. The Tribunal notes the documents on file regarding the financial support the applicant’s father intends to provide for such a venture.
The applicant confirmed that other than his wife, who is a dependant applicant to his Student visa application, he has no family in Australia. His entire family reside in Korea. He has worked for approximately the last four years in hospitality, at Coffee Pitt.
The applicant confirmed that he has complied with visa conditions since his arrival in Australia and has not previously had any visas refused or considered for cancellation. He confirmed that he has returned to Korea on two occasions since his initial arrival, in 2007 and 2016. He stated that he was not enrolled to study between June 2014 and July 2017 as his wife was studying Graphic Design at the time, and a condition of his Bridging visa specified that he could not enrol to study for more than 3 months.
On the basis of the evidence, the Tribunal is satisfied the applicant applied himself diligently to his studies and has successfully completed the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery and the Diploma of Hospitality. The Tribunal accepts the studies undertaken by the applicant have relevance to his proposed plan to establish a restaurant in Korea with the support of his father. The Tribunal notes the applicant has completed all of the courses which he has previously been enrolled in. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has family and other ties to Korea which may provide an incentive for his return to Korea. The Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that he now intends to return to Korea following the receipt of a decision by the Tribunal and does not intend to enroll in any further courses in Australia.
Although the Tribunal notes the length of time which the applicant has remained in Australia on temporary Student and associated Bridging visas, since 26 January 2008, his stated intention to now return to Korea to follow his plans of opening a restaurant would support a finding that he intends to remain in Australia only temporarily.
Notwithstanding these findings, as noted above, on the basis of the evidence that is available to it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that at the time of this decision, the applicant is enrolled in a course of study and accordingly cl.500.211 is not met.
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.
Secondary visa applicant
The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one member of the family unit. Other members of the family unit who are applicants for a visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria. As the Tribunal does not accept that the primary visa applicant satisfies the primary criteria, the secondary applicant is unable to meet the criteria because she is not a member of the family unit of, and made a combined application with, a person who satisfies the primary criteria in cl.500.212.
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Frank Russo
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 4407

4 October 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction