Singh (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) affirmed a decision not to grant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa to the applicant. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must genuinely intend to stay in Australia temporarily, considering their circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal was required to assess the applicant's genuine temporary entrant status in accordance with Direction No. 69, issued under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958. This Direction outlines various factors to be considered, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to their future, and their immigration history. The Tribunal also had regard to the principles established in *Kumar v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection* [2020] FCAFC 16 concerning the application of Direction No. 69.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on whether the applicant met the criteria outlined in clause 500.212(a). The Direction specifies that decision-makers should not treat the listed factors as a checklist but rather consider them holistically. The Tribunal affirmed the original decision, concluding that the applicant did not meet the genuine temporary entrant criterion. Consequently, as the main applicant did not satisfy the primary criteria, the secondary applicant also failed to meet the relevant criteria.