Teo (Migration)

[2020] AATA 2725

Teo (Migration) [2020] AATA 2725 (6 May 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Meng Hua Teo

CASE NUMBER:  1820520

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3819254

MEMBER:Adrienne Millbank

DATE:6 May 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

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

Statement made on 06 May 2020 at 4:13pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa –genuine temporary entrant criterion not met – dependent on wife’s student visa – applicant has never left Australia since arrival –no job to return to in home country –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cl 500.312

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 9 July 2018 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Subsequent Entry) (Class TU) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).

2. The applicant is a 40-year-old citizen of Malaysia. He first arrived in Australia on 25 March 2018 on a Visitor (UD 601) visa, together with his wife, the primary visa holder, who arrived on a Student (Subclass 500) visa granted on 29 January 2018. This visa is due to expire on 26 August 2020.

3. The applicant has not left Australia since his arrival. The primary visa holder has left on three occasions: from 27 April 2018 to 7 May 2018; from 2 April 2019 to 25 April 2019; and from 23 January 2020 to 6 February 2020. The parties have a three-year-old daughter in Malaysia, born on 10 September 2016, who has been cared for in turn by their parents.

4. The applicant applied for the visa on 18 June 2018. At the time of application, Class TU contained two subclasses: Subclass 500 (Student) and Subclass 590 (Student Guardian). The applicant applied for the visa as a member of the family unit of his wife, and does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.

5. The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl.500.312 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations). The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant.

6. The delegate considered that the applicant’s joining his spouse in Australia had reduced the parties’ incentives to return at the completion of the primary visa holder’s studies, despite the motivation of their daughter’s presence in Malaysia. The delegate noted that no evidence was provided of future employment, business prospects, ownership of assets or future plans in Malaysia for either of the parties. The delegate noted that the applicant entered on a Visitor visa and has remained in the country.

7. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 9 April 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from the primary visa holder.

8. The hearing was held during the COVID-19 pandemic, and the Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold it by telephone. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold the hearing by telephone, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicant. The Tribunal also had regard to the Tribunal’s objective of providing a mechanism of review that is fair, just, economical and quick, and the delay to the matter if the hearing was not to be conducted by telephone. The applicant did not raise any concerns in relation to holding a telephone hearing, and the Tribunal is satisfied that he was given a fair opportunity to give evidence and present arguments.

9. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by the parties’ registered migration agent, Ms Li Qin, from Astute Migration Services in Sunnybank Hills, Brisbane. Ms Qin attended the Tribunal hearing.

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

    CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

11. 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 who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily.

12. Clause 500.213(a) requires as follows:

    The applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a member of the family unit of a person who holds a student visa, having satisfied the primary criteria for that visa, 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.

    Does the applicant intend genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily?

13. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.312(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.

14. 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.

15. At the outset of the hearing, the Tribunal asked the applicant why he was not included in his wife’s Student visa application as a dependent, secondary applicant. The applicant stated that it was his initial intention just to visit Australia temporarily for the purpose of settling his wife in Australia, but he realised she would need his continuing assistance and support to be successful in her studies in a foreign country where she didn’t speak the language. He confirmed that he has not returned to Malaysia since he arrived with the primary visa holder in March 2018. He confirmed that he has not seen his daughter since she was one and a half years old. He stated that the primary visa holder had returned to Malaysia several times, but he has not left Australia because he has not held a visa which allowed his return.

16. The Tribunal questioned the parties about their future intentions, as the primary visa holder’s Student (Subclass 500) visa is due to expire in August 2020. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he no longer needs a Student (Dependent) Subclass 500 visa because his wife’s visa will expire in a few months. The Tribunal suggested that the applicant could return home to Malaysia a little earlier, set up house, obtain employment and otherwise prepare for his wife’s return. The primary visa holder advised that she has enrolled in further courses of study and intends to apply for another Student visa, enabling the parties to stay until August 2022.

17. The Tribunal put to the applicant that he provided information in his application for the visa that he had taken long-service leave from his employment as a lorry driver and maintenance worker in Malaysia and intended to return to this employment in 2018 on completion of his wife’s studies. Further, he had written in a Personal Statement signed on 12 June 2018, ‘Once my wife finishes her course at Cambridge Academy of English Pty Ltd, we will go back to Malaysia and to our job hunting’. However, the primary visa holder subsequently enrolled in leadership and management courses. The Tribunal asked the applicant to clarify his employment situation in his home country, and asked the parties whether the applicant intends to stay in Australia until August 2022.

18. The primary visa holder confirmed that she intends to include the applicant as a secondary applicant when she applies for another Student (Subclass 500) visa. She did not claim to continue to need the support of the applicant in order to function in a foreign country where she does not speak the language. She stated that she intends to include the applicant for the reason that the coronavirus made it dangerous for him to return to Malaysia.

19. The applicant stated that he intends to remain in Australia with his wife because ‘there is no work for me in Malaysia’. On further questioning, he stated that he would not be able to find work in Malaysia because of the economic shutdown caused by the coronavirus, and that the parties intend to remain in Australia until ‘the economy is recovered’. The parties then stated that the applicant might return to Malaysia in 2021 to find employment. The applicant stated that he would seek employment again as a lorry driver and maintenance worker.

20. The Tribunal asked the applicant how he could afford to live in Australia for four and a half years without earning any income and without the primary visa holder earning any income. The Tribunal put to the parties that living in a high-cost country like Australia, for four and a half years, without any income, and with a child to support in another country, would be an expensive proposition for any couple. The Tribunal referred the parties to the representative’s submission of 7 April 2020 where she stated, ‘They have never worked in Australia after they came here as they have enough savings from their previous employment in Malaysia’.

21. The Tribunal asked the parties how they could have saved the amount required, which would be considerable, in their previous stated occupations of administrative assistant and lorry driver. The Tribunal asked the parties if they could provide evidence that they have held savings sufficient to support themselves in Australia, and to support their daughter in Malaysia, for four and a half years, without working. The primary visa holder then stated that she has in fact worked in Australia, she claimed, for only for 20 hours a fortnight, while on a Student visa. She stated that she has worked in restaurants as a waitress. She argued, unconvincingly, that the paid work she has undertaken in Australia should be viewed as a practical extension of her coursework because it afforded her the opportunity to practise her English. The Tribunal asked the representative why she claimed in her submission that neither of the parties have worked in Australia. The representative stated that the parties ‘forgot to tell her’.

22. The applicant confirmed that he has not held work rights since his arrival, and maintained that he has not engaged in paid work in Australia. The Tribunal asked the applicant what certificates and/or diplomas the primary visa holder has obtained over the last two years, with his full-time support. The applicant stated that his wife obtained a qualification in English and was studying ‘business’, but has not yet finished her business studies. The Tribunal found the applicant vague and evasive when answering questions about the primary visa holder’s studies, and his inability to provide any detail about the courses his wife has enrolled in to indicate that the parties may not be genuine temporary entrants. The Tribunal found the applicant’s claim that he has had to stay in Australia for the reason that the primary visa holder has been unable to live by herself in Australia because of her lack of English and unfamiliarity with Australian society and culture, after working and studying here for two years, unconvincing.

23. The Tribunal put to the applicant that as he was unable to work in Australia, there was no force in his argument that he has to remain in this country because there is no work for him in Malaysia. The Tribunal further put to the applicant that if he has no employment to return to in Malaysia, that suggests he has little incentive to leave Australia and may not be a genuine temporary entrant. The applicant argued that he has to remain in Australia because there are no flights to Malaysia because of the coronavirus. He further argued that as the primary visa holder still has subjects to study, and there is no work in Malaysia, there is no point in them going back.

24. Following the procedures in s.359AA of the Act, the Tribunal advised the applicant that it had information that would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review because it suggested that the parties were not genuine temporary entrants. The Tribunal advised that the information was in the primary visa holder’s Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) records, which showed that of her 11 course enrolments, 8 were cancelled, including enrolments in Certificate II, III, and IV courses in Business, for the reasons of ‘change to a course in a different sector’, or ‘non-commencement of studies’. The records showed that she had not ‘finished’ any of her course enrolments. They showed that rather than returning to Malaysia in August 2020 as was her original stated intention, she has enrolled in a Diploma of Leadership and Management from 1 June 2020 to 30 May 2021, and an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management with an end date of 12 July 2022.

25. The Tribunal put to the applicant that it appeared from the primary visa holder’s study record that she has not had the aptitude or motivation to complete even one certificate-level course in her chosen field of Business. The Tribunal asked the parties why it should not conclude that they have used the Student visa program to maintain residence, and employment, in Australia. The Tribunal advised the applicant that the parties could seek extra time to respond to the information in the visa holder’s PRISMS records and to the Tribunal’s concerns. The parties did not seek an adjournment during the hearing. The representative requested and was granted extra time to provide a further written submission after the hearing.

26. Evidence was received post-hearing, on 19 April 2020, that the primary visa holder enrolled in a number of English language courses in Australia. A Certificate of Attainment was provided certifying that the primary visa holder was awarded the Cambridge Academy of English Certificate for the course of General English (intermediate-level, pass), on 14 June 2019. The Tribunal acknowledges that the primary visa holder has attended English courses in Australia; that she was awarded an intermediate-level Certificate of Attainment in General English; and that her enrolments in Certificates II, III, and IV in Business may have been interrupted by changes in course providers. The Tribunal nevertheless finds the primary visa holder’s failure to complete any units of a course in her chosen field of Business in over two years to indicate that neither she nor the applicant have been genuine temporary entrants.

27. The Tribunal acknowledges the applicant wrote in his Personal Statement of 12 June 2018 that he and his wife have ‘strong emotional ties with our family in our hometown’, but notes that the applicant confirmed at hearing he has not returned to Malaysia since arriving on a Visitor visa in March 2018. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wants to see his daughter and other family members and would do so if granted a visa with travel rights, but finds that his personal ties with his homeland have not and do not serve as a significant incentive for him to return.

28. The Tribunal notes that the applicant’s wife, the primary visa holder, is in Australia and that she has been in paid employment in this country. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has no employment to return to in Malaysia.

29. On 7 April 2020 the Tribunal received evidence in the form of a copy, in the Malay language, of a bank statement which shows that the primary visa holder, along with four other people, holds a term deposit, deposited on 8 November 2019, of AUD36,558.54. On 19 April 2020 the Tribunal received a copy of the applicant’s mother’s will, showing that the applicant will inherit property that she owns. Also received on 19 April 2020 was a statement from the applicant’s account at the Hong Leong Bank in Malaysia, showing that as at 25 March 2020 the account held a balance of AUD44,505.59, and that the sum of AUD400 was withdrawn on 3 March 2020.

30. The Tribunal accepts that the parties have funds in bank accounts in Malaysia, and that the applicant will in the future inherit property, but notes that property can be sold and funds are transferrable. The Tribunal does not consider that the withdrawal of one sum of AUD400 shows that the applicant has drawn on his money in his account to support himself and the primary visa holder in Australia. The Tribunal does not find the funds held by the parties in banks in Malaysia, and the applicant’s future inheritance, are significant incentives for the applicant to return to his home country. As noted, the applicant has acknowledged, and the Tribunal finds, that the absence of an employment opportunity for him in Malaysia is an incentive for him to remain in this country.

31. The representative stated in her submission of 19 April 2020, and the Tribunal accepts, that the applicant and the primary visa holder have no military service obligations, and there are no political and civil matters in their home country preventing them from going back.

32. The Tribunal accepts that the primary visa holder’s English language Certificate, and her improved English after living and working in an English-speaking country for over two years, may have improved her employment prospects in Malaysia. The Tribunal notes that the primary visa holder’s visa is due to expire in August 2020, and does not accept that the continuing presence of the applicant is required for any final consolidation of the English language skills she has acquired. No claim was made or evidence provided that the primary visa holder has a specific employment opportunity or plan requiring a Diploma and an Advanced Diploma in Leadership and Management. Indeed, at hearing, the applicant stated that the primary visa holder had enrolled in the courses for the purpose of filling in time until the economic and employment conditions in Malaysia have improved.

33. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s claim that he has to stay in Australia because of the coronavirus, and for economic reasons, because he has no job to return to. The Tribunal accepts that the parties prefer to be in Australia rather than Malaysia at this time, but considers this to indicate that they are not genuine temporary entrants. The Tribunal notes that the applicant could apply for a further Bridging visa in the event of his travel to Malaysia being delayed.

34. The applicant indicated in his application form that he visited Thailand from 18 March 2018 to 21 March 2018, for ‘travel’ purposes. There is no information before the Tribunal to indicate that the applicant has applied for any other visas to enter Australia, or that he has not complied with his visa conditions in Australia or any other country. The Tribunal nevertheless considers the applicant’s migration history and circumstances, whereby he entered this country on a Visitor visa in March 2018 and has not left, to indicate that he is not a genuine temporary entrant.

1. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has incentives to return to Malaysia, but considers them to be outweighed by the presence of his wife, the primary visa holder, and the economic incentives the parties have to remain in this wealthier country.

2. 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.500.312(a).

3. 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

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

   Adrienne Millbank
   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.