Sirisima (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The applicant, a 38-year-old Thai national, had been residing in Australia on student visas since January 2012 and had been refused a fourth student visa, which was the subject of the review. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily as a student, as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion. This involved assessing the applicant's circumstances in her home country and in Australia, the value of the proposed course to her future, and her immigration history, in accordance with Direction No. 69 issued under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958. Direction No. 69 provides guidance on factors to consider when assessing an applicant's genuine temporary entrant status, emphasizing a holistic approach rather than a checklist.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal noted that the applicant had undertaken a series of short, inexpensive courses at the Vocational Education and Training (VET) level and had exceeded what could be considered reasonable changes in her study pathways. The Tribunal found that the courses undertaken offered limited incremental value to her future plans and that there was a disparity in earning capacity between Australia and her home country. Furthermore, the applicant had made limited travel home during her extended stay in Australia. Weighing these factors, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

Consequently, the Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.