Singh (Migration)

Singh (Migration) [2020] AATA 2409 (18 June 2020)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Lovepreet Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1900081
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/2673579
MEMBER:Jens Streit
DATE:18 June 2020
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 18 June 2020 at 4:31pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – visa and study history – courses in different subject areas – incentives to return or remain – family, property and financial ties to home country – wife, child and employment in Australia – value of study to future employment – using student visa program to maintain residence – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359AA
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)
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 20 December 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicant applied for the visa on 17 July 2018. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa to undertake study in Australia and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
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 delegate was not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended a temporary stay in Australia as a student.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 November 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.
The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages.
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 is a genuine temporary entrant.
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.
At the time of lodging the application for review, the applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the delegate’s decision and record of reasons refusing to grant the visa.
In terms of the evidence, the Tribunal has had regard to the applicant’s oral testimony, the Departmental file, the Tribunal file and the documentation provided by the applicant to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal notes the applicant’s response to the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form and additional documents provided by the applicant to the Tribunal, including as follows:
(a)Applicant’s written submission to the Tribunal dated 20 November 2019
(b)Current Confirmation of Enrolment dated 18 October 2019
(c)PTE Academic Test Taker Score Report dated 21 November 2019
(d)Certificate IV in Horticulture dated 30 June 2019
(e)Diploma of Horticulture dated 31 October 2019
(f)Property Valuation report dated 15 November 2019
(g)Previous Travel History Visa Stamps
The applicant is a 30-year-old Indian national. On 8 April 2017 the applicant arrived in Australia on 8 April 2017 on a GB 401 (Religious Worker) visa, which was valid until 17 May 2017.
On 19 September 2017, the applicant was granted a dependant Student (TU573) visa, which was valid until 21 July 2018.
On 17 July 2018, being 3 days before his dependant student visa expired, the applicant applied for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) Student (Subclass 500) visa to study a course in General English.
The applicant commenced study in this course on 23 July 2018. As set out above, the delegate refused to grant the applicant a student visa on 20 December 2018. The applicant applied to the Tribunal for review of the delegate’s decision on 2 January 2019.
At the time of the hearing, the applicant was enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management.
The applicant’s expected time living and studying in Australia from commencement of study in General English on 23 July 2018 to completion of his Diploma of Leadership and Management is approximately 22 months (23 July 2018 to 9 May 2020).
In his written statement the applicant contends that he wanted to study a course in horticulture in Australia but his English language skills were not sufficient to meet the course requirement and so he enrolled in General English. Subsequently the applicant contents that he undertook the Pearson Test of English (PTE) examination and obtained an overall score of 49. The applicant has provided the Tribunal with documentary evidence of his examination result. As a consequence of achieving this score the applicant met the entry requirements for admission to a vocational course at the Brisbane College of Horticulture and he commenced study in a Certificate IV in Horticulture leading to completing a Diploma of Horticulture.
In the period between the delegate’s decision and the hearing before the Tribunal, the applicant’s enrolment history as recorded in Provider Registration International Student Management System (PRISMS) record was as follows:
·General English (23 July 2018 to 15 September 2019 – cancelled)
·Certificate III in Horticulture (11 March 2019 to 21 February 2020 – cancelled)
·Diploma of Leadership and Management (11 November 2019 to 9 May 2020)
·Certificate IV in Horticulture (9 March 2020 to 16 October 2020)
·Diploma of Horticulture (16 March 2020 to 14 May 2021)
Adopting the procedure in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal put to the applicant the contents of the PRISMS record database. The Tribunal provided the applicant with a copy of the PRISMS enrolment record. The Tribunal informed the applicant that the PRISMS record reflects that a number of his course enrolments were cancelled, including the Certificate IV in Horticulture and Diploma of Horticulture. The Tribunal explained the consequences of relying upon the information. The Tribunal invited the applicant to comment on or respond to the information and advised the applicant they may seek additional time to comment on or respond to the information. The applicant elected to respond at the hearing.
The applicant gave evidence to the effect that the confirmations of enrolment for Certificate III in Horticulture, Certificate IV in Horticulture and Diploma of Horticulture were cancelled because he did not finish the course in General English. The reason he did not finish the course in General English was because he undertook the PTE examination and obtained a satisfactory result for admission to a vocational course at the Brisbane College of Horticulture. The applicant gave evidence that the Brisbane College of Horticulture did not provide him with any confirmation of enrolments. The applicant gave evidence that he completed the courses based on VOE. The Tribunal understands VOE to mean verification of enrolment.
Notwithstanding the factual inconsistency between the contents of the PRISMS record and the applicant’s certificates of completion for Certificate IV in Horticulture and Diploma of Horticulture, the PRISMS record and the applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that the applicant is presently enrolled and studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management.
During the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant questions concerning his responses to the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form. The Tribunal asked the applicant why the part of ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form entitled ‘Other circumstances’ had not been completed. The applicant apologised and told the Tribunal he forgot to complete that part by mistake. There were a number of other parts of the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form that the applicant did not complete.
The applicant gave evidence that he did not know it was important to fill out the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form.
In terms of the applicant’s circumstances in India, in his written submission the applicant asserts that his parents and his siblings live in India. He asserts that his family own a farming business in India and that he initially worked on the farms with his family. He asserts his father is on the verge of retiring from the family business and the duty to run the farming business has fallen to the applicant. He asserts that he is deeply connected with his family in India and that he had every intention of returning to live with his parents and family in India upon completion of the Diploma of Leadership and Management. The applicant asserted that his wife and child will return with him to live in India.
In response to questions from the Tribunal the applicant gave evidence to the effect that his mother had passed away and that his brother and grandmother live in India. The applicant asserts that he travels to visit his grandmother each year.
In terms of property in India, in his written statement the applicant asserts that he has a sound financial background in India. His family own three properties of significant worth. The applicant provided the Tribunal with property valuations concerning those assertions. The Tribunal notes that the applicant is not the owner of the property referred to in the property valuation documents. In the circumstances the Tribunal considers that the applicant has aspirations to inherit his parents’ property and farming business.
In his response to the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form, the applicant recorded that he does not have any concerns about military service commitments or political or civil unrest in India.
The Tribunal drew the applicant’s attention to information contained in the delegate’s decision record to the effect that the applicant declared that his father and one sibling lived in the United Kingdom (UK) and that he has another sibling living in India. In response the applicant stated that he has a younger brother who lives in India and a sister who is married and lives in the UK. The applicant states that his father is a permanent resident in the UK but because of his love of farming he likes to live in India and look after the applicant’s grandmother.
The Tribunal noted that the applicant’s evidence giving during the hearing concerning his family circumstances was different to what the applicant stated about his family circumstances in his written submission. In particular, there is no mention in the applicant’s written submission that the applicant’s mother had passed away and that the applicant’s father is a permanent resident of the UK. In response the applicant stated to the effect that his father cannot look after the farm forever and that he could not really provide any further clarification. In response to a question from the Tribunal as to when his mother had passed away, the applicant stated that his mother passed away in 2011.
In the circumstances, the Tribunal considers that the applicant gave inconsistent evidence in relation to his family circumstances in India as between his oral evidence and his written submission concerning the fact that his mother had passed away in 2011.
In terms of the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia, the applicant gave evidence that he lives in Australia with his wife and child. He told the Tribunal that his wife and child are not dependents to his application for a student visa but have their own visas to be in Australia.
The applicant does not own any property in Australia. He lives with his wife and child in a rental property.
The applicant gave evidence that his financial circumstances in Australia were good. The applicant stated that he earns an income working on a mixed crop farm in Coffs Harbour and that his father paid his study fees. The applicant stated that his wife does not work as she does not have permission to work. He told the Tribunal that his child is 5 years old.
In his response to the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form the applicant records that he has been employed in Australia by the Rai Family Trust as a mixed crop farmer since June 2018 earning $35,000 per annum.
The Tribunal considers the applicant’s employment in Australia provides an incentive for the applicant to remain living and working in Australia.
Having regard to the evidence, the Tribunal considers on balance the applicant’s circumstances in India do not provide an incentive for the applicant to return to work and live in India, as to outweigh the incentive for the applicant to remain living and working in Australia.
In terms of the value of studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management to the applicant’s future, in his written submission the applicant asserts that his family own a farming business in India and that he initially worked on the farms with his family. He asserts his father is on the verge of retiring from the family business and the duty to run the farming business has fallen to the applicant. He asserts to the effect that a lack of farming knowledge, including how to manage a farming business, were the reasons he wanted to study horticulture in Australia. He further asserts that: ‘…the combination of the horticulture and Leadership Management program would give me the skills and knowledge to productively run our farming business in India.’
The applicant gave evidence that at the completion of his Diploma of Leadership and Management his plan is to return to India and manage his own agriculture business.
The applicant gave evidence to the effect that in working in his parents farming business he was the main person looking after everything, including dealing with the contractors, the petrol pump and managing pesticides.
In response to the Tribunal’s question as to why he could not study horticulture in India instead of studying horticulture in Australia, the applicant gave evidence to the effect that initially he did not have an intention to study horticulture in Australia but seeing how farming is done in Australia, including observing farming berries in Coffs Harbour and different techniques for growing food, the applicant wanted to learn those techniques and then use those techniques with different crops back in India.
In his written statement the applicant asserts that the Diploma of Leadership and Management aims to teach the key business and project management techniques required to run a successful business. He asserts that the units he is studying are relevant to his career in the farming industry.
The Tribunal notes that the contents of the record of results for the applicant’s Diploma of Horticulture reflects course subjects tailored to managing a farming business, including ‘Manage staff’, ‘Manage work health and safety processes’ and ‘Manage simple projects’ just to name three. In the circumstances it appears to the Tribunal there is little value in the applicant now studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management to his future plans.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant initially applied for a student visa to study General English in Australia, which was refused by the delegate. The applicant then appears to have completed courses for a Certificate IV in Horticulture and Diploma of Horticulture noting the contents of the certificates provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. The applicant has then enrolled to study a Diploma of Leadership and Management. During his study the applicant has been employed as a mixed crop farmer.
The Tribunal recognises the importance of allowing for reasonable changes to career and study pathways. However, having regard to the evidence, the Tribunal is not persuaded by the applicant’s reasons for now studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management.
In all the circumstances the Tribunal is not satisfied as to the value of the applicant studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management in relation to the applicant’s plans for his future in running the family farming business
In terms of the applicant’s immigration history, in his response to the Tribunal’s ‘Request for Student Visa Information’ form, the applicant records that he travelled back to India in January 2019 for one month to visit family and friends. The applicant also records having travelled to the UK and Canada during 2009 to 2013 to play sport.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s immigration history and does not make any adverse findings.
The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia. Weighing up the above matters, the Tribunal considers that the applicant is using the student visa programme primarily to maintain ongoing residence in Australia.
Having had regard to all matters, including as canvassed 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).
Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the primary 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 to refuse to grant the visa to the applicant must be affirmed.
DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Jens Streit
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 2409

18 June 2020

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction