Sidhu (Migration)

Sidhu (Migration) [2020] AATA 1065 (3 April 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Ms Sukhdeep Kaur Sidhu
Mr Jaskaran Singh Sidhu
Master Guntaas Singh Sidhu
CASE NUMBER:  1910847
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/456907
MEMBER:D. Shirrefs
DATE:3 April 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Statement made on 03 April 2020 at 5:03pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine intention to stay temporarily – enrolment in lower-level course in different subject area – minimal research into new course – incentives to stay or return – family in home country, husband and child with her in Australia – economic and personal circumstances and future plans – intention to maintain residence – member of family unit – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2), 360(2)(b), (3)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cll 500.212(a), 500.311
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 17 April 2019 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 13 February 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.
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 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.
On 15 October 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to S.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information about her review application in writing. The invitation was sent to the applicant’s authorised recipient and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by 29 October 2019 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.
On 29 October 2019, the applicant provided the further information. In her response (s.359(2) response) the applicant indicated that she consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing in the following terms “Yes, I/we consent to the tribunal deciding the review without hearing”. The Tribunal is satisfied that the necessary consent has been given under s.360(2)(b) of the Act and that, pursuant to s.360(3), the review applicant is no longer entitled to appear before it. This application has therefore been determined on the evidence available to the Tribunal.
In addition to her s.359(2) response, the applicant provided a number of documents, including:
a.A completion letter and transcript of her studies in a Master of Commerce (Professional Accounting) from Curtin University;
b.A bank statement showing funds in the Commonwealth Bank;
c.A research article titled “Vocational training in India: determinants of participation and effect on wages”;
d.A Test Take a Score Report;
e.A copy of a resume of the applicant;
f.Copies of Confirmation of Enrolment certificates for her completed Master of Commerce and for a prospective enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at Perth Technical College Pty Ltd; and
g.A copy of her membership in Bupa Overseas Student Health Cover ending 15 March 2021.
On 31 October 2019, the applicant’s registered migration agent provided a further submission (Further Submission) in support of the applicant’s application to the Tribunal under a covering email. That submission was described as “a Cover Letter and more supporting documents” and was dated 29 October 2019.
All of the information provided by the applicant has been carefully considered.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.
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.
Background and applicant’s immigration history
The Tribunal has had regard to clauses 13 and 14 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant’s immigration and travel history.
The applicant is a woman from India. At the time of this decision, she is almost 33 years old. She has a husband and a son, both of whom are included in the application as dependent applicants. The applicant gave birth to her child in Australia in September 2017.
The applicant first arrived in Australia on 8 August 2016. She sought an extension to her visa in February 2019. She also declares in her s.359(2) response that she “applied for a visitor visa from offshore in September 2019, which has been refused. The student wanted a substantive visa to enable her to lodge her subsequent 485 visa application”.
In her s.359(2) response, the applicant declares that since arriving in Australia she has not returned to her home country. At the time of providing that information, the applicant had been in Australia more than three years. She now proposes to continue a course of study that would not conclude until January 2021.
The applicant has not provided any information in regard to travel to countries other than Australia and no adverse finding is made in this regard.
When the applicant first came to Australia, she came to study and English Language Bridging course after which she enrolled in a Masters of Commerce (Professional Accounting). She has completed that post graduate course successfully. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with visa requirements when onshore.
In her s.359(2) response the applicant provided a Confirmation of Enrolment certificate for a then future enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management which was to commence 13 January 2020 and end 10 January 2021. Were she to complete this course, but for any period she has then been in her home country, she would have been in Australia four years. This is a considerable period of time and raises concerns whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for the purpose of studying. I am further concerned that the level of education the applicant now seeks to undertake is at a much lower level than the recently completed Masters level course. This too raises concerns whether the applicant wishes to undertake the course for reasons other than to study and progress academically.
In her Further Submission, it is claimed by her registered migration agent “Because of not getting her student visa extension Sukhdeep has been delayed in applying for her 485 visa for which every student studying this qualification is entitled to.” This statement, in addition to the statement in her s.359(2) response that she “wanted a substantive visa to enable her to lodge her subsequent 485 visa application” does not support a conclusion that her motivation is genuinely to study temporarily in Australia. Rather, the statements support a finding that her motivation is other than genuinely to study temporarily in Australia.
Having carefully considered the evidence, the Tribunal finds that the Student visa may be used primarily as a means for the applicant to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
The applicant’s circumstances in their home country
The Tribunal has had regard to clauses 9 and 10 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.
The applicant successfully completed a Bachelor of Arts and a Bachelor of Education at Punjabi University before coming to Australia. On arrival, she did a bridging course in English and then studied at the Masters level. She now suggests she wants to go back to vocational level training. In her s.359(2) response the applicant provides only very general statements in relation to her reasons for not undertaking the study in her home country. She says vocational education in India is “not very structured or objective oriented” but provides no evidence to support this. She also says “Most of what will be taught in this Advanced Diploma is part of an MBA qualification”. She provides no evidence to support this. Even allowing for reasonable motives, I am not satisfied that the applicants reasons are an adequate justification for her not undertaking vocational studies in her home country.
The applicant says she has a mother, father, sister and brother in India. Her husband is in Australia. In relation to her personal ties to her family she says she speaks to her mother every day on WhatsApp and to her in-laws every other day. In relation to her contact with brothers and sisters in her home country, she declares “She is continually in touch with her siblings on WhatsApp every day. Currently she is with them”. Weighing the evidence of her family ties to India and her stated objective of pursuing a 485 visa in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied those circumstances serve as a significant incentive to return to her home country.
The applicant says she would expect an income of approximately “AUD 6000 per annum in a private college as a Lecturer” if she was to return after her further proposed studies and seek employment on the basis of her current qualifications. She says her husband “has extensive lands which give him an income of about AUD 20,000 per annum. Given that they have their own accommodation, transport and food coming from farms, the above income is for discretionary expenses”. She describes that “Level of income is supporting an upper middle-class lifestyle”. In her Further Submission, the applicant provides evidence that her husband has been working in Australia as a truck driver since 20 November 2018 on a current salary of $52,624.00 plus superannuation and that he also earns an extra $200 a week as an Uber driver. In combination with her stated objective of seeking a 485 visa in Australia, I am concerned that the applicant’s economic circumstances present as a significant incentive for her not to return to her home country if she is able to remain in Australia on a temporary student visa.
In regard to the applicant’s economic circumstances in her home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country, I note she regards her circumstances as being those of an upper-middle-class lifestyle. I make no adverse finding in this regard.
The applicant does not express any concerns about military service commitments or political or civil unrest in her home country.
The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia
The Tribunal has had regard to clause 11 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.
As noted previously in these reasons, the applicant’s husband is resident in Australia and appears to be in stable employment, earning in the order of $63,000.00 plus superannuation. The applicant declares that she is unemployed in her s.359(2) response, although it is apparent from that document and from the Further Submission her intention is to apply for a 485 visa with a view to being employed in Australia. This is to be contrasted with a combined income of approximately $ 26,000.00 which they would earn in India if they were to return after her proposed course of studies. On balance, and viewed objectively, this evidence supports a conclusion that the applicant’s ties with Australia would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia.
In addition to the personal circumstances of the applicant, which support a conclusion that they would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia, the applicant declares close community ties in Australia. She states in her s.359(2) response that she “is closely associated with the Sikh Temple in Canning Vale WA” and that her family “visit weekly and offer ’Kar seva’ which translate to selfless service by dishwashing, clean the premises and looking after other kids during the event.” I am of the view that these ties would also present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia.
In regard to the applicant’s knowledge of her intended course of study (The Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management), the evidence of her understanding is relatively weak. The applicant declares “only primary research by speaking and visiting 4-5 colleges my agent listed and found that the delivery is the best in this college. I also knew one past student who spoke well of this course from this college.” I am mindful of the fact that the applicant is a highly educated woman, having achieved 2 degrees at the bachelor level and a post graduate level in commerce. Even allowing for reasonable motivation to change direction, I find it hard to reconcile her education and her past conduct in relation to her studies with the suggestion that she would decide to make such a significant change in direction on the basis of little more than minimal research into the choice of venue and the nature of the proposed course.
On balance, and having carefully weighed the evidence, I am concerned that the applicant is using the student visa program to circumvent the intentions of the migration program and that the student visa is being used to maintain ongoing residence.
Value of the course to the applicant’s future
The Tribunal has had regard to clause 12 of Direction 69 with respect to the applicant.
The applicant suggests that her objective is to, after some time, “build a vocational school”. She provides research supporting the value of vocational skills to workers in India, which I have considered and I accept. She says that “employers are crying and skilled workforce and government is giving lot of incentives” and that her husband’s family has land on which they might ultimately build their school. I accept this evidence.
It is apparent that the applicants past studies in arts, education and commerce would be clearly beneficial for such a venture. However, the applicant makes this review application on the basis that she seeks the student visa for the purpose of completing an Advanced Diploma level course in Leadership and Management. The applicant declares in relation to the value of this course to her future that “she realises that she also has a big vacuum in leadership and management skills in this advanced diploma will help her address that gap”. The applicant’s evidence goes no further than this very general proposition. In circumstances where the applicant has gone to considerable effort to describe her future career plan, I consider it reasonable that the applicant would have gone to some effort to explain the relevance of her proposed course to that objective. Where the applicant speaks of her future employment in India, it is that she expects a role as a lecturer, or possibly in administration in a private college. She is already more than qualified for such a role. The applicant has provided no evidence as to how her proposed vocational course would contribute to her obtaining employment in education or administration. Nor does the applicant provide any evidence as to any connection between the proposed course of study and remuneration she might achieve in her home country.
Having considered all of the evidence, I am not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the relevance of the course to her proposed future employment. Further, given she states that the plan to build a vocational school could take 5 to 7 years, I am not satisfied that there is any material relevance of her proposed course of studies to that career objective.
I have given regard to whether there are any other relevant matters and I consider that there are no other relevant matters to consider that may be beneficial or adverse to the applicant.
Having considered all of the information before it, the Tribunal considers that the applicant has not demonstrated circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily for the purpose of studying and progressing in her studies. Rather, the applicant’s application supports a conclusion that her motivation is not to progress in her studies, but to use the student visa as a means of maintaining residence in Australia. On the basis of the above, and having considered the applicant circumstances, immigration history and other matters I am directed to have regard to, 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).
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.
The second applicant, Jaskaran Singh Sidhu, is the husband of the primary applicant.
A visa cannot be granted unless the relevant criteria set out in the Act and the Migration Regulations are satisfied. In this case, criterion 500.311 of Schedule 2 to the regulations requires that Jaskaran Singh Sidhu is a member of the family unit of a person who satisfies, or has satisfied, the primary criteria in Subdivisions 500.212.

For the reasons set out above, the primary applicant has been found to not satisfy the relevant primary criteria of cl.500.212. Accordingly, clause 500.311 is not met by the second applicant.
The third applicant, Guntaas Singh Sidhu, is the son of the primary applicant.
A visa cannot be granted unless the relevant criteria set out in the Act and the Migration Regulations are satisfied. In this case, criterion 500.311 of Schedule 2 to the regulations requires that Guntaas Singh Sidhu is a member of the family unit of a person who satisfies, or has satisfied, the primary criteria in Subdivisions 500.212.
For the reasons set out above, the primary applicant has been found to not satisfy the relevant primary criteria of cl.500.212. Accordingly, clause 500.311 is not met by the third applicant.
The second and third applicants did not make any claims or provide evidence that they satisfy the primary criteria.
Accordingly, the decision under review, in respect of all applicants, must be affirmed
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
D. Shirrefs
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.

[2020] AATA 1065

3 April 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Statutory Construction

Procedural Fairness

Jurisdiction