Singh (Migration)

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 4717 (16 October 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Shahbaj Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1814202
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2018/1206533
MEMBER:Elizabeth Tueno
DATE:16 October 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 16 October 2019 at 1:03pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary stay – multiple courses in different subject areas – non-completion of courses – value of study to career objectives – circumstances in home country and Australia – incentives to return or stay – use of student visas to stay in Australia – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
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 8 May 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 13 March 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 they were not satisfied that the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily. The delegate did not believe the applicant had demonstrated strong enough ties to outweigh a significant incentive not to return to his home country and that his circumstances in Australia outweighed any incentive to depart. The delegate also had concerns about the applicant’s motivations for wanting to pursue further study in Australia.
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 14 October 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi and English languages. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
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.
The Tribunal has had regard to the Department’s file as well as documentation provided by the applicant to the Tribunal prior to the hearing including a completed questionnaire form provided to the applicant by the Tribunal, academic transcripts for various courses, a certificate of completion of an English language course, an undated genuine temporary entrant statement prepared by the applicant and various confirmations of enrolment including current and past studies.
The applicant is a 27 year old Indian national. He arrived in Australia on 16 April 2013 on a student visa, which expired on 15 March 2016. He applied for a second student visa on 2 March 2016, which expired on 15 March 2018. He has now applied for a third student visa, which is the subject of this application. Since arriving in Australia for the purpose of study, the applicant has been enrolled in the following courses:
·    In 2013: Bachelor of Business (Executive Administration) – not completed
·    In 2014: Bachelor of Networking – not completed
·    In 2015: Bachelor of Information Systems – not completed
·    2016: Bachelor of Information Technology and Systems – not completed
·    2018: Bachelor of Information Technology – never started
·    April to July 2018: English Language course – completed
·    2018: Bachelor of Information Technology – not completed
·    2019: Certificate III in Retail Baking – studying now
To summarise, in over six years since arriving in Australia, the applicant has completed only a 4 month English language course. As noted above, the applicant has recently enrolled and commenced studying a Certificate III in Retail Baking, a course that commenced on 5 August 2019 and is due to be completed by 2 August 2020.
VALUE OF THE COURSE
As noted in the questionnaire, prior to arriving in Australia the applicant had completed high school in his home country. In his genuine temporary entrant statement, he explained his reasons for wanting to study business courses:
I came to Australia with a dream of getting an international degree and making a good career back in India. I had completed my year 12 in Commerce stream, so under the guidance of my parents I chose to study Bachelor of Business (Executive Administration) at Holmesglen Institute. I commenced my studies in July 2013. Since my childhood, I wanted to get technical studies in the field of IT/computing but my parents wanted me to become a businessman, so advised me to take Commerce stream in year 11 and 12 which leads to Business studies on later [sic]. I agreed with their suggestion at that stage as I wasn’t mature enough and of course they had lifetime experience.
He went on to explain that he was influenced by friends who were studying IT courses to drop the business degree and to commence study in the field of information technology. He enrolled in the Bachelor of Networking, in which he successfully completed the first year. However, he said that he had expected additional help with some of the subjects he had failed so he decided to change courses at a different college. He then enrolled in the Bachelor of Information Systems however he could not cope with the studies and course curriculum. He tried his best but only managed to pass three subjects. He also found the college too small. He changed to a different institute but by then he had lost his confidence, could not concentrate and could not complete the course. He tried another course, the Bachelor of Information Technology, but again could not cope with his studies. He also wrote that around this time his sister’s marriage broke down, which impacted on his studies. He realised information technology was “not his cup of tea” and he would not be able to complete the course.
At the hearing, he confirmed that he had tried his “level best” to complete his IT studies. He said he now needs to get “something in his hands” before he returns home. He explained that he has always been a “foodie person” and is keen to study baking. He explained that he now wants to open a bakery/restaurant where he would sell breads and pastries in the front shop and would also have a dining restaurant. When asked about the cooking side of the business, the applicant stated that after completing the bakery course in 2020, he wants to go on to complete a Certificate IV in baking after the Certificate III. He confirmed that he is not presently enrolled in a Certificate IV course at present although he is looking into it. He also said that he then intends to go on to enrol in a Certificate III and IV in Commercial Cookery and then a Diploma in hospitality. He said that he would do further baking courses in India.
Based on the evidence above, the applicant has made it very clear to the Tribunal that his intention is not simply to stay in Australia for a further year in order to complete the Certificate III in Retail Baking. If he were to enrol in the abovementioned bakery and commercial cookery courses, he would be looking to stay in Australia for at least an additional four to five years. This would take his stay in Australia since 2013 to at least ten or eleven years. Given that the applicant is not even enrolled in any of these courses (with the exception of the Certificate III in Retail Baking) this raises serious concerns about the true and genuinely held intention of the applicant to stay in Australia on a temporary basis.
From the evidence given about the further courses he would want to do before leaving Australia, it seems apparent that the Certificate III in Retail Baking by itself would not be sufficient to assist the applicant in either obtaining employment in baking or improving his prospects of setting up his own bakery and/or restaurant in India.
Other than an interest in food, the applicant has very little experience working in a bakery or restaurant. He stated in his questionnaire that his employment since arriving in Australia has been as a taxi driver from 2016 to 2018. In his oral evidence, he stated that before driving a taxi for work, he did some work in restaurants and car washing, although he did not expand upon the nature of the work he did in restaurants. He also stated that he had no work experience prior to coming to Australia. His studies in years 11 and 12 in India as well as his 6 years of attempted tertiary studies in Australia has always had a focus on either business or information technology. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the Certificate III in Retail Baking bears no relevance to his previous studies or work experience.
In relation to the remuneration he expects to earn using his qualifications in his home country, he stated in his questionnaire that he expects to earn AUS $60,000 to $70,000 “initially on annual basis which will be increasing with the time with increasing customer base and with the betterment of the services provided by my restaurant”. When asked by the Tribunal how he reached these figures, he said that he spoken to two friends, one who works in a restaurant and the other who works in a hotel. When asked whether they had studied, the applicant said they had completed hospitality courses in India. He had also spoken to his parents.
The Tribunal considers that there is overall a lack of planning and insight into the idea of running a bakery/restaurant. At present it is just an idea, a concept tailored to suit the course that he only recently enrolled in. In making this finding, the Tribunal has also taken into account the genuine temporary entrant statement that the applicant provided to the delegate in 2018 when he was still interested in information technology as a career. Even after the delegate’s decision in May 2018, the applicant was still interested in information technology, evidenced by the fact that he enrolled in a Bachelor of Information Technology at Melbourne Polytechnic in July 2018. As noted in the applicant’s questionnaire it was not until August 2019 that he enrolled in the Retail Baking course, only two months prior to the applicant’s hearing in the Tribunal. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s plans for the future to be vague and, as noted above, tailored to suit to the course he has recently enrolled in. That is not as it should be.
CIRCUMSTANCES IN THE APPLICANT’S HOME COUNTRY
In the applicant’s questionnaire, he states that there are similar courses available in India but he has decided to pursue the course in Australia as there are very few good institutes in India. The applicant also stated they do not have adequate kitchen and infrastructure for teaching students. However, in his evidence at the hearing he stated that he would in fact be doing further bakery courses in India. Considering the contradiction in the applicant’s evidence about wanting to studying baking further when he returns to India, the Tribunal considers the applicant does not have sound reasons for not undertaking his studies in his home country.
He also made statements about how an Australian education is accepted worldwide and how a foreign degree will set job candidates apart from others. The Tribunal considers these to be generalised statements that do not necessarily apply to the applicant’s circumstances, particularly because the courses he is proposing to study is a VET course that will not grant a degree upon completion.
As to his personal ties in his home country, the applicant’s parents live in India however he has two sisters who both live in Australia and are Australian citizens. He said one is a housewife. The other sister is also married and works although she is having issues with her husband at present. He said he lives with one of his sisters and a friend. He said he is in daily contact with his parents by video calls and WhatsApp.
At the hearing, the applicant confirmed that since arriving in Australia in April 2013, he has only travelled offshore once in February 2014 to visit family for 20 days. In six years, he has spent less than one month with his family in India. The rest of the six years has been spent in Australia.
In his questionnaire responses, he says that as the only son in the family he is responsible for looking after his parents in their old age. However, he did not give evidence about when he might be expected to carry out this responsibility and take care of them. He said that he is attached to them and wants to stay with them. He also said that his father owns agricultural land and he is the legal heir of that property. He said he is not a member of any government organisation but he is a member of information groups with other villager friends and that when he is in India, he organises things such as the cleaning of the village, serving water to travellers on religious days, blood donation camps and temple services. He said he is very much involved in his community in his “native place”.
Despite the above activities and personal ties, given the lengthy period he has remained onshore the Tribunal is not satisfied that his personal ties to his home country represent a significant incentive for him to return to India. This is particular so in light of the fact that he has two sisters here in Australia who are both now Australian citizens. The Tribunal considers that he applicant has demonstrated that he is able to maintain family ties while remaining in Australia. Given his return for only 20 days in 2014, his community involvement in his home village would have been minimal in the last six years and do not represent any motivation to return home.
As noted above, the applicant stated that he is the legal heir to his father’s agricultural farming land. He stated the value of this land is AUS $ 2.5 million, however there is no land valuation or other such documentation to confirm this figure.
The Tribunal considers the applicant at present holds no assets of his own in his home country. The fact that his family’s farm will be passed down to him upon his parents death does not, in the Tribunal’s view, mean that the applicant must return to his home country. Land is sellable and does not necessarily tie a person to the country where the land is.
The applicant did not work in India prior to coming to Australia but since arriving on shore, he has worked in restaurants and car washes. He is not currently employed, but his most recent job was as a taxi driver earning approximately $23,000 per annum. He is financially supported by his family, with all of his tuition fees and living expenses being paid for by his family and a cousin who lives in Australia. Taking these matters into account, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s economic circumstances are such that he has no incentive to return to his home country.
The applicant stated in his questionnaire that he has no military service commitment in India, nor is there any political or civil unrest. The Tribunal accepts this to be the case.
CIRCUMSTANCES IN AUSTRALIA
The applicant confirmed in his evidence and in his genuine temporary entrant statement that he has family in Australia, including two sisters and a cousin. His two sisters are both now Australian citizens and are married. The applicant is currently living with one of his sisters and another friend. He states that he has made plenty of friends through college. He is active in the community in that plays cricket net practice in a local team two or three times a week. He attends a Sikh temple once a week, usually with a friend or a sister. In his questionnaire, he stated that he likes to visit the temple very often and helps in the kitchen preparing and serving food.
Considering the six years he has remained in Australia, and the further four to five years he would need to stay in the country in order to complete all the courses he would like to do (but is not yet enrolled in), the Tribunal considers the applicant has friends, family and ties to the community. The Tribunal he is well on his way to starting a life for himself in Australia and that his ties within Australia are a strong incentive for him to remain.
Given the very recent change in his area of study from six years of studying degrees in business and information technology to a VET course in retail baking, and taking into account the matters discussed above, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant is using the student visa program to circumvent the intentions of the migration program and that he is using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence.
OTHER MATTERS
There is no evidence that the applicant has ever been refused a visa to Australia or any other country and the Tribunal takes this into account.

The applicant did not raise any other relevant matters to be considered.
Having considered the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, including the criterion in Direction No. 69, 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. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
Elizabeth Tueno
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.

[2019] AATA 4717

16 October 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction