Shrestha (Migration)

[2020] AATA 3585

Shrestha (Migration) [2020] AATA 3585 (24 July 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Mahendra Shrestha
Mrs Anjana Shrestha

CASE NUMBER:  1927143

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):         BCC2019/3081215

MEMBER:D Triaca

DATE:24 July 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 24 July 2020 at 4:30pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – no response to s 359(2) letter – not entitled to appear before the Tribunal – academic history – extremely well qualified academically – inconsistent with level of education – value of course – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359C, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), 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 Home Affairs on 9 September 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 18 June 2019. 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.

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 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because 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 applicants review application.

4. The Tribunal formally wrote to the applicant pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicant to provide further information to the Tribunal on 15 May 2020. The invitation advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period 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 applicants 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 Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the applicant‘s nominated address, being the address provided by the review applicants in connection with this application for review.

6. On 26 May 2020, the Tribunal extended time for the applicant to respond to the Tribunal’s invitation to 26 June 2020. On 22 June 2020 the applicant responded to the Tribunal in writing (359 Response) and provided further documents in support of the application. The applicant consented to the Tribunal determining the application without a hearing.

7. In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: Section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

8. 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 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.

9. In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department as well as information that may be discerned from the delegate’s decision itself. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the review application.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. 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)

12. 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?

13. 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.

14. 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.

15. The main applicant is a 35 year old citizen of Nepal. He first arrived in Australia on 8 April 2009 (applicant). There is a Secondary Applicant to the application. The applicant’s wife, a 34 year old citizen of Nepal.

16. The applicant has resided in Australia since at least 2009 on a series of student visas and a Temporary Graduate visa granted in December 2017. He says that he has returned to his home country on three occasions during that time, for periods ranging from between 31 and 51 days. He applied for a further student visa on 18 June 2019 proposing to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management and an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management (proposed study). On 9 September 2019 a delegate of the Department refused the application (delegate’s decision). On 26 September 2019 the applicant applied to the Tribunal for a review of the delegate’s decision and provided the Tribunal with a copy of that decision.

17. The Tribunal has read and had regard to documents provided by the applicant to the Department and the Tribunal including the delegate’s decision; application for a student visa 18 June 2019; 359 Response document; Statement of Purpose; Detailed written submissions prepared by the applicant’s representative 22 June 2020; Passport; Pearson Test of Academic English; Form 956 Advice; Marriage Certificate; Bank Statement; Certificate of Overseas Student Health Cover; Secondary Applicant’s Passport; GTE Statement; Certificate of Overseas Student Health Cover – Secondary Applicant; Confirmation of Enrolment Documents; Academic Transcripts and Certificates; Nepalese High School Certificates; Evidence of Property Ownership in Nepal; Evidence of research into job vacancies.

18. The applicant’s academic history is set out in his 359 response. Since arriving in Australia the applicant has completed courses in English for Academic Purposes, Diploma of Business Management, Advanced Diploma of Accounting, Advanced Diploma of Marketing, Bachelor of Professional Accounting, Master of Business Administration, Diploma of Leadership and Management. He is now studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management. He has also done a professional year program which included a 3 month internship.

19. The applicant’s future plan is to return home to Nepal to seek a senior role in an accounting and finance section of a major organisation such as a bank in Nepal. Following a few years of this experience, he hopes to take over his parents business.

20. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant is a good student. This is plain from his academic record. It is in his favour that he continued to study in Australia since the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s submissions to the effect that he has put effort into his studies and has maintained good attendance records whilst in Australia. This is evident from the applicant’s academic achievements.

21. However, the Reality of the applicant’s situation is that he is, on any objective view, extremely well qualified academically and there is no apparent reason why he is unable to return to his home cod there is no apparent reason why he is unable immediately return to his home country and find suitable employment.

22. The Tribunal is also concerned that the applicant is studying courses of a lower level than his Master and Bachelor Degrees. The applicant’s Statement of Purpose includes the applicant’s contention that the course will “help me build a good foundation to lead a team and manage the work of others and to add value to management practices.” The Tribunal simply considers the proposed study is unnecessary to achieve this goal. The applicant’s Master of Business Administration is a qualification that ought to enable the applicant to return home and find a management position. The applicant has not demonstrated how the proposed study will advance his understanding of business administration and management principles beyond the level he has already achieved in the Master level course.

23. Accordingly, the Tribunal is concerned that the value of the applicant’s current vocational leadership course to his future is marginal at best. The qualifications he has already achieved should provide him with a sound knowledge base that may be deployed to solve disparate business challenges. As such, the Tribunal does not consider the proposed courses will really assist the applicant to obtain employment or improve his employment prospects in Nepal. It follows that the Tribunal does not consider the proposed study will increase the remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in his home country or a third country.

24. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submissions in relation to the value of the course to the applicant’s future and his knowledge of the course and content provider. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant’s submission in relation to these matters. There is no evidence before the Tribunal to suggest that studying a lower level course in leadership and management is likely to advance the applicant’s career in circumstances in which he holds both Bachelor and Master degrees. It does not accept his submission that this course is important for career development, his future relationship, family and prosperity. There is no evidence this is the case.

25. If the applicant’s sentiments in relation to the benefits of an international education upon returning to Nepal and the prestige such courses are held in his home country, he is well credentialed to take advantage of that situation with his Masters, Bachelor Degrees in addition to his various Diploma courses.

26. The Tribunal does not consider the applicant has displayed a genuine understanding of the course, its content and provider. Whilst he may be able to state the subjects he is undertaking in this course, it is difficult to understand how he considers that the proposed study will really advance his career in light of his qualifications. In these circumstances the tribunal considers that the applicant has displayed a clear misunderstanding of the proposed courses.

27. The applicant’s family is his wife, resident in Australia, his parents and brother resident in Nepal. He says he speaks to his family regularly via telephone and social media. His parents also visited him in Australia in 2018. He has visited Nepal three times since arriving in Australia. In circumstances in which the applicant appears to be managing his family relationships telephone and visiting, has resided in Australia for over a decade and is seeking to extend his time here, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s family ties to Nepal operate as a significant incentive for him to return home.

28. The Tribunal considers the presence of the applicant’s wife in Australia is a tie to Australia that operates as a strong incentive for him to remain in Australia.

29. The applicant has addressed his circumstances in Nepal in his submission. However, he has not provided specific evidence of his circumstances in his home country relative to others there.

30. The applicant states, and the tribunal accepts, that he has no concerns in relation to political or civil unrest in his home country.

31. The applicant states, and the tribunal accepts, that he has no concerns in relation to potential military service commitments in his home country.

32. The evidence in relation to the applicant’s economic circumstances is as follows. He and his family own property in Nepal including agricultural land and a house and Land plots. He has worked in Nepal as a Science and Maths Teacher earning approximately $1300 per annum between 2003 and 20018. He has worked in Australia as a cleaner and an accounts officer. He has worked consistently since 2011. He currently works as a cleaner and earns $25,000 per annum AUD. He says his expenses are approximately $23,916 per annum AUD.

33. The Tribunal does not consider that holding property overseas operates as an effective incentive for the applicant to return home. Property may be readily sold or retained and utilised to produce income. The Tribunal accepts his evidence in relation to his overseas assets. However it does not accept that this is a significant incentive for him to return home.

34. The Tribunal has regard to the economic disparity between Australia and Nepal. The United Nations Human Development Index[1] (UNHDI) ranks Australia sixth in the world in terms of social and economic development. It is an objective measure that shows that the standard of living and quality of life in Australia is relatively high as compared to the rest of the world. The UNHDI ranks Nepal 147. In this context, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s demonstrated ability to work in Australia and earn Australian dollars through ordinary employment operates as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return home.

    [1] United Nations Development Program, Human Development Report 2019 – Beyond Income, Beyond A, Beyond Today: Inequalities in Human Development in the 21^st Century (UNDP, 2019) 326-31.

35. The Tribunal notes that the applicant appears to have travelled to his home country without issue on a number of occasions. He also appears to have complied with all the requirements of his visas since arriving in Australia. The Tribunal makes no adverse findings against the applicant in relation to his travel or immigration history.

36. The Tribunal has regard to the applicant’s submission in relation to the COVID-19 situation in Nepal and his submission to the effect that the situation there is of such a nature that the applicant is unable to return home. There is no specific evidence in relation to the COVID situation in Nepal, as opposed to other countries. The Tribunal considers that COVID-19 is an issue that appears to be affecting most countries in the world in various degrees. Whilst it may or may not be worse in Nepal, and there is no evidence to suggest it is, the Tribunal does not consider that COVID-19 is a relevant factor to determining the application in relation to the applicant’s student visa.

37. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submissions in relation to “compassionate reasons”. These matters do not bare on the questions of whether or not the applicant is a genuine applicant. The Tribunal has considered these matters in the context of the applicant’s family ties to Nepal. The Tribunal, having considered these submissions, remains of the view that the applicant’s family ties to Nepal do not operate as a significant incentive to return home. The reality is that the applicant has lived in Australia for over a decade. He has had numerous opportunities to return home if his ties to his home country were of such a nature that they acted as an incentive for him to do so.

38. There do not appear to be any further matters relevant to the application.

39. The Tribunal thanks the applicant’s representative for the detailed written submissions provided to the Tribunal.

40. The Tribunal has considered all the evidence before it. It does not consider the applicant to be a genuine applicant. The applicant has resided in Australia for over a decade. He has a strong academic history including a Master a Bachelor degree. These qualifications ought to see him well placed to return home and find suitable employment. The Tribunal does not accept that further, lower level, courses offer any real value to his future career. In circumstances in which the applicant is well qualified, the Tribunal considers that the applicant is utilising the student visa system as a means of maintaining an ongoing residence in Australia. In any event, the Tribunal has difficulty reconciling the applicant’s stay in Australia for over a decade with the meaning of temporary. In the circumstances the application is refused.

41. 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).

42. 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.

43. 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 Applicant.

44. In circumstances in which the main applicant does not meet the primary criteria for the grant of a student Visa, the secondary applicant also fails meet the criteria for the grant of a student visa.

    DECISION

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

    D Triaca
    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.