Tamang (Migration)

[2021] AATA 868

Tamang (Migration) [2021] AATA 868 (10 March 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS:  Mrs Laxmi Tamang
Mr Sabin Tamrakar

CASE NUMBER:  1903484

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/5234850

MEMBER:Wendy Banfield

DATE:10 March 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Sydney

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

Statement made on 10 March 2021 at 9:52am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine temporary entrant – applicant’s circumstances in home country – ongoing personal ties to Nepal – ongoing employment in Australia – economic disparity between Australia and Nepal – academic record – studied a range of unrelated courses – amount of time spent in Australia – value of course to applicant’s future – immigration history – 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

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 12 February 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 23 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 it was determined the genuine temporary entrant criteria was not met.

   Background

4. The visa applicant (the applicant) is a citizen of Nepal and is currently 32 years old. The secondary applicant is the spouse of the applicant, also from Nepal. The applicant came to Australia on 16 April 2009 as the holder of a Subclass 572 Student visa while the secondary applicant arrived on 13 August 2015. During her residency in Australia, the applicant has been granted a further three Student visas and a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa.

5. The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 12 October 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the secondary applicant Mr Sabin Tamrakar.  

6. The applicants were assisted in relation to the review by their registered migration agent. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.

7. Prior to the hearing the applicant submitted the following evidence in support of the application for review:

   ·     Representative’s submission dated 28/09/2020;

   ·     Passport information for the applicant and secondary applicant;

   ·     Request for Student Visa Information form;

   ·     Current Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) for a Master of Business Administration (MBA) from 01/06/2020 to 08/05/2022;

   ·     Graduation certificates and transcripts for a Certificate III in Frontline Management; Certificate IV and Diploma of Management; Diploma of Business, Diploma and Advanced Diploma of Human Resources (HR) Management;

   ·     Evidence of partial completion of a Diploma of Community Welfare Work;

   ·     Letter of offer and academic transcript for a Bachelor of Professional Accounting;

   ·     Copies of the applicant’s previous Australian visa grants;

   ·     Evidence of property owned by the applicant’s father in Nepal;

   ·     Evidence of employment opportunities in the banking and finance sector in Nepal;

   ·     Applicant’s Nepal secondary school transcripts;

   ·     COE’s for the applicant’s previous studies in Australia;

   ·     Tribunal decision dated 6 May 2013 remitting a previous application for review of a decision to refuse the applicant a Student visa;

   ·     Applicant’s family relationship certificate;

   ·     Department’s notification and decision record dated 12 February 2019;

   ·     Evidence of property and a restaurant business owned by the secondary applicant and his father in Nepal;

   ·     Overseas Student Health Cover certificate starting 25/11/2018 and ending 25/09/2022.

8. The Tribunal also considered relevant evidence submitted to the Department at the time of application. The evidence consisted of: Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) statement; marriage certificate; Application for a Student Visa form; COEs; and Australian and overseas qualifications.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

10. 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 applicant for entry and stay as a student.

11. 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?

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s circumstances in her country. According to the evidence at the hearing and in documentation, the applicant’s parents, younger siblings and husband’s relatives continue to live in Nepal. The applicant’s husband, the secondary applicant arrived in Australia in 2015. The Tribunal accepts the applicant has ongoing personal ties to Nepal due to her extended family continuing to reside there. However, the applicant’s husband lives with her in Australia and the Tribunal is not satisfied those personal ties would serve as a significant incentive for the applicant to return to her home country. The applicant has lived independently of her extended family since 2009 and has developed connections to Australia through work and study over many years. The Tribunal finds that property and assets held by the secondary applicant do not require his physical presence and could also be liquidated. As such, they Tribunal is not satisfied any property or assets held represent a strong reason for the parties to return to Nepal.

15. The Tribunal finds there are economic circumstances of the applicants that would present as a significant incentive for them not to return to their home country. Both applicants indicated they are engaged in ongoing employment with the applicant having a work history in Australia going back to 2009. Apart from a period when the applicant held a Temporary Graduate visa, the applicant’s employment over many years is not related or complementary to her professional field of study. The applicant’s work history is in housekeeping, retail customer service and assistant nursing while her studies have been in business, management, accounting and HR. While it is understandable the applicant chose to undertake a type of work that she could combine with full-time study, nevertheless the Tribunal has taken into account the fact that the applicant has never worked in Nepal and has little transferrable experience in the professional field of banking and finance that she claims she intends to pursue. The secondary applicant claims he will work for his father’s restaurant in Nepal but the Tribunal considers his ongoing employment as a chef provides an incentive for him to remain in Australia due to the economic disparity between Australia and Nepal.

16. In Australia, the applicant has completed a range of higher education courses. The applicant first began a Diploma of Community Welfare but discontinued due to a lack of interest in the topic. She then completed a Certificate III in Frontline Management, Diploma of Management; Certificate IV in Business, Diploma of Business, Bachelor of Professional Accounting, Diploma of Human Resource Management and Advanced Diploma of Management (Human Resources). At the time of decision, the applicant was enrolled in an MBA to be completed on 8 May 2022. The applicant was granted a Subclass 485 Temporary Graduate visa on 15 March 2017 that allowed her to live, work and study in Australia. According to the representative’s submission, the applicant began studying HR courses while holding a Subclass 485 visa but had to apply for a further Student visa in order to complete the advanced diploma. Prior to the Tribunal hearing, the applicant completed her HR studies and enrolled in an MBA.

17. In accordance with section 359AA of the Migration Act, during the hearing the Tribunal put to the applicant, particulars of information that the Tribunal considered would be the reason, or a part of the reason, for affirming the decision under review. The applicant was advised the information is relevant to the review because, subject to her comment or response, it appeared she did not meet a requirement for the grant of a student visa. The information put to her was that according to the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS), she has studied a range of unrelated courses suggesting the purpose is to extend her stay in Australia. The applicant was told that if the Tribunal relies on the information it may lead to the decision under review being affirmed. She was invited to comment on or respond to the information and advised that she may seek additional time in which case the Tribunal may adjourn the hearing or allow time after the hearing to provide a response.

18. The applicant chose to respond to the information put to her at the hearing. She submitted all the courses she has studied are interrelated. The applicant agreed she had first come to Australia in 2009 but pointed to difficulties she had faced when her husband’s visa was initially refused, and her father was unwell. She said after 2011, her studies have been interconnected and have contributed to her knowledge about a range of subjects. The Tribunal considered the applicant’s response and accepts she had a setback in her first two years as a student but is not satisfied it has been necessary for her to study the amount and range of courses that she has in order to improve her career prospects in Nepal.

19. The representative’s submission to the Tribunal refutes the Department’s finding that the amount of time the applicant has spent in Australia is not consistent with her being a genuine temporary entrant. The submission sets out the applicant’s study path over 11 years, including a gap in study that led to a previous visa refusal (later remitted by the Tribunal, differently constituted). It was claimed the applicant had always intended to study an MBA, however, after completing a bachelor’s degree she enrolled a diploma and advanced diploma courses in HR beginning on 4 December 2017 and ending on 2 February 2020, a period of more than two years. This occurred before the applicant enrolled in a master’s degree, thereby extending her residency beyond what would be required to complete a post-graduate qualification. The Tribunal notes that during the hearing, the applicant advised she had wanted to know about the field of HR as it is not available in Nepal, but claimed she never wanted to work in that area. HR is a specific professional field and is usually studied by those wishing to work as HR administrators or managers. The Tribunal considers it was not necessary for the applicant to achieve her aim of working in banking and finance and it is not logical for her to spend two years studying an area she had a mere interest in. The Tribunal took account of the applicant and her representative’s submissions but is not satisfied the applicant has continued to study for genuine purposes. 

20. At the Tribunal hearing the applicant advised she has been working as a nursing assistant in Canberra since 16 October 2018 and her husband is a chef. According to the Tribunal’s Request for Student Visa Information form, the applicant has also worked as a housekeeper at four different hotels between 2009 and 2018 and as a team member at Coles from 2015 to 2017. As stated in this decision, the Tribunal finds the applicants ongoing employment gives them an incentive to remain in Australia.  

21. Regarding the value of the course to the applicant’s future, the applicant claims all her courses of study to date are interrelated and she has always planned a career in business and management. It was submitted that while studying HR, the applicant realised the importance of an MBA to a career in management. According to the applicant, managerial job vacancies in Nepal prefer a master’s degree and work experience in the field.

22. At the time of application, the applicant was studying a Diploma of HR Management and was planning to complete an Advanced Diploma as well. In her GTE statement she set out the benefits of supplementing her accounting qualification with HR studies. The applicant stated:

    In my home country, Nepal is prospering year after year in terms of work opportunities and better living standards. The competition in a job market is increasing. It is really important for any graduates to get additional skills to be exceptional. Human resources courses are not available back home and this will be ideal for me to stand out from my peers’ competitors for job opportunity. I am highly confident that Australian qualification would empower me to build a successful career back home.

23. In her GTE statement to the Department the applicant focusses on the value of HR in the job market and does not indicate she has always intended to complete an MBA. In the later representative’s submission to the Tribunal dated 28 September 2020 the applicant’s career plans are set out. It is claimed she will start with a graduate entry position in a bank or financial institution in Nepal and could have a managerial position within three to four years based on her Australian MBA. The submission indicates high level management vacancies in Nepal prefer a master’s degree with eight to ten years’ experience in banking and financial sector and that the time and cost associated with the MBA will create more attractive job opportunities in Nepal.

24. The Tribunal accepts that employers of high-level managers, such as those examples submitted by the applicant in evidence may prefer a master’s degree but the applicant herself would need to begin a banking and finance career at a lower level. The Tribunal considers she could progress to a management role using the qualifications she holds to date. Since the applicant is 32 years old and has been a student since the age of 21, continual study without relevant work experience is likely to be a detriment to her in pursuing a career in future. Based on the advertisements for job vacancies in Nepal it is evident employers value work experience as well as higher educational qualifications.

25. The applicant’s immigration history refers to her visa and study history. The applicant arrived in Australia on 16 April 2009 and is enrolled to study until 8 May 2022, a period of 13 years. She has been granted four student visas and a temporary graduate visa in that time. The Tribunal places some weight on the applicant being currently enrolled in a post-graduate course of study but considers she could have progressed to this level at an earlier stage and has spent time taking lower level courses that are not a logical progression for her such as diploma courses in the field of human resources that followed a Bachelor of Professional Accounting. The Tribunal finds the applicant has had ample opportunity to complete her academic goals during her temporary residency in Australia.

26. Having weighed the evidence individually and cumulatively, 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).

27. 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.

28. 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.

    Member of Family Unit – Secondary visa applicant

29. The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one member of the family unit. Other members of the family unit who are applicants for a visa need satisfy only the secondary criteria.  Member of the family unit is defined in r.1.12 and includes spouse or de facto partner, dependent child and relatives of the family head or spouse of the family head who does not have a spouse or de facto partner and is usually resident in the family head’s household and is dependent on the family head.

30. As the Tribunal does not accept that the first named visa applicant satisfies the primary criteria, the secondary applicant is unable to meet the criteria because they are not a member of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in cl.500.212.

    DECISION

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

    Wendy Banfield
    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.