SINGH (Migration)
[2021] AATA 3899
•30 July 2021
SINGH (Migration) [2021] AATA 3899 (30 July 2021)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT: ATINDERPAL SINGH
CASE NUMBER: 2000503
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/4720153
MEMBER:T. Quinn
DATE:30 July 2021
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:
·Clause 500.212 (a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Statement made on 30 July 2021 at 10:42am
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – Direction No.69 – good academic progress – consistent with current level of education – change in visa status – approximately seven months from completion of course – decision under review remittedLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212CASES
Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1372
Khan v Minister for Immigration & Another [2019] FCCA 565
Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667STATEMENT 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 (‘the delegate’) on 7 January 2020 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa (‘the visa’) under section 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (‘the Act’).
The applicant applied for the visa on 20 September 2019 (‘the application’). At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa (being a Subclass 500 (Student) visa) to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
On 7 January 2020, the delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (‘the Regulations’), namely that 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 applicant’s review application.
On 10 January 2020, the applicant applied for a review of the delegate’s decision with this Tribunal pursuant to sections 338(2) and 347 of the Act.
Approximately 18 months have elapsed since the making of the delegate’s decision and the applicant’s application for review with the Tribunal. In coming to consider the merits of the application for review, the Tribunal recognises the applicant’s personal circumstances bearing upon their visa application may have changed during that time. The Tribunal considered that it would be beneficial for the applicant to provide updated and further information to the Tribunal for the purposes of determining the outcome of their application for review. To this end, on 11 March 2021, the Tribunal wrote to the applicant, pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act, inviting them to provide information in writing about the course(s) of study the applicant was undertaking and their entry and stay in Australia as a student (‘the s359(2) letter’). The applicant responded to the s359(2) letter on 25 March 2021 which was within the prescribed timeframe.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
The applicant was listed to appear before the Tribunal via telephone hearing on 28 July 2021 to give evidence and present arguments. However, upon consideration of the material before the Tribunal, the Tribunal has determined a decision can be made in the applicant’s favour without the need for a hearing.
The Tribunal has proceeded to a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the Department file and all material and evidence provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.
STATUTORY FRAMEWORK
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in clause 500.211 to clause 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant.
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 clause 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’ (‘the Direction’), made under section 499 of the Act. The 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.
The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist, but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Direction is a lawful direction of the Minister made in accordance with section 499 of the Act. The Tribunal is therefore bound to consider and, to the extent that its terms are relevant, apply it to the applicant’s case.[1] Accordingly, the terms of the Direction and their application to the applicant’s case have been considered in relation to material before the Tribunal. The Tribunal, however, recognises that it is an independent statutory body. It must therefore reach its own conclusions as to the merits of the applicant’s case, which includes an assessment of how and to what extent each factor in the Direction is relevant and applicable, independently of any conclusions reached by the delegate. In this regard, the Tribunal also notes the decision of Judge McNab in Tshering v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCCA 2667 (at [44]-[47]), wherein his Honour referred to the decisions of Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs & Anor [2019] FCCA 1372 (at [49] and [51]) and Khan v Minister for Immigration & Another [2019] FCCA 565 (at [35]) in relation to the proper approach to the consideration of guidelines such as the Direction. Most pertinently, his Honour endorses the view espoused in those cases, that such guidelines may not be relevant where the matters raised by an applicant, either upon the application or at merits review, do not raise facts which engage particular matters identified by those guidelines.
[1]FKP18 v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2018] FCA 1555, [10], [34]; Chen v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2017] FCA 46, [29]; Williams v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 226 FCR 112, [60]-[73]; Jagroop v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2014) 225 FCR 482, [8]; Baker v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2012] FCAFC 145, [10]; Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Obele (2010) 119 ALD 358, [53] Cockrell v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 171 FCR 345, [27]-[28].
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The applicant in this case is a 27-year-old male Indian citizen who first arrived in Australia on 6 September 2019 on a visitor visa.[2] Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant completed a Diploma of Business Management in New Zealand in March 2016 and then worked as a checkout operator from April 2018-September 2019 earning AUD41,000 equivalent per annum in New Zealand on a job search and working visa.[3]
[2] See delegate’s decision and applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[3]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The applicant’s application which the subject of this review was to undertake a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology, a Certificate IV in Automotive Mechanical Diagnosis and a Diploma of Automotive Technology.[4] Due to delays in the applicant’s matter coming before the Tribunal, the applicant has now commenced and completed his Certificate III and Certificate IV and is due to complete his Diploma in February 2022.[5] The applicant has supplied a corroborating documents from his course provider (including letters dated 15 March and 13 June 2021) to that effect to the Tribunal.[6]
[4] See delegate’s decision.
[5]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 23 July 2021.
[6]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 23 July 2021.
The applicant has made good academic progress in his time onshore and the Tribunal commends the applicant in this regard, particularly in circumstances where he has done this during a Global Pandemic, living on a bridging visa and managing the uncertainty of the outcome of this application.
The Tribunal allows for reasonable changes to study and career pathways and considers this study is relatively consistent with the applicant’s current level of education, although notes he has already completed a Diploma level course and so is also not progressing beyond his existing level of education.
The applicant submits that upon completion of his courses he may start by working as a workshop manager to gain industry experience and hopes to open his own automotive workshop in India which his education in Australia, combined with his business education in in New Zealand will give him the skills to do.[7] He anticipates earning AUD18,240-27,300 equivalent per annum using the qualifications gained.[8] The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s courses are relevant to and likely to assist and improve the applicant’s proposed career.
[7]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[8]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The applicant has been working casually since September 2020 in ‘general work’ earning AUD400 per week on average and as an uber driver earning AUD200-250 per week (AUD31,200-33,800 per annum).[9] His expenses onshore total AUD16,200 per annum.[10] He states he owns a house and agricultural land in India, together worth AUD280,000 equivalent.[11] The Tribunal notes that the United Nations Human Development Index, which is a statistical comparison of life expectancy, education and per capita income indicators by country, ranks India as 131st in the world as compared to Australia’s ranking of 8th in the world.[12] The Tribunal considers the applicant’s economic circumstances onshore appear to be acting as a significant incentive for him to remain, particularly given the exchange rate between India and Australia and that the applicant’s current employment situation puts him in a position to be earning thousands of dollars in excess of his expenses onshore.
[9]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions of 23 July 2021.
[10]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[11]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[12]See Table 1 of United Nations’ Human Development Report 2020 commencing at page 343 <>
The applicant claims that in working as an uber driver he is a front line worker serving the Australian community in COVID19 pandemic times.[13] He has otherwise provided limited details in relation to his community ties in Australia.[14] The Tribunal notes that the applicant has only been onshore for two years and therefore does not consider there is sufficient evidence to conclude that he has ties to Australia acting as a strong incentive for him to remain at this time. This factor will become more significant if the applicant applies for a further visa after completion of his Diploma.
[13]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[14]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The applicant has not returned to India since his arrival onshore in September 2019.[15] However, the Tribunal notes that the COVID19 Pandemic and associated travel restrictions have made such travel virtually impossible since early 2020. The applicant’s spouse, parents and brother live in India and he speaks to them every day.[16] He has not listed any community ties to his home country in his questionnaire filed in response to the s359(2) letter and although the Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has ties to his home country and region in the form of his wife, brother and parents, the applicant has not been living in India since June 2014, having studied and then worked in New Zealand since that time until the time of his arrival in Australia.[17] The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s community ties to his home country are acting as a significant incentive for him to return.
[15] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[16]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[17]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The applicant claims that he searched for the best quality courses in India in this field but could not find any ‘good institute’.[18] He states the courses in India are below par compared to an international qualification and the package of courses he is undertaking is not available in popular colleges and the standards do not meet those in the Australian education system.[19] The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has provided reasonable reasons for not undertaking the study in his home country or region.
[18]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[19]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The applicant lived in New Zealand on a student visa and working visa from June 2014-August 2019 as set out above.[20] There is no evidence that the applicant has had no travel, visa or immigration issues in the past.[21] The applicant states he does not have any potential military service obligations or political or civil unrest concerns in India.[22]
[20]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[21] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
[22] See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter.
The Tribunal is concerned by the way in which the applicant came to be onshore (being on a visitor visa and only then, once onshore, applying for a student visa). It is difficult for the Tribunal to accept that the applicant, in such a short space of time after his arrival onshore as a visitor, could have then promptly researched all study and living options and decided to remain onshore for a further two and a half year period. The Tribunal accepts that it is possible that an applicant may seek a change in plans or to further their skills for employment reasons and remuneration opportunities, but the Tribunal is puzzled when an applicant arrives on a visitor visa and then makes sudden changes to their plans within a short period of time after arriving. It seems unlikely to the Tribunal that a person travelling as a tourist would make such a significant change from their initial intentions to visit. Such a significant change would necessarily include a greater level of planning and preparation before arriving in Australia considering the length of time (two and a half years) that the applicant proposed to spend in Australia. It raises concerns about his true intentions in seeking a student visa.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant is due to finish his Diploma in February 2022 and he is currently studying.[23] The applicant is therefore approximately seven months from completion. Should the applicant instead make a further application for a visa after this time, the evidence and submissions he made in connection with this case will clearly be relevant to any assessment of his true intentions.
[23]See applicant’s response to the s359(2) letter and submissions filed 21 June 2021.
Having had regard to the applicant’s circumstances, his immigration history and all other relevant matters, the Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student temporarily as required by clause 500.212. Accordingly, the applicant meets clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Given the above findings, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:
·Clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Member
T. Quinn
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.
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Statutory Construction
-
Remedies
0
10
0