Sirisima (Migration)

Sirisima (Migration) [2019] AATA 5223 (30 August 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Miss. Sutathip Sirisima
CASE NUMBER:  1720406
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/1549040
MEMBER:P. Adami
DATE:30 August 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne, Victoria
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 30 August 2019 at 12:44pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – academic history – short inexpensive courses at the VET level – exceeded reasonable changes in study pathways – value of course – sufficient qualifications obtained – limited incremental value to future plans – disparity in earning capacity – limited travel home – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212
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 17 August 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 29 April 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 visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.211 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 3 May 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.
The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by her registered migration agent, Ms. Panwadee Sakulpichetratana.
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 genuinely intends to stay temporarily in Australia as a full time student.
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 38 year old Thai female who travelled to Australia on 4 January 2012, on a Student Visa. The applicant has resided in Australia from January 2012 to date, holding 3 Student visas and was refused a 4^th student visa, the subject of this application.
The Tribunal has read and had regard to the documents provided by the applicant to the Department. These include; her original completed Application for a Student Visa, notification of Bridging Visa grant dated 29 April 2017; Statement of Completion from Cambridge International College dated 13 September 2013 for the Diploma of Management, along with the Certificate acknowledging same and Statement of Results dated 13 September 2013; Letter of Completion of the Advanced Diploma of Management from Barkly International College and Record of Results for same both dated 12 September 2014; Certificate of Completion from Cambridge International College for the Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English dated 27 May 2012 (General Purpose English) and Statement of Attainment for same; Certificate of Completion from Cambridge International College for the Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English dated 1 July 2012 (Academic English) and Statement of Attainment for same; Completion Letter dated 11 December 2015, Statement of Attainment and Certificate from ALTEC of the Certificate IV in Information Technology; Statement of Completion dated 8 March 2013, Statement of Academic Results and Certificate from Cambridge International College for the Certificate IV in Frontline Management; Completion Letter, Statement of Attainment and Certificate from ALTEC dated 20 September 2016 of the Diploma of Information Technology Networking; Financial Support Letter of Mr. Thaworn Sirisima dated 22 May 2017; translation of Thai National ID Card for Mr. Thaworn Sirisima and Particular of House translation; Overseas Student Health Cover Verification Letter from BUPA dated 29 April 2017 issued to the applicant; Genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion Letter dated 22 May 2017 from the applicant; letter from Krunthai Bank dated 2 May 2017 to Mr. Thaworn Sirisima stating balance of account; different Genuine Temporary Criterion Letter dated 22 May 2017 from the applicant; Title Deed and translation of property owned by Mr. Thaworn Sirisima; variously dated Bank Statements in the name of Mr. Thavon Sirisima; official Transcript of Results issued to the applicant in the Bachelor of Arts from Udon Thani Rajabhat University issued 15 March 2006; variously dated bank statements issued to Mr. Thavon Sirisima by Krung Thai Bank Public Company Limited.
The Tribunal has read and had regard to the documents provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. These include; a copy of the delegate’s Decision Record dated 17 August 2017; copy of Confirmation of Enrolment issued to the applicant for the Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management course ending 27 September 2019; 3 undated photos; Jetstar Flight Itinerary booked in name of Abdullah Alanazi including the applicant for a return flight from Melbourne to Denpasar return 12 December 2014 to 16 December 2014; Jetstar Itinerary for return flights issued to the applicant departing Bangkok to Melbourne return on 3 January 2012 and returning 15 July 2012; GTE Statement from the applicant dated 12 February 2019; Record of Results and Certificate of Completion from ALTEC College for the Diploma of Hospitality dated 11 November 2018; Credit Transfer Letter issued to the applicant by ALTEC dated 3 November 2017 for the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery; Completion Letter, Record of Results and Certificate of Completion from ALTEC issued to the applicant for the Certificate III in Commercial Cookery dated 5 November 2017; copy photo page of passport issued to Abdullah Alanazi; translated copy of General Organizational for Social Insurance dated 2 May 2019; confirmation of enrolment letter from Australian National Institute of Business and Technology issued to the applicant dated 26 April 2019; Request for Student Visa Information under s.359(2) of the Migration Act 1958.
The applicant, in her reply to the Request for Student Visa Information Under s359(2) of the Migration Act 1958 dated 15 February 2019 lists that she completed a Bachelor of Arts at the Udon Thani Rajabhat University, Thailand in March 2004, and the Tribunal accepts this. Since arriving in Australia in January 2012, the applicant lists in her reply that she has, at various institutions:-
Completed a Certificate IV in Spoken and Written English in July 2012;
Completed a Certificate IV in Frontline Management in January 2013;
Completed a Diploma of Management in July 2013;
Completed an Advance Diploma of Management in July 2014;
Completed a Certificate IV in Information Technology Networking in September 2016;
Enrolled in but never started an Advanced Diploma of Network Security as “the education provider had stopped delivering the course”(seeTF18);
Completed a Certificate III in Commercial Cookery in November 2017;
Completed a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery in May 2018;
Completed a Diploma of Hospitality Management in November 2018.
The applicant is currently studying an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management which she expects to finish in September 2019.
The applicant, in her comprehensive GTE Letter dated 12 February 2019 writes, “I consulted my education agent in Thailand and also my parents, all of whom which recommended that I should study Information Technology and that Information Technology would increase my career prospects and future earning capacity.” The applicant states that her boyfriend Abdullah was also studying Information Technology and highly recommended the field of study. The applicant explains further in her GTE Letter of 12 February 2019 that it was as a result of working at Chin Chin restaurant in Melbourne, that she “became more interested in food and cooking. I felt a sense of achievement seeing diners express their appreciation for the food we produce and their experience at Chine [sic] Chin.”
The applicant states that her boyfriend Abdullah now works in Dubai and has a very promising job with a bank, having completed his studies in January 2018. The applicant notes that opening a restaurant in the United Arab Emirates “would be a great place for me to start a Thai eatery there.” Further, the applicant states that “we would like to settle down somewhere permanently together.”
The applicant’s academic history suggests that she conscientiously completes the courses she enrols in. However, the Tribunal considers that objectively the applicant has gained more than sufficient skills, knowledge and qualifications as a result of her studies to return Thailand to pursue a career. The applicant has formal qualifications ranging from management, information technology, commercial cookery and hospitality management. Notwithstanding the applicant’s acknowledgement in her comprehensive GTE statement of 12 February 2019 that she has changed courses and spent “a considerable length of time studying in Australia”, the Tribunal considers that the Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management adds limited incremental value to her future plans when considered with the qualifications she has previously obtained from her studies in Australia.
The Tribunal further considers that the applicant has studied in a series of relatively inexpensive course of short duration, and in that time has not advanced above the VET sector. The applicant has invested time and money in studying courses that she considered had value to her future ambitions, only to continue studying across various different fields of endeavour. The Tribunal considers that if the applicant intends to stay in Australia temporarily, she would not have dismissed each area of study so quickly that she had invested in, and that she would have returned to Thailand to implement her career plans. The Tribunal is mindful that Direction 69 allows for reasonable changes to career or study pathways. However, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s career and study changes exceed the reasonable change contemplated in Direction 69. This is emphasised by the length of time the applicant has spent studying in Australia across decidedly different fields.
As noted above, the applicant states that she came to the cookery field as a result of working at a restaurant. In her Request for Student Visa Information the applicant states that she started working at the restaurant in April 2015, and that to date, she is still employed there. The applicant told the Tribunal that she earns $500 net for a 20 hour working week. It is common knowledge that there is a disparity between Australia and Thailand. Australia is ranked number 3 and Thailand is ranked number 83 in the United Nations Development Program Index.[1] The Tribunal considers that the applicant’s ordinary circumstances in Australia combined her with her ability to earn Australian dollars in employments presents as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to Thailand. The Tribunal further considers that this is a relevant motivation for the applicant to apply for a further student visa.
[1] (see table 1 pg. 22-23)
The applicant states certain wage figures that a chef can receive in Thailand and Dubai in her completed Request for Student Visa Information. These figures are not supported by any corroborative evidence and are bare claims. Further, the applicant has not established how the current Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management will assist her in increasing any expected remuneration as a result of gaining this qualification. As such, the Tribunal can only place little weight on this factor in support of the applicant’s review.
The applicant told the Tribunal that her parents, 1 older sister and 1 younger brother (both of whom are married) live in Thailand. In her GTE Statement the applicant “acknowledge[s] that since my arrival in Australia on 4 January 2012, I have only spent 24 days outside Australia.” The applicant states in her GTE Statement that she attended her brother’s wedding in Thailand in 2015. This is consistent with her answer in Part 8 of her completed Request for Student Visa Information filed with the Tribunal. The applicant also lists that in December 2014 she travelled to Indonesia with her boyfriend Abdullah and her boyfriend’s brother.
The applicant lists various reasons for not travelling more including, despite booking flights having to forgo travel due to study commitments in around 2012; and despite planning to travel in May 2017, having to remain in Australia as her visa was soon expiring. Since the delegate’s decision in August 2017, the applicant has been on Bridging Visa A and unable to travel. Notwithstanding the travel limitation, the Tribunal considers that the applicant’s lack of travel from Australia to Thailand weighs against the conclusion that she is a genuine temporary entrant.
The applicant in her Request for Student Visa Information states, “I contact my family in my home country regularly via internet chat, usually through the mobile application “Line”. In her GTE Letter dated 22 May 2017 (df 113), the applicant states that she has “ageing parents back home. I have my family members in Thailand which includes my extended family (grand parents, aunt, uncle and grandchild).” [original] The Tribunal considers that the applicant has been able to manage relations overseas while living in Australia, and considers that the applicant’s personal ties to her home country have not proven to be a significant incentive for her to return to her home country. Outside her family the applicant did not declare any community ties in her home country.
In the material filed with the Tribunal, the applicant emphasised a desire to finish her studies and return home to Thailand or to move to live in the Middle East with her boyfriend. The applicant did not provide any material (which might include a one way flight booking from Melbourne, letter from Abdullah stating their plans together or other similar evidence) evidencing her desire to live with her boyfriend, as such little weight can be placed on this claim. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s boyfriend left Australia around January 2018. Given the emphasis expressed by the applicant to reunite with him, this relationship has not proven to be a significant incentive to either return to her home country or any other country.
In her GTE Statement dated 12 February 2019, the applicant states that “Australian qualifications are highly regarded in Thailand. Everyone knows that an Australian qualification is of a much higher standard than that of Thailand.” Secondly, “no one studies in trade qualifications after they are in their twenties. It is frowned upon.” Thirdly, the applicant states, “Australia is a multicultural country. I feel like I have met so many people around the world by studying here. I eat all types of food from around the world.” It is for these reasons that she has chosen to study in Australia.
The Tribunal has had regard to the reasons proffered by the applicant not to study in Thailand or the surrounding region. The applicant did not provide any material to the Tribunal in support of establishing that the Australian qualifications gained were more prestigious as she stated they were. Without more evidence, the Tribunal places no weight on this bare claim. The applicant also did not provide material about the “position of shame, embarrassment and disrepute” that she would suffer if she studied in Thailand given her age. In regard to the wider benefit of studying in Australia and its multicultural backgrounds and cuisine, that is understandable however little weight can be placed on this given the length of time the applicant has studied in Australia. The Tribunal does not consider this to be a compelling reason for not studying hospitality management in Thailand or the surrounding region.
The applicant stated to the Tribunal that there were no military service commitments that would present as a significant incentive for her not to return to Thailand, and the Tribunal accepts this. The applicant also stated that there was no political or civil unrest in her home country that may induce her to apply for a student visa as a means of staying in Australia indefinitely, and the Tribunal accepts this.
The applicant states in her Request for Student Visa Information that the student visa refusal giving rise to this application is the first instance that she has been refused a visa, and the Tribunal accepts this.
Having considered all the information before it, The Tribunal considers that the applicant is using the student visa program to circumvent the intention of the ordinary migration program in order to maintain ongoing residence in Australia. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl.500.212. 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.
P. Adami
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 5223

30 August 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction