Soon (Migration)

Soon (Migration) [2019] AATA 5662 (13 December 2019)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mrs Mei Yan Soon
Mr Huan Yeow Chan
CASE NUMBER:  1803397
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/4539543
MEMBER:Peter Booth
DATE:13 December 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Statement made on 13 December 2019 at 8:45am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – non-completion and non-commencement of courses – value of study to future employment – circumstances in home country – family, social and financial ties – use of student visa to extend stay – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1959 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cll 500.212(a), 500.311
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 24 January 2018 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The applicants applied for the visas on 30 November 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The primary visa applicant (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 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the applicant was not a genuine temporary entrant.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 2 December 2019 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl.500.211 to cl.500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.
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 gave evidence at the hearing the substance of which was as follows. The applicant had read the decision of the delegate dated 24 January 2018 refusing her application for a student visa. The applicant understood that the issue for determination was whether she was a genuine temporary entrant.
Prior to arriving in Australia the applicant had completed an advanced diploma of commerce (accounting) in 2013 and worked as an accountant for four years. The applicant arrived in Australia on 7 September 2016 as the holder of a tourist visa valid for one year. She said that she had arrived in Australia again on 30 September 2017 as the holder of a ‘travelling’ visa. She applied for a student visa on 30 November 2017. In answer to a question from the Tribunal she said that she had enrolled in a course at the ‘end of November 2017’. She went on to say that she was enrolled in a certificate III course in English but did not complete it, a certificate IV course in English but did not commence it, and neither did she commence a diploma of business course in which she was also enrolled at that time. She said that she and did not ‘complete the course’ because ‘I got the rejection’. She did not elaborate. She is currently enrolled in an advanced diploma in business which commenced on 21 October 2019 and is due to be completed on 18 October 2020.
The Tribunal enquired what the applicant had done between January 2018 and October 2019 to which she said, ‘travelling and I met some friends’. She did not elaborate. In answer to a further question from the Tribunal she said that she did not study at all during this period. She did not elaborate.
The Tribunal enquired when the applicant had enrolled in the advanced diploma in business to which she said, ‘in October 2019, 20 October 2019’. The Tribunal enquired why the applicant had changed her mind and started studying, to which she said, ‘I thought I could not study, I thought I could study because it was a good opportunity’. She did not elaborate.
The Tribunal enquired why the applicant had chosen to study the advanced diploma of business to which she said, ‘my dream is to run an accounting firm, but I don’t have those skills’. She did not elaborate. The Tribunal enquired whether she could undertake this course in Malaysia to which she said, ‘yes, but I believe that Western culture is different, a good study environment’.
In answer to a question from the Tribunal the applicant says that she is not currently working and is supporting herself from ‘savings’.
The applicant said that she estimated her income when she returned to Malaysia, in the business she thought she had earlier described, as follows: ‘if I can run the accounting firm the monthly income will be approximately AU$10,000’. She did not elaborate. In answer to a question from the Tribunal she said that she was earning about AU$1,000 per month in Malaysia prior to arriving in Australia.
Since arriving in Australia the applicant returned to her home country on one occasion for a period of ‘two or three weeks to visit’. The applicant went on to say that ‘currently the work I did in Malaysia, the payment was low, if I want to run an accounting firm need to enhance knowledge, and bring me money value’. She did not elaborate.
The applicant’s husband is with her in Australia and they have been married for approximately two years. He is unemployed and in answer to a question from the Tribunal as to his qualifications the applicant said, ‘he was a salesperson in Malaysia, some sales experience’. She did not elaborate. The applicant’s immediate family in Malaysia is comprised of her mother. She has no assets of any significance in Malaysia.
The applicant had also provided a statement dated 22 October 2019. The applicant was informed that the Tribunal had read it and would have regard to it.
The applicant’s husband and co-applicant also gave evidence. Huan Yeow Chan confirmed that he was the co-applicant and married to the applicant. He said that ‘during the past time I stay with my wife she works very hard, and makes friends, I travelled with her. She worked hard but in the beginning I was panic, not sure she could study her. We try best to look for schools, found Queens business School’. He did not elaborate.
The applicant’s statement in support of her application is dated 22 October 2019 and headed ‘GTE statement’. In it she makes a variety of points relevantly as follows:
after graduating from Tunku Abdul Rahman College and obtained my Advanced Diploma in Commerce (Financial Accounting) degree on 10/05/2013, I had been working as a Finance Executive and specializing in Finance Casino-Management Reporting at Genting Malaysia Berhad for nearly 3 years. … After that, I had been working as a Finance Executive at IB Management Sdn Bhd since 2016. I was mainly responsible for managing and responsible full sets of account function for 5 companies at timely manner … I have been the number of the Association of Chartered Certified Accountants (ACCA) since 2016 and my registration number is 2440288. … Having my own accounting firm in my home country is always my dream, which is my initial intention to study accounting in my home country. However, the lack of knowledge related to management and business is also my weakness. That’s the reason why I came to Australia and decided to study Advanced Diploma of Business in Queens college. … I know skills and ability in Business field are very essential for individuals who want to be a professional leader in a Company, but some management and coordination skills, security strategies and invaluable insight in Business and management industry will bring me a pronounced advantage in my own company in Malaysia. An Advanced Diploma qualification from the Queens College would equip me with invaluable tools and knowledge to develop my dream career in the near future. My purpose is to get the qualification of Business. … My future plan for my career is to start with a manager position in a big accounting firm in Malaysia, and then start my own accounting firm.
In considering whether the applicant has met the genuine temporary entry criterion, the Tribunal had regard to the following factors consistent with cl.500.212 and the Ministerial Direction No.69. The factors were used to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether she has satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in her home country. The applicant is married and is from Malaysia. The applicant has provided evidence of social, direct family and financial ties to her home country or other economic incentives to return. When considering the applicant’s circumstances in her home country, the Tribunal therefore finds that she has been able to demonstrate ties to act as an incentive to return to her home country at the completion of the proposed study. However, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have family ties to Malaysia, given the time the applicant has spent in Australia and the intended period of future to stay in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a significant incentive for the applicant to return to Malaysia.
The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. The applicant arrived in Australia on 30 September 2017 as a holder of ‘travelling’ visa . The proposed study would extend the applicant’s stay until at least October 2020. The Tribunal finds that the length of this proposed additional stay creates serious concerns that the applicant is studying for the purposes of staying in Australia. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that plans can change, this is not the conduct of a genuine temporary student. Rather, it suggests the applicant has decided to extend her stay in Australia by utilising the student visa Programme.
The Tribunal does not place weight on the value of the course to the applicant’s future, including remuneration and career prospects in the applicant’s home country. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s study history since arrival and notes that she enrolled in two vocational courses in English and a diploma of business ‘at the end of November 2017’, but did not complete the first vocational course in English and did not start the other two courses. The enrolments occurred at approximately the same time as her application for a student visa which was made on 30 November 2017. This application for a visa was made whilst the applicant was the holder of a ‘travelling’ visa and arrived in Australia on 30 September 2017. The applicant did not study between January 2018 and October 2019. She enrolled in her current course in ‘October 2019’, later clarified to be ‘20 October 2019’. The Tribunal notes that the course she is currently studying is an advanced diploma of business, however the applicant already holds an advanced diploma of commerce (accounting) and has worked as an accountant at an apparently senior level for four years prior to arriving in Australia. The Tribunal notes that this course plan is inconsistent with the applicant’s work history as an accountant and is inconsistent with her plans when she initially entered Australia, namely for the purposes of tourism. The applicant now wishes to pursue an advanced diploma of business in Australia. The course is asserted to have relevance to very vague future plans. The applicant apparently wishes to commence her own accounting firm but gave very little evidence as to how she intends to do this.
The applicant has provided a letter in which she attempts to address the genuine temporary entry criterion. The applicant claims that she will gain value from the advanced diploma of business because she wishes to work in ‘a large accounting firm’ in her hometown.
The Tribunal notes that the applicant worked as an accountant in Malaysia. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established that study will provide her with significant benefits in his proposed career plan, considering the cost of the study and the fact that the applicant already has experience and qualifications as an accountant. The Tribunal therefore is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated that the proposed additional study has a realistic prospect of providing significant value to her future beyond the qualifications she already holds.
The Tribunal has given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter. The Tribunal finds that there are no other relevant matters to consider that may be beneficial or adverse to the applicant, and that this aspect is not relevant.
The Tribunal has considered all the information provided with the visa application. After weighing up these factors as a whole, the Tribunal finds that the applicant has not been able to satisfy it that the applicant genuinely intends a temporary stay in Australia as a student.
The Tribunal has considered the evidence and has taken into account the applicant’s economic circumstances in the applicant’s home country relative to the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. Given the disparity in economic circumstances between Malaysia and Australia the Tribunal cannot be satisfied that the applicant has significant incentive to return to Malaysia. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate substantial ties or personal assets in the applicant’s home country which diminishes the applicant’s incentive to return to Malaysia.
The Tribunal is concerned that the applicant’s intention to live in Australia may be motivated by factors other than study. The applicant has not demonstrated any clear and substantial improvements arising from the applicant’s proposed study but will outlay the significant time and monetary commitment this course will require. Therefore the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of the applicant’s proposed course to the applicant’s future.
The Tribunal does give weight to the evidence that since the applicant’s arrival in Australia on 30 September 2017 the applicant has spent over two years in Australia and only ‘two or three weeks’ outside of Australia, which indicates that the applicant does not appear to have strong personal ties to Malaysia. Based on this evidence the Tribunal assesses the applicant’s incentive to return to Malaysia to be minimal.
On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for a further stay as full-time student. It appears to the Tribunal that the applicant has commenced studying for the purposes of the visa application only in order to secure a further stay in Australia, rather than due to a genuine interest in this area of study. The Tribunal has also given regard as to whether there is any other relevant matter, and finds there to be no other relevant matter to the assessment of the applicant’s intentions to stay in Australia temporarily. The Tribunal has considered all information provided by the applicant in support of the applicant’s application. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the information the applicant has provided regarding the applicant’s circumstances in the applicant’s home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to the applicant’s future, the applicant’s immigration history and other relevant matters are sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.
On the contrary, the factors indicate that the applicant appears to have enrolled in the present course for the purposes of securing a further student visa, rather than due to a genuine interest in study and overall academic progress. The applicant appears to be using the student visa programme as a means of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia, and does not have a genuine intention to stay in Australia temporarily.
There is no evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction No.69: economic circumstances of the applicant; any potential military service in Malaysia; political or civil unrest circumstances in Malaysia; remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in Malaysia or a third country compared with Australia; circumstances in Malaysia relative to Australia or any other country; and the applicant’s circumstances in Malaysia relative to others in that country.
The Tribunal considers that an applicant who is a genuine temporary entrant will have circumstances which support a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily, recognising the possibility that this may change over time, to utilise lawful means to remain in Australia. Given the amount of time the applicant has now spent in Australia, the Tribunal is concerned the student visa may be used primarily for maintaining ongoing residence.
Accordingly, 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.
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.

As the Tribunal has found that the primary applicant does not meet the requirements of cl. 500.212, this means that the secondary applicant does not satisfy the requirements of cl. 500.311, as the secondary criteria for dependent applicants require that the primary applicant must have satisfied the primary criteria, for the grant of a Student visa.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.
Peter Booth
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 5662

13 December 2019

Key Legal Topics

Areas of Law

Immigration

Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

Judicial Review

Procedural Fairness

Statutory Construction