Shia (Migration)

[2019] AATA 3076

Shia (Migration) [2019] AATA 3076 (27 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Fang-Chieh Shia

CASE NUMBER:  1728083

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/3098721

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:27 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 27 June 2019 at 9:43am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa–genuine temporary entrant criterion not met – inconsistent career prospects – using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 359C, 360, 363A, 499
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.03, Schedule 2, cl 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 1 November 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 28 August 2017. 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.

3. 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(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. On 27 March 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information to the Tribunal in writing about the course(s) of study she is undertaking and her entry and stay in Australia as a student. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing within the prescribed period, ending 10 April 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant did not request an extension of time and provided the information outside of the prescribed period. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if an applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

6. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, and the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

7. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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?

1. 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 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.

2. 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.

Overview of evidence

1. The Tribunal had before it a copy of both the delegate’s decision, which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and the Department’s file in relation to the application.

2. The applicant is a 31-year-old Taiwanese national who first arrived in Australia on 28 August 2014 as the holder of a Working Holiday (TZ417) visa. 

3. The delegate’s decision record notes that:

   Departmental records indicate that since the applicant’s initial arrival onshore they have held either a Working holiday visa TZ-417 or an associated Bridging visa. The applicant’s first arrival in Australia was on 28 August 2014 on a Working Holiday visa TZ-417.

   At the time this application was lodged, the applicant held a Working holiday visa TZ-417 granted on 15 July 2016 valid until 29 August 2017. This visa has since ceased and the applicant is currently the holder of a Bridging Visa B WB-020.

4. In a statement to the Department addressing the genuine temporary entrant criterion (GTE Statement)[1], the applicant provided the following information:

   a.She had always had an interest in learning English, but it is not easy in a Chinese-speaking environment.

   b.In her seven years working for a “technology company” she saw “many friends and colleagues upgrade” their English language ability travelling to Australia and “other countries” either as students or on working holidays.

   c.“Inspired” by this the applicant decided to travel outside of Taiwan to see a “bigger” part of the world and travel to a different country.

   d.She states:

   I decide to choose [my course provider], whose teachers, facilities and events on offer make me satisfied. I believe I will make good progress studying English course at this school while I will be able to know different people from different backgrounds, using English as the only tool of communication. The reason that I choose the English course is I believe that If I want to running [sic] my own [business] in Taiwan, the business management skill would be needed and also considering [sic] to targeting international clients in future.

   …

   This is a careful decision, which has gained support from my family, it is the very thing that I have to build up before I open my own business. I want to combine the business knowledge which I will learn from the school and my previous work experience to running my own business once I complete the course. I will go back to Taiwan where my parents are waiting for me and making the most of what I will learn during the course. I am sure that I can achieve more knowledge about English course and business management.

   [1] Department file; folio 27.

5. Later, in her submissions to the Tribunal provided on 16 April 2019, the applicant states, in respect of her career objectives, that:

   …my goal is to create [an] environment like English cram school for kids in my hometown, Taiwan, which would be ideally for those who under 12 year-old [sic]. However, to have an own career is not that easy to achieve, before I reached the goal, consider of more possibilities I might have [sic], I am planning to get more certificates in Australia, after I completed the certificates, I would like to find relative [sic “relevant”] jobs to get more experiences and to be well trained by experienced employers in Taiwan.

   First of my plans is to complete the English courses I'm studying and going to study, improving the skills and achieving a higher level.

6. The applicant’s Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) record shows that she has successfully completed the following courses since making her application for a student visa:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
Certificate II in Spoken and Written English	20/10/2017	13/05/2018
Certificate III in Spoken and Written English	13/07/2018	03/02/2019
English for Upper Intermediate (General)	01/04/2019	14/06/2019

1. PRISMS also records that the applicant is enrolled in a course of ‘English for Advanced (General)’ that she is due to commence on 8 July 2019 and complete on 13 September 2019.

Analysis and findings

1. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

2. In her time onshore the applicant has held two Working Holiday visas and is currently onshore on a bridging visa pending the outcome of her application for a Student visa.  In the GTE Statement the applicant states that her motive in choosing Australia as a study destination is that she was inspired by the experience that her friends and colleagues had here, particularly in the improvement of their English-language skills.  It may also be inferred from the statement that she believes that learning English in an English-speaking environment is preferable than in her native Taiwan.  Of themselves, although they are somewhat generic, these reasons suggest a rational and reasonable motive for an international student to choose to study in Australia and they do not cause the Tribunal concern.

3. What is not readily apparent from the applicant’s evidence, however, is what precisely her study and career goals are in undertaking her studies in English.  Of particular concern to the Tribunal is that the applicant has provided two broad versions of her proposed future career which are not obviously compatible:

   a.In the GTE Statement, provided in August 2017, the applicant states that she wishes to study English to aid her in opening and running her own business utilising her “previous work experience”; no further or other details are provided.  Her “previous work experience”, according to her evidence to the Tribunal, is that between 2011 and 2014 she worked in four consecutive jobs in Taiwan, three as a “Receptionist” and one as an “Assistant accountant”.

   b.In her submissions to the Tribunal, provided in April 2019, the applicant states that she has a plan to create an “English cram school for kids”, as well as considering “more possibilities” including acquiring “more certificates in Australia” and “finding relevant jobs” for work experience in Taiwan.  She also speaks of gaining a “professional certification for teaching English” and applying for a “child care course”, both of which, the Tribunal assumes, are connected with the “cram school”.  Her inspiration for the “cram school” concept came, she claims, in her time working in regional Western Australia:

   I went up to a remote country in Western Australia, Wiluna, to work as a local community shop staff during my second working holiday year, there were many of adorable aboriginal kids were curious to me, an Asian looking foreign girl, we always played together, I found I was actually more patient than I knew. The other friends said I was like a leader of the kids, that was my first time had an idea of a possibility to my future- to have an English cram school for kids in my hometown, MiaoLi, Taiwan. So, I had a further idea of go to get certificates of English in Australia… .

4. The applicant’s evidence, however, is that her “second working holiday year” was between July 2016 and August 2017, a time period that pre-dated her application to the Department, made on 28 August 2017.  Despite this, there is no reference in the GTE Statement to the “cram school” concept.  The applicant states merely that she wishes to open her own “business”, the only context being that she wishes to acquire English language skills and utilise “her previous work experience” to run it; notably, her previous work experience has no relation to the teaching or child care sectors which militates against construing the reference to a “business” in the GTE Statement as a reference to the “cram school” in the submissions.  Overall, the Tribunal’s view is that the inconsistency displayed in the expression of her career goals cannot be overcome on a natural construction of the language employed.

5. Given the inconsistent career prospects she has described, in circumstances where she would have been expected, and had the opportunity, to maintain consistency with one of them or to explain the inconsistency, the Tribunal considers this aspect of the applicant’s evidence to be unreliable in seeking to assess the relevance of her course of study to her proposed future employment, either in Taiwan or a third country, or whether it will assist her to obtain employment or improve her employment prospects there.  In any event, the Tribunal considers the language used by the applicant to describe her career path to be vague and unpersuasive.  Accordingly, the Tribunal weighs these factors significantly against the applicant.   

6. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that she completed a course of “applied foreign languages” at the National United University in Taiwan between 2009 and 2014.  Of this experience she states that she learnt “(American) English”, though most of her teachers were Taiwanese with only one “native” English speaker, a teacher from Australia with whom she was impressed.  The Tribunal is satisfied, then, that the applicant’s proposed course of study in Australia is relevant to her previous studies and that, from her expressed preference for studying in an English-speaking country, she has “reasonable reasons” for not undertaking the proposed study in Taiwan.  The Tribunal places some weight on these factors in her favour.

7. The Tribunal also accepts that, having lived in Australia for approximately 4 years (in two non-consecutive periods of 1 year and 3 years respectively), the applicant has sufficient knowledge of living in Australia; the applicant also displays, across her evidence, a reasonable knowledge of her proposed course and, in particular, the positive qualities of her course provider.  In all of the circumstances the Tribunal places some small weight on these factors in her favour.

8. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that her parents and younger brother reside in Taiwan.  She states that she calls them “two to three” times per week and texts them regularly.  The applicant also states that after her first working holiday in Australia she returned to Taiwan and spent time with her (then) ailing grandmother.  She also states that she returned to Taiwan for a month in September 2017 to spend time with an uncle who had been diagnosed with terminal cancer.  Overall, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant has personal ties to Taiwan and that these provide some incentive for her to return there.  Balanced against this, however, is his decision to reside in Australia, apart from her family, for four years and to seek to extend her visit.  Accordingly, the Tribunal places only some weight on this factor in her favour.

9. There is no evidence or information before the Tribunal of any military service or civil or political incidents that would act as a clear incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

10. In respect of her economic circumstances, the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that, across the four jobs she held in Taiwan between 2011 and 2014 her annual salaries ranged between AUD$12,545 and AUD$14,200.  Her evidence is that, since she has been onshore in Australia she has held six jobs with annual salaries ranging between AUD$24,466 and AUD$63,180 and averaging AUD$41,311.  The only evidence before the Tribunal as to the potential remuneration the applicant could receive in Taiwan upon completion of her courses is that “[her] remuneration could double up”.   Even allowing for this, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s economic circumstances in Australia present as a significant incentive for her not to return to her home country.  The Tribunal weighs this factor moderately against the applicant.

11. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with previous visas or previously held visas that were refused, cancelled or considered for cancellation.  The applicant’s immigration history does not raise concerns for the Tribunal. 

12. The Tribunal has had regard to all other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the Tribunal) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant. 

13. In weighing the available information the Tribunal has taken care to draw no inferences adverse or unfavourable to the applicant from any absence(s) of evidence or information.  That said, in the absence of evidence or information pertaining to a relevant factor or factors it is impossible for the Tribunal to weigh those factors in the applicant’s favour.

14. The weight the Tribunal places on the relevance of the applicant’s previous studies in Taiwan to her proposed course of study in Australia, the absence of political or military unrest and her personal ties there, together with her knowledge of living in Australia and compliance with previous visas and positive immigration history, is insufficient to dispel the Tribunal’s concerns, for the reasons outlined above, as to the economic incentives she has for maintaining residence in Australia and the absence of a clear, consistent career motive for undertaking her studies here.  The Tribunal is mindful that it must allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways, however it is not persuaded that the vague and inconsistent evidence that the applicant has proffered as to her career goals is consistent with a positive study or career plan or that it represents a reliable expression of her motives in making her application for a student visa.  Accordingly, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant is undertaking her current study or future study for the reasons she claims, but rather is using it as a pathway to obtain a student visa with the object of maintaining residence in Australia.

1. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

2. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212.

3. 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.

DECISION

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Damian Creedon
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

1. Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

2. For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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

1. An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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.