Tamaru (Migration)

Tamaru (Migration) [2019] AATA 2265 (8 May 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANT:  Ms Kumiko Tamaru
CASE NUMBER:  1726284
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):           BCC2017/2716712
MEMBER:Meredith Jackson
DATE:8 May 2019
PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Statement made on 08 May 2019 at 11:46am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) visa – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met– non satisfactory course progress – using visa program to extend her stay –maintaining ongoing residency in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359AA, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cls 500.211, 500.212, 500.218

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 Immigration and Border Protection on 9 October 2017 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 30 July 2017. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). 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 visa 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 delegate was not satisfied the applicant intends genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 13 February 2019 to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant was 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 applicant for entry and stay as a student.

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’ (Direction 69), 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.

Case summary

The applicant is 38 year-old Kumiko Tamaru, a citizen of Japan who has been coming to Australia for 21 years, and been here as a student since 2006. Ms Tamaru has held a Working Holiday visa, 13 Student visas for the vocational sector, one Student visa for the English language sector and 13 Bridging visas. She has finished 16 courses in varying disciplines and is currently studying a 17^th vocational course until June 2019. Her study history also records six course cancellations. Among the fields she has studied are surfing (non-award), sport and recreation, English language, management, digital technology, Teaching English to Students of Other Languages (TESOL), marketing, interpreting and translating. In 13 years of study, her highest attainment is at Advanced Diploma level. Her longest course was of 11 months’ duration, many of the rest were considerably shorter. She submits she enjoys studying, enjoys Australia, and her expenses are paid by her mother who supports the idea of her living outside Japan. She claims she will return to Japan at the completion of her current translation course in June 2019.

Evidence before the Tribunal

The delegate’s decision recorded the following, in summary:
a.A listing of the applicant’s courses from January 2008 until June 2017 (15 courses)
b.The courses in which the applicant is recorded as enrolled and cancelled (six courses);
c.The applicant’s intended courses: (three courses);
d.The applicant’s circumstances in Japan;
e.The applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

Evidence submitted prior to and after hearing

The applicant submitted as evidence prior to the hearing, copies of documents including:
a.A Japanese Health Insurance Holder’s Card, as evidence she is continuing to pay for Japanese health insurance;
b.A summary of financial support between August 2017 and 30 November 2018 from the applicant’s mother totalling approximately AUD 55,557.52;
c.A letter of guarantee from the applicant’s father stating the applicant will take over the family company with her brother but until then he will support her financially;
d.Personal submission provided post hearing summarising her claim to being a genuine temporary entrant and attaching financial transaction summaries in support of her case regarding her family’s support;
e.Post hearing submission from the applicant’s migration agent supplying translations of various documents, clarifying submissions made and submitting that as her bank account is in Japan, she accesses funds internationally not locally;
f.Statutory declaration from the applicant supporting her claims to be a genuine student and genuine temporary entrant;
g.Income tax return for her father; bank statements;
h.Academic transcripts, Confirmation of Enrolment and IELTS results, and related documents for various courses; a reference from a coordinator at RMIT university regarding the applicant’s contributions to projects;
i.The applicant’s employment resume including references of awards for surfing competitions;
j.Copy of a previous Tribunal decision on her status; and
k.Submission by the applicant’s migration agent prior to hearing regarding her circumstances and potential for her to be nervous at the hearing;

The hearing

The Tribunal questioned the applicant about her academic record, immigration record and the specified matters in Direction 69.
In response to the Tribunal’s questions about when she first came to Australia, the applicant initially denied the Tribunal’s suggestion that she first arrived in 1998, stating that she came in 2016. On further questioning she stated that she did come here in 1996 as a junior high school student, and came again in July 2016 to study. She eventually corrected this to 2006, and said her mistake was due to nervousness.
The Tribunal, under s.359AA of the Act, referred the applicant to information about her held in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) and explained its relevance in that the information in the database might be the reason, or part of the reason to affirm the delegate’s decision. The Tribunal outlined the information in the database, which captures a chronological record of the applicant’s academic history in Australia: her enrolments, commencements, cancellations and finalisations. The Tribunal said it had not made up its mind about the information. The Tribunal referred to the information during the hearing and the applicant was invited to comment on it. The Tribunal asked the applicant if she wished to seek further time to consider it. The applicant said she was prepared to comment on the information immediately after it was read to her and said she understood it and why it was relevant to her case. The Tribunal questioned the applicant about the circuitous nature of her study record, across disciplines and qualification levels.
In relation to her regression from a higher level in the Australian Qualifications Framework (AQF) to a lower level, for example in 2012, after finishing a Certificate III in Sport and Recreation, she undertook a Certificate I in Sport and Recreation, the applicant stated this was to gain experience.
In relation to why she would go from a Diploma of Management to Certificate I in Digital Media, then on to English study and then to TESOL study (Teaching English to Speakers of Other Languages) and then to Marketing study and then to Interpreting study, and her overall plan, the applicant responded that she had studied English, for example, because she was not able to express herself well and wanted to improve her English skills.
In relation to the reason for studying a Diploma of Management she stated that she had talked to her parents, who were in real estate, and they were concerned that her brother would not be able to run their business alone. She had also chosen a course that would give her skills in basic word processing programs.
In response to questions about whether she was studying to improve her employability, and if so, in which field, the applicant responded that in the case of TESOL she was interested in travelling around the world, and it was a portable qualification.
In relation to her reason for marketing study, she stated it was for her family’s business purposes and it would also be useful for marketing herself around the world.
In relation to why she was studying Diploma courses in interpreting and translating now in order to have a career in Japan, she said life in Japan was all about career and qualifications; she had a lot of qualifications already but interpreting and translating was in demand in Japan and elsewhere.
In relation to whether she wanted to travel around the world, live in Japan or live in Australia, the applicant said when her parents retired she would need to help her brother in the business in Japan. That need not be until 10 years or so. In the meantime she hoped to travel around the world. She had not applied for visas in other countries.
In relation to her circumstances in Australia, she stated she was currently working in surf retail at the Gold Coast and had worked for most of the time since she came to Australia on a TZ 417 Working Holiday visa “in 2016”. The Tribunal indicated that departmental systems showed her immigration record is that she had been on either Student or Bridging visas and it did not appear to be the case that she came to Australia in 2016 on a Working Holiday visa. The applicant then said the year was 2006.
In relation to how often she had been back to Japan, she stated it was about seven times for two weeks to a month. She had returned to Australia to study after each of the visits.
Her current enrolment was in an Advanced Diploma of Interpreting in LOTE (Languages other than English) at RMIT University and this was due to finish in June 2019. The Tribunal asked the applicant how she attended a Melbourne university when she lived at the Gold Coast and the applicant responded that she flew to Melbourne once or twice a week. It was very expensive but her mother paid for the trips.
In relation to her plans after her studies were completed, she stated she would return to Japan, have a rest and then start job-hunting in Japan. She might visit her friend in Morocco as well and look there. She would take a job wherever it came along, whether in Japan or another country.
The Tribunal asked further questions about why the applicant’s progression was either flat-lining or downwards on a number of occasions and expressed a concern in that her record indicated it had involved a big investment of time and money for limited results. In response to its question about whether she considered there was to be a reasonable return on the investment made to date, which would amount to a very large sum, and a long period of time, she said in the long term she would go into real estate but before that she would like to work as an interpreter or translator and acknowledged her mother had invested heavily in her studies.
The Tribunal said the applicant had not progressed academically given the time she had spent studying and asked if she had ever considered a degree course. The applicant said she was not confident she would be happy doing one line of study, and she didn’t want to study further. This was her last year to enjoy the Gold Coast lifestyle where she liked surfing. She would go to Japan after her studies ended. She was very keen to finish her final studies in June 2019.
In response to questions about her family circumstances, the applicant said she had no family members in Australia, she had no partner here and the rest of her family lived in Japan. There were no barriers to her returning and she loved her country.
The applicant said she had not applied for a work visa in Australia and had complied with all visa conditions.
In relation to her varying statements about when she came to Australia, the applicant clarified that her early trips related to homestays of short duration and in 2006 she came for the extended period of study.
The applicant’s migration agent submitted that the applicant was a unique case who enjoyed the support of her mother in Japan; in the last year and a half the applicant’s mother had sent funds totalling approximately AUD 55,000 to her in Australia; the applicant had undertaken the courses she had proposed with her visa application and after she had been upheld in a previous Tribunal decision; she was a genuine temporary entrant with a firm desire to return to Japan or might potentially travel elsewhere. She might however want to complete a translating examination.

Conclusions

The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s submissions and has considered the applicant’s circumstances in her home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to her 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; other relevant information provided by the applicant and information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant (Direction 69). The Tribunal concludes as follows:
a.The primary purpose of a Student visa program in Australia is for an applicant to study and progress academically. As a genuine temporary entrant, a student is expected to return to their home country at the conclusion of their studies. Since arriving in Australia on a Working Holiday visa in 2006, the applicant has been enrolled in 24 courses of study, in varying fields, and completed 16 of the courses. Academic progression is not consistently demonstrated in her study record; to the contrary, the applicant has varied both the content and the level of her studies up and down the AQF. She has on occasion studied at one level of the AQF, and has then enrolled, once in the same field, at a level below her previous attainment. She has ranged across disciplines and accrued a wide range of qualifications that are of undemonstrated value to her future. The Tribunal tried at hearing to draw from the applicant how she justifies the investment of time and considerable money she has made in study while living at the Gold Coast, which has included regularly commuting to Melbourne for classes, but her answers lacked substance. The Tribunal notes the financial investment alone is of significant substance. The financial capacity regime for student visa holders in Australia specifies that a student should allow AUD 20,290 for a year’s living expenses, plus tuition fees and travel. The funds the applicant has invested therefore exceed AUD 250,000 before tuition or travel fees. Financial capacity however is not at issue in this case: the Tribunal notes the applicant’s submissions that her mother provided AUD 55,000 to her in a period of 15 months. The Tribunal accepts that not all students suffer the sort of heavy financial constraints of most. The Tribunal accepts that if she wishes, the applicant is entitled to take twice-weekly flights to Melbourne to study an interpreting course similar to that available in Queensland. The Tribunal has however closely focussed on the applicant’s period of time in Australia and the selections of a large number of courses (16) in many and varied disciplines over 13 years, almost all of them at levels demanding relatively light academic investment. The applicant makes clear she is a surfing enthusiast and chooses to live at the Gold Coast where she also has a part-time job in a surf shop. The Tribunal concludes that remaining in Australia to enjoy the Gold Coast and the surfing lifestyle it allows, are the primary motivators for the applicant undertaking a long, varied and list of short courses that do not amount to a progressive academic plan.
b.The Tribunal notes the applicant’s expressed enthusiasm for her current academic direction in interpreting and translating. At the hearing she described possible utilisation of these potential qualifications with more clarity than she afforded most of the vocational courses studied prior to them. That said, the applicant did offer broad responses to the Tribunal’s questions about the purpose of studying each of the courses, and explanations for studying marketing, sport and recreation, TESOL, management and recent interpreting and translating courses. At the end, however, the Tribunal was left with the impression the applicant was more concerned with the acquisition of courses and accruing multiple qualifications than she was in how they might apply to her future. The Tribunal concludes that while the applicant can offer a rationalisation for every course she has chosen, she has no coherent plan and no substantial ideas for utilising any of her qualifications in Japan or elsewhere. Despite her current enthusiasm for interpreting and translating, the Tribunal concludes this enthusiasm, on her record, is likely to be fleeting. The Tribunal is not satisfied that if the applicant were granted another Student visa, it would be the last one she would seek, or that her active course will be the last of her study choices. Her migration agent mentioned in the hearing that she may wish to do a translation examination before she leaves Australia. The circumstances above, taken as a whole, open up the strong possibility of more enrolments and more visa applications. This adds to the Tribunal’s conclusion that the real purpose of the study approach the applicant has taken is to extend her stay at the Gold Coast. The Tribunal is unconvinced that the applicant will head home to Japan at the end of June 2019 to look for a job. To conclude therefore, that the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant and genuine student, the Tribunal would have to accept that after 13 years at the Gold Coast, with very few financial constraints upon her, and in the thick of a lifestyle she is passionate about, the applicant will elect to go home once she completes her current course. The Tribunal does not accept that she will return to Japan as she indicates.
c.The applicant claims there are compelling reasons for her to return home: her whole family is there, she does not have a partner in Australia or any relatives here; in Japan her father has a real estate business that she will eventually help run. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant’s family is in Japan, not in Australia, but does not find this a factor that outweighs the attractions of extending her own stay in Australia, as she has done for 13 years. Further, the applicant has submitted that she does not need to join the family business for up to a decade. Her father has said she will work in it but she will be supported in the meantime. Her parents continue to provide funds to the Japanese bank account she routinely accesses from Australia. Therefore, aided by her surf retailing job, her economic circumstances in Australia are viable. The applicant submits openly that Japanese culture is constraining in some respects. The Tribunal concludes that in remaining in Australia for a long period the applicant has found a degree of escape here. Taking these factors into account, the Tribunal considers that the factors encouraging her return to Japan do not outweigh her circumstances in Australia, and concludes as a result that the applicant is using the Student visa program to extend her stay in Australia.

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).
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.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Meredith Jackson
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

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.
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).
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.
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.
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

Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.
For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.
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

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.
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

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

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

An applicant’s immigration history refers both to their visa and travel history.
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

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

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.