SUN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa, Subclass 500 (Student) visa, made by an applicant who sought to study early childhood education. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria of being a "genuine temporary entrant" as required by the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, as mandated by clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This assessment required the Tribunal to have regard to Direction No. 69, which outlines various factors to consider, including the applicant's circumstances in their home country and potential circumstances in Australia, the value of the proposed course to the applicant's future, their immigration history, and any other relevant matters.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided evidence of her genuine intention to study early childhood education, noting her previous marketing studies in China were not a clever decision in retrospect and that she now had a passion for childcare. It accepted that the quality of the course in Australia was higher than in China and that studying English in Australia was more beneficial. Crucially, the Tribunal accepted that the applicant had no family in Australia and maintained close ties with her family in China, concluding these factors indicated a genuine intention to be a temporary entrant.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa to the Minister for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered to meet the criteria under clause 500.212(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.