Sukimin (Migration)

[2021] AATA 291

Sukimin (Migration) [2021] AATA 291 (8 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mr Sukimin
Mrs Angelia Wanto
Master Mark Alvaro Yi

CASE NUMBER:  1916517

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/5199918

MEMBER:Peter Booth

DATE:8 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decisions not to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas.

Statement made on 08 February 2021 at 8:46am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – lengthy visa, study and work history – changes of subject area and enrolments in lower-level courses – value of course to applicant’s future – family ties to home country – potential circumstances in Australia – extremely vague evidence – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION            
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 359(2)
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 500.212(a)

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 13 June 2019 to refuse to grant the applicants Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicants applied for the visas on 21 November 2018. 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.

3. 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.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 November 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Indonesian and English languages.

5. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

7. 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)

8. 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?

9. 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.

10. 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.

11. The applicant gave evidence at the hearing, the substance of which was as follows. The applicant had read the delegate’s decision dated 13 June 2019 refusing his application for a student visa. The applicant understood that the issue for determination was whether he was a genuine temporary entrant.

12. The applicant said that he was currently enrolled in a course of study. However he was unable to provide details of that course to the Tribunal. The Tribunal observes that the applicant had produced a confirmation of enrolment document to the Tribunal prior to the hearing in respect of an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management scheduled to commence on 13 April 2020 and be completed on 10 April 2022. Notwithstanding the paucity of the applicant’s oral evidence the Tribunal accepts that the applicant is enrolled in the course of study.

13. The applicant had also provided information to the Tribunal in the form of response to a request to do so pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act. The applicant confirmed that he did not want to add to or vary this document. In summary the information provided by the applicant was as follows.

14. The applicant completed secondary education in Indonesia in July 2000. Thereafter he was employed as a salesman in Indonesia from February 2001 until August 2005, from which he derived an annual income of AU$3000.

15. He stated that he arrived in Australia in June 2008 and that, since that time, he had returned to Indonesia on three occasions. The return visits occurred in November 2010, January 2011 and May 2012, and each were of one month duration.

16. The application for the student visa in question was made on 21 November 2018.

17. As to his visa history he stated that he held three student visas, the first granted in approximately 2008, the second granted in approximately 2015 and the second “N/A”. The latter appears to be a reference to the application for the student visa in question in these proceedings. The Tribunal infers that the applicant has held two student visas whilst in Australia.

18. As to his study history in Australia the applicant stated that he completed a vocational English course between June 2008 and July 2008, an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management between September 2008 and April 2011, a Certificate II in Business between March 2015 and September 2015, a Certificate III in Business between October 2015 and July 2017, a Certificate IV in Small Business Management between April 2017 and April 2018, a Diploma of Leadership and Management between May 2018 and January 2020 and is “studying now” an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management which he commenced in February 2020 and expects to complete in April 2022.

19. As to his employment history in Australia the applicant stated that he has been employed as a “café manager” from October 2008 and is currently so employed.

20. As to the applicant’s principal family he stated that his “wife” and “children” reside in Indonesia.

21. As to his future employment plans the applicant stated that he intended to “find a managerial position job in Indonesia” and that once he completed the advanced diploma qualification “I will be qualified to work as an operation manager, regional manager or department manager”.

22. The Tribunal proceeded to ask the applicant some questions arising from the responses paraphrased above. The questions and the answers, in summary, were as follows.

23. The applicant stated that he arrived in Australia in “June 2008” and added “I can’t remember the date”. When asked what type of visa he held when he arrived in Australia he said “student visa for English”. When asked what course he intended to study when he arrived in Australia he stated “English course”. He did not elaborate.

24. The applicant confirmed that his family reside in Indonesia.

25. When asked as to his employment intentions when he returns to Indonesia he stated “after I finish maybe apply for operational manager, or regional manager or department manager in a big company”. He did not elaborate.

26. The applicant confirmed that his income from his employment in Australia was AU$22 per hour and added that he earned approximately AU$461 each week.

27. The Tribunal asked the applicant to explain how the various courses he had studied in Australia were related to his future employment. The applicant replied “first I tried hospitality because I was not sure yet, of the direction, the second time I asked the agent what course I should take to get a good position Indonesia, so then I got leadership and management”. He did not elaborate.

28. The applicant declined an opportunity to add anything further to his application for review.

29. Prior to the hearing the applicant provided a variety of documents to the Tribunal. The applicant did not refer to any of these documents during the course of giving evidence at the hearing. Nonetheless they have been taken into account by the Tribunal to the extent relevant and given appropriate weight. The Tribunal makes a number of observations in relation to those documents. Academic certificates provided by the applicant disclose that he has completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management, a Certificate II in Business, a Certificate III in Business Administration, as at 15 May 2020 was studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, and had also completed a Certificate IV in New Small Business.

30. The applicant also provided an undated short narrative statement to the delegate at the time of the initial consideration of his application. That document was not provided to the Tribunal by the applicant nor was it referred to by the applicant during the course of giving evidence at the Tribunal hearing. Nonetheless it has been taken into account by the Tribunal and given appropriate weight. The Tribunal observes that the undated statement does not substantially advance the applicant’s claims, although it does refer to an intention to find employment as a café or beverage manager.

31. Without diminishing the applicant’s evidence, the substance of the evidence can be summarised as follows. The applicant arrived in Australia in June 2008 and has returned to Indonesia on three occasions, namely in 2010, 2011 and 2012. On each occasion he was out of Australia for approximately one month. His wife and children reside in Indonesia. He gave no evidence of other family in Indonesia. As to his assets in Indonesia he stated “N/A”. He has completed a number of courses in Australia as follows: a vocational English course between June 2008 and July 2008, an Advanced Diploma of Hospitality Management between September 2008 and April 2011, a Certificate II in Business between March 2015 and September 2015, a Certificate III in Business between October 2015 and July 2017, a Certificate IV in Small Business Management between April 2017 and April 2018 and a Diploma of Leadership and Management between May 2018 and January 2020. He is currently studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management which he commenced in February 2020 and expects to complete in April 2022. He has had stable employment as a café manager since October 2008. As to his future employment intentions he stated that he intended to find work as an operations manager, a regional manager or a department manager. He provided no further detail. He has not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why he has changed direction of study, the utility of his current course or why he does not have sufficient qualifications and experience to embark upon his, albeit vague, future career plans.

32. 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 Ministerial Direction No.69. The factors were used to weigh up the applicant’s circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether he has satisfied the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

33. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances in his home country. The applicant is married and is from Indonesia. The applicant has provided evidence of social, direct family ties to his home country which provide an incentive to return. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant may have family ties to Indonesia, having regard to the time the applicant has spent in Australia and the intended period of future stay in Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that there is a significant incentive for the applicant to return to Indonesia.

34. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia. The applicant first arrived in Australia in June 2008 as a holder of a student visa. Since that time the applicant has apparently held at least one further student visa. The proposed study would extend the applicant’s stay until at least April 2022. The Tribunal considers that the length of the proposed stay suggests that the applicant is studying for the purposes of staying in Australia. Whilst plans can change, in the Tribunal’s view this is not the conduct of a genuine temporary student. On balance it is consistent with the applicant having decided to extend his stay in Australia by utilising the student visa programme.

35. The Tribunal does not place substantial weight on the value of the course to the applicant’s future, including remuneration and career prospects in the applicant’s home country. The applicant gave extremely vague evidence in that regard and provided no details of his future plans or indeed the utility of his current course of study. Further, the applicant did not explain to the Tribunal’s satisfaction why his existing qualifications and experience would not be sufficient to provide a basis for his vague career plans.

36. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s study history since arrival and notes that he commenced study in 2008, and since that time has completed vocational courses in English, hospitality management, business and leadership and management. The reason for the change in direction of study was not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction. The utility of the applicant’s current course to his future employment plans was not explained to the Tribunal’s satisfaction.

37. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has established that study will provide him with significant benefits in his proposed career plan, considering the cost of the study and the fact that the applicant already has experience as a café manager and qualifications in hospitality management, business and leadership and management obtained in Australia. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the proposed additional study has a reasonable prospect of providing significant value to his career beyond the existing qualifications.

38. The Tribunal turns to consider whether there are any other relevant matters. 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.

39. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s economic circumstances in his home country relative to his potential circumstances in Australia. Having regard to the disparity in economic circumstances between Indonesia and Australia, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has significant incentive to return to Indonesia. The applicant has been unable to demonstrate substantial ties or personal assets in his home country which diminishes his incentive to return to Indonesia.

40. 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 his proposed study that will outweigh the significant time and monetary commitment this course will require. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has demonstrated the value of his proposed course to his future.

41. The Tribunal does give weight to the evidence that since the applicant’s arrival in Australia in June 2008, the applicant has spent more than 12 and a half years in Australia and approximately three months outside of Australia, his family reside in Indonesia, and he has no assets in Indonesia, which indicates that he does not appear to have strong personal ties to Indonesia. On balance, the Tribunal assesses the applicant’s incentive to return to Indonesia to be minimal.

42. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant for further stay as a full-time student. Whilst the applicant clearly wishes to stay and continue to study in Australia, it is noted that the applicant was previously granted a visa specifically to enable him to achieve that goal. The applicant was granted at least one student visa which would have facilitated the applicant’s study in his desired field. It therefore 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.

43. The Tribunal has considered all information provided by the applicant in support of his application. On balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the information the applicant has provided regarding the applicant’s circumstances in his home country, potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to his future, his immigration history and other relevant matters are sufficient to demonstrate that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.

44. On the contrary, the evidence suggests that the applicant has enrolled in the present course for the purposes of securing a further student visa, rather than due to a genuine interest in study. The Tribunal considers that the applicant is 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.

45. There is no further evidence before the Tribunal regarding the following factors indicated by Direction No.69: economic circumstances of the applicant; any potential military service in Indonesia; political or civil unrest circumstances in Indonesia; remuneration the applicant could expect to receive in Indonesia or a third country compared with Australia; circumstances in Indonesia relative to Australia or any other country; and the applicant’s circumstances in Indonesia relative to others in that country.

46. On the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl.500.212(a).

47. 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.

48. 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.

1. The application of the applicant having been unsuccessful, it follows that those of the secondary applicants also fail.

   DECISION

2. 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.