Singh (Migration)

Singh (Migration) [2019] AATA 6906 (29 July 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Mr Navitpal Singh
CASE NUMBER:  1728661
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):         BCC2017/3141935
MEMBER:D. Triaca
DATE:29 July 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 29 July 2019 at 12:08pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – study history – changes of education providers and study areas – multiple enrolments cancelled for non-commencement or non-completion – two substantial gaps in enrolments – consistent work throughout stay – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359, 360, 363A
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212, Schedule 8, Condition 8202
CASE
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40
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 Immigration and Border Protection on 1 November 2017 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 30 August 2017. 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 visas on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
REQUEST FOR STUDENT VISA INFORMATION
The Tribunal formally wrote to the applicant pursuant to section 359(2) of the Act inviting the applicants to provide further information to the Tribunal on 27 February 2019. The invitation advised that, if the information was not provided in writing by the prescribed period, being 13 March 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.
On 5 March 2019, the applicant requested an extension of time to respond to the Tribunal’s request and on 8 March 2019, the Tribunal granted the applicant’s request, extending time to comply until 3 April 2019. On 21 March 2019, the applicant’s agent advised the Tribunal that she no longer represented the applicant.
The Tribunal is satisfied that the applicant was properly sent an invitation to provide further information under section 359(2) of the Act. The invitation was sent to the applicants’ nominated address, being the address provided by the review applicants in connection with this application for review.
On 3 April the applicant filed a passport extract and IELTS Test with the Tribunal. On 4 April 2019 the applicant responded in writing to the Tribunal’s request (359 Response) and consented to the Tribunal deciding the review without a hearing. Notwithstanding that the applicant’s 359 Response was filed out of time, the Tribunal has read and had regard to this document.
In these circumstances, the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal: Section 360(3). Crucially, the effect of section 363A of the Act is that if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit the review applicant to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.
It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicants to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.
In these circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department as well as information that may be discerned from the delegate’s decision itself. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal with the review application.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent until 21 March 2019.
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.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl.500.212)
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 applicant is a 25 year old Indian citizen. He first arrived in Australia on 31 August 2014 on a student visa that was granted until 30 August 2017. On 30 August 2017, he applied for a further student visa. On 1 November 2017, the delegate of the Department refused the applicant’s application (delegate’s decision). On 17 November 2017, the applicant lodged an application with the Tribunal to review the delegate’s decision and provided a copy of that decision to the Tribunal.
The Tribunal has read and had regard to documentation provided by the applicant to the Department including Bridging Visa information (df 1-12); application for a student visa (df13-32); Advice by a migration agent Form 956 (df 33-35); Passport extracts (df 36-37) Evidence of Health Cover (df 38-41); Secondary School Certificate Translation (df42-44); PTE Academic Score (df 45); Statement of Purpose (df 46-48); Confirmation of Health Cover (df 49-50); Confirmation of Enrolment Bachelor of Business (df 51); Marriage Certificate (df 52); Bank Statement & Property Evidence (df 53-57); Passport Extract (df 59-66); Student Visa Financial Support Statement of applicant’s parents (df 67) Affidavit of Paramjit Kaur (df 68); delegate’s decision (df 70 – 79).
The Tribunal has read and had regard to further documentation submitted by the applicant on 3 & 4 April including IELTS Test Evidence, passport extract and 359 Response.
The applicant holds a CoE from Acknowledge Education for a Bachelor of Business Degree commencing on 18 March 2019 and concluding on 31 December 2021. However, on his 359 Response, the applicant does not refer to this course but states he is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management at Skilled Up, commencing April 2019 and is “studying now”. Accordingly, the applicant appears to have changed his private education provider from Acknowledge Education to UpSkilled and the Diploma of Leadership appears to have superseded the Bachelor of Business course.
The delegate’s decision refers to information provided by the Provider Registration and International Student Record (PRISMS) which states that since arriving in Australia, the applicant has completed a Certificate IV in Accounting in December 2014 and a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating in December 2016. The PRISMS information also revealed the applicant had been enrolled in the following further courses in Australia, however each enrolment was cancelled as they did not complete, commence or enrol in the course of study; Certificate IV in Accounting; Diploma of Accounting; Diploma of Accounting; Bachelor of Accounting; Bachelor of Accounting; Diploma of Building and Construction; Certificate III in Painting and Decorating; Diploma of Building and Construction and a Bachelor of Business.
At the time of the application for a student visa, the applicant was proposing to study a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating; Diploma of Building and Construction; and Bachelor of Business.[1]
[1] Delegate’s Decision p 3 - 4
By his 359 Response, the applicant states his study history consists of a Certificate IV in Accounting at Chisholm that he did not complete; a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating at Western Institute of Technology, that he did not complete; a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating at WIT that he did not complete and a Diploma of Leadership and Management commencing on April 2019 due to complete in June 2020 that he is “studying now” at Skilled Up.
By his Statement of Purpose, the applicant states, amongst other things:
(a)There are 5 members of the applicant’s family including his parents, brother and wife;
(b)His father and brother are painters. His mother is a housewife;
(c)After completing secondary school, he wanted to study accounting at certificate level to have a good understanding of the concepts;
(d)He followed his neighbour to Australia after considering other overseas destinations;
(e)He initially chose Chisolm to study accounting having reviewed the course “on the internet”;
(f)He found accounting at Chisholm challenging. He felt he was not good at numbers and might not be able to compete and secure good positions;
(g)He made friends that were studying Painting and Decorating;
(h)He commenced a Certificate III in Painting and Decorating at WIT with a view to studying a Diploma course;
(i)He has a painting background and his family is in Painting and Decorating;
(j)The Bachelor course at Stotts College would give him a good understanding of how to set up and manage a business effectively and assist his family expand their business;
(k)His family assists him financially;
(l)The Business degree will complement his painting and decorating skills.
The applicant’s academic history is concerning to the Tribunal. He appears to have two substantial “study gaps” in his record from June 2014 to October 2015 and December 2016 to August 2017. Further, according to his 359 Response, he was not studying between January 2018 and April 2019.
In his 359 Response, the applicant attempts to explain his ‘study gaps’ as follows. Between June 2014 and October 2015, he was “confused for career and frustrated. Not sure about the field for the future.” From December 2016 to August 2017, he states “circumstances were not good, lot of family pressure and depressed.”
The Tribunal does not consider the applicant has provided an acceptable explanation for the gaps in his academic record. The applicant’s Statement of Purpose[2] does not make any reference to these matters. In fact, the applicant creates the impression that he is happy to be following his family into the Painting and Decorating business.
[2] Although undated appears to have been provided to the Department at the time of the applicant’s application for a student visa on 30 August 2017 and states, “a statement of purpose will be attached for your kind consideration.”
The Tribunal also notes the applicant’s student visa was subject to condition 8202 to the effect that the applicant must continue to be enrolled in approved courses for the duration of his stay in Australia. On the applicant’s own evidence, the Tribunal considers it is likely that the applicant has been in breach of the conditions of his student visa for at least two significant periods of time and this weighs against granting his application. The Tribunal has concerns regarding the applicant’s capacity and willingness to circumvent ordinary migration processes. The Tribunal considers if the applicant’s intention was to study full time in Australia as a student, he would have ensured he studied throughout his time in Australia.
The applicant’s academic history is inconsistent. The Tribunal considers the applicant’s Statement of Purpose does go some way to explaining how the applicant came to enrol in Painting and Decorating courses after initially enrolling in Accounting. It also provides some insight into how he sees the relevance of a Bachelor of Business. However, there is no explanation provided for his further change to a Diploma in Leadership. Whilst the Direction 69 contemplates some change in career pathways should be accommodated. The Tribunal considers that het applicant’s conduct displays a pattern of changes which goes beyond the changes contemplated in the Direction.
A review of the applicant’s academic progress reveals that over approximately 5 years, the applicant only appears to have completed 2 courses and has provided no evidence to demonstrate any further academic progress. The Tribunal does not consider this to be sufficient academic progress for a student, on a student visa, with a primary purpose of full time study.
The Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s study of a Diploma of Leadership is likely to offer any value to the applicant’s future. His evidence was that the course would “help me to leadership in my country. I want to start my own organisation about humanities.” This evidence is vague and unpersuasive. He did not make any reference to starting such an organisation in his Statement of Purpose and his earlier studies in Australia appear to have no relationship to such an organisation.
The applicant has provided no evidence in relation to how the course will assist him obtain employment or improve his employment prospects or any remuneration he can expect using qualifications gained in Australia. It is not apparent that a Diploma of Leadership is relevant to his past or proposed future employment as a Painter.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal in relation to the applicant’s circumstances in India relative to others there.
The applicant says and the Tribunal accepts that he has no concerns in relation to any military service commitments, or any political or civil unrest in his home country. Accordingly, the Tribunal does not consider these factors operate to deter the applicant from returning to India and are not unfavourable to the application.
The applicant states his family as his parents, brother and wife all resident in India. He says he last saw his Parents and Wife in February 2017 and his Brother in January 2017. He says he contacts them by telephone every week. He first arrived in Australia on 31 August 2014. He has travelled to India once since that time, for 45 days for “marriage and (to) see my family.” He reports no other travel to other countries in the last 10 years. He says he is involved in the Navtej Humanity Club organisation for needy people in India. In circumstances in which the applicant appears to have managed his family relationships by telephone and visiting, has travelled to his home country only once since arriving in Australia and is seeking to extend his stay in Australia and time away from his Wife and family, the Tribunal does not consider the applicant’s personal ties to India operate as a significant incentive to return.
The applicant states he has no community ties to Australia. He has no family in Australia. There is no evidence to suggest the applicant has any ties to Australia that operate as a strong incentive to remain.
The applicant states he owns property in India including a home value at $80,000 AUD and land valued at $120,000 AUD. He states he also has $60,000 AUD in other savings. The Tribunal considers that property overseas is readily sold for cash, or indeed, may never be sold and may instead produce income in the form of rent. The holding of such property is not an incentive to cease residence in Australia.
Other economic circumstances of the applicant are the ability to work in Australia and earn Australian Dollars in any ordinary employment. The applicant has worked consistently in Australia, employed as a trolley pusher between December 2014 and January 2017 and since February 2017 as a Painter. In his 359 Response he states he earns an annual salary of $15,000. The Tribunal considers the ability to work in Australia and earn Australian dollars is likely to operate as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return home. The Tribunal has regard to the fact that the United Nations ranks India 130^th in the world by the United Nations Human Development Index[3], whereas Australia is ranked third. It is an objective measure that provides a further basis for concluding that the applicant would probably prefer to remain in Australia on a long term basis. There is no evidence of significant economic ties that the applicant has to India that would encourage him to return.
[3] United Nations Development Program, Human Development Indices and Indicators: 2018 Statistical Update (UNDP, 2018)
The applicant has disclosed no concerning travel history. He appears to have only travelled home to India once and has not travelled to any other countries. The Tribunal does not consider there is any adverse evidence against the application in this regard.
There do not appear to be any other matters of significance that are relevant for the purposes of determining the present application on review.
The Tribunal considers there is no merit in the present application for review. The applicant has not demonstrated any genuine desire to study in Australia. Rather, he appears to have merely demonstrated that he is seeking to maintain ongoing residence in Australia for purposes not contemplated by the student visa programme.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
D. Triaca
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 6906

29 July 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction