Tsang (Migration)

[2019] AATA 2988

Tsang (Migration) [2019] AATA 2988 (25 June 2019)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Ms Chun Ling Tsang

CASE NUMBER:  1723713

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2017/1589536

MEMBER:Damian Creedon

DATE:25 June 2019

PLACE OF DECISION:  Perth

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

Statement made on 25 June 2019 at 7:51am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– genuine temporary entrant criterion not met –number of short and inexpensive courses – lack of academic progress – using student visa to maintain ongoing residence –decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 360, 363, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, r 1.03, Schedule 2, cl 500.212

CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40

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 13 September 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 3 May 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(a) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

4. On 15 March 2019 the Tribunal wrote to the applicant pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, inviting the applicant to provide information to the Tribunal in writing about the course(s) of study she is undertaking and her entry and stay in Australia as a student. The invitation was sent to the last address provided in connection with the review and advised that, if the information was not provided in writing within the prescribed period, ending 29 March 2019, or within any extended time as requested and granted, the Tribunal may make a decision on the review without taking further steps to obtain the information and the applicant would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.

5. The applicant did not request an extension of time and provided the information outside of the prescribed period on 5 April 2019. In these circumstances, s.359C applies and pursuant to s.360(3) the applicant is not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that if an applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40.

6. In the circumstances, the Tribunal has proceeded to make a decision having regard to all the information before it, including the information provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, and the information previously provided by the applicant to the Department.

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

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

1. 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.

2. 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?

1. 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 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.

2. 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.

Overview of evidence

1. The Tribunal had before it a copy of both the delegate’s decision, which the applicant provided to the Tribunal, and the Department’s file in relation to the application.

2. The applicant is a 31-year-old Chinese (Hong Kong) national who first arrived in Australia on 4 October 2011 as the holder of a Working Holiday (TZ417) visa. 

3. The delegate’s decision record notes the following relevant information:

   The applicant arrived in Australia on 04/10/2011 holding TZ417 Working Holiday Visa. On 18/09/2012 the applicant then was granted their second Working Holiday Visa. The applicant was then granted their first Student Visa (TU572) which was valid until 16/03/2015. The last Student Visa (TU572) was granted on 25/03/2015 until 03/05/2017 based on the enrolment in Certificate IV in Frontline Management, Certificate IV in Project Management Practice, and Diploma of Project Management Practice. The first two courses were commenced, however the last course was cancelled. The Education provider cancelled the confirmation of Enrolment (COE 80892874), due to ‘Disciplinary reasons’. The educators comments “Student has no progress since 2013 [and] Intent to report notification was sent to student.  Student did not access complaints and appeal after 20 working days”.

4. In her statement to the Department addressing the genuine temporary entrant criterion filed in support of her application[1] (GTE Statement), the applicant states:

   My living environment has led me to get into an industry that I am really passionate about. The reason I continue studying higher academic English and pathway to Certificate Ill Child Care studies is mainly-for personal interest and for future employment.

   From my previous experiences in Australia, I trust Australian Certificates are globally recognized, and have good ratings in terms of teaching quality and school environment. Child Care study in Hong Kong is mostly focusing on children [sic] mental and physical development. In comparison, Australia education system is much more creative and practical. And it emphasizes on the ability to plan activities for leisure and play so that they are able to achieve their development outcomes.

   Courses at [my] college will develop my skills and give me the experience to make a difference in the lives and future employment of children. Training in Australia is more practical and I could get more hands on experience in this industry while work placement takes place. Being able to provide excellent care and education to children will definitely [give me a] great advantage for my future employment in Hong Kong.

   Compared to many popular study abroad destinations, Australia student visa costs, tuition costs, and living expenses is [considerably more] affordable. I have sufficient funds to finance my living expenses including tuition fees for my entire stay in Australia. I am staying at a share house and usually I cook myself at home.

   My study goals are, to educate with global views, modern and advanced knowledge, to develop specialized skills able to handle the problems in the future and the ability to apply theories into practice. Australian education has different cultures which is very favorable [sic] for my future undertakings.

   [1] Department file; folio 31.

5. The Tribunal also had before it a number of documents provided by the applicant.  Save as required for the purposes of this decision it is unnecessary to list these documents in detail.  Relevant documents will be referred to as required.

6. According to information provided to the Tribunal by the applicant on 5 April 2019,  since her arrival onshore she has successfully completed the following courses:

Course Name	Date Commenced	Date Completed
·   Certificate II in Spoken and Written English	08/2016	02/2017
·   Certificate III in Spoken and Written English	04/2017	09/2018[2]
·   Certificate III in Early Childhood Education and Care	10/2018	09/2019[3]

[2] Including repeated enrolments.

[3] Prospective completion date.

1. The applicant’s evidence is that she enrolled in, but did not complete, the following courses:

Course Name	Start Date	Notional Completion Date
Certificate IV in Business	10/2013	05/2014
Diploma of Business	07/2014	01/2015
Certificate IV in Frontline Management	05/2015	11/2015
Certificate IV in Project Management Practice	12/2015	07/2016

1. The applicant states that she is currently enrolled in a Diploma of Early Childhood Education and Care that is due to commence on 23 October 2019 and will complete on or about 11 December 2020. 

Analysis and findings

1. It is appropriate to highlight that a decision maker is not required to make the applicant’s case. It is for the applicant to satisfy the Tribunal that the requirements of the Act and Regulations have been met. Although the concept of onus of proof is not appropriate to administrative decision-making, the relevant facts of the individual case have to be supplied by the applicant, in as much detail as is necessary to enable the examiner to establish the relevant facts.

2. Save for brief periods, the applicant has been resident in Australia for nearly eight years, since October 2011.  In that time she has held two Working Holiday visas and two Student visas and is currently onshore on a bridging visa pending the outcome of her application for a further Student visa.  In her application to the Department the applicant states that her motive in continuing her studies in Australia is because Australian qualifications are globally recognised, they have good ratings for teaching quality and “school environment”.  Further, she states that studying in Australia is “more practical”, carries international prestige to prospective employers and, overall, is more affordable.  Of themselves, although they are somewhat generic, these reasons suggest a rational and reasonable motive for an international student to choose to study in Australia.  What is not readily apparent from the applicant’s materials, however, is what precisely her study goals are in undertaking her courses in Australia.  Of particular concern to the Tribunal is that, since she began full-time study in Australia in October 2013, she has completed only two courses: a Certificate II in Spoken and Written English in February 2017 and a Certificate III in Spoken and Written English in September 2018.  No evidence has been offered by the applicant to explain her why she failed to complete the other courses she had enrolled in or why she has failed to progress further academically in the six years she has been engaged in full-time study.  The Tribunal considers that if the applicant was committed to persevering with and completing qualifications in Australia, she has already had every opportunity to do so. Put simply, the Tribunal does not consider her academic progress, of having achieved only two completed courses in nearly six years, to be that of a genuine student.

3. Further, the Tribunal considers the applicant’s reliance on generic statements as to her future career plans in the child care sector to be unpersuasive.  Her rationale for embarking on studies in this area is, she states, because she is “really passionate about [it]” and that her studies are “mainly for personal interest and for future employment”.  She states that, in undertaking this study pathway, her “…goals are, to educate with global views, modern and advanced knowledge, to develop specialized [sic] skills able to handle the problems in the future and the ability to apply theories into practice”.  The Tribunal is mindful that it must allow for reasonable changes to career or study pathways; however it is not persuaded that such vague assertions are consistent with a positive study or career plan or that they represent a reliable expression of the applicant’s motives in making her application for a student visa.  

4. The applicant’s evidence to the Tribunal is that her only previous work experience in her home country, between 2009 and 2011, is “sales”.  There is nothing in the materials before the Tribunal to suggest any relevance or connection between this work experience and the applicant’s proposed course of study in early childhood education.

5. The Tribunal is similarly concerned in respect of the applicant’s evidence as to her future employment prospects in Hong Kong; in her evidence to the Tribunal she states:

   After completing the childcare course, I will then go back to Hong Kong to have my own childcare centre or work in [a] childcare centre.

   …

   The salary I will receive in Hong Kong after I obtain the certificate will be around [AUD$65,000 annually].

6. Without more, the Tribunal does not consider such vague and bare statements persuasive; accordingly, it is unable to assess the relevance of the applicant’s course of study to her proposed future employment, either in Hong Kong or a third country; or whether it will assist her to obtain employment or improve her employment prospects there.  The Tribunal places no weight upon these factors in the applicant’s favour.

7. Although the applicant claims that she will receive an annual salary of AUD$65,000 in Hong Kong, for the reasons stated above, the Tribunal is unable to reliably assess whether this amounts to a realistic incentive to the applicant to return to her home country.  Accordingly the Tribunal places no weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

8. The Tribunal accepts that, having lived in Australia for nearly eight years, the applicant has sufficient knowledge of living here; however there is no specific evidence before the Tribunal as to the applicant’s knowledge of her intended course of study beyond generic statements.  In all of the circumstances the Tribunal places no weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

9. There is no evidence or information before the Tribunal of any military service or civil or political incidents that would act as a clear incentive for the applicant to remain in Australia.  The Tribunal places some small weight on this factor in the applicant’s favour.

10. It appears from the information supplied by the applicant in her application to the department that her Parents and three siblings reside in Hong Kong, with one sister resident in Australia.  The Tribunal acknowledges that the applicant has departed Australia on three occasions to visit her family since she arrived onshore in 2011, for approximately one month on each occasion; it accepts that these personal ties provide some incentive for the applicant to return to Hong Kong.  Balanced against this is her decision to reside in Australia, apart from her family, for nearly eight years and to seek to extend her visit by a further 18 months.  Accordingly, the Tribunal places only slight weight on this factor in her favour.

11. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has not complied with previous visas or previously held visas that were refused, cancelled or considered for cancellation.  The applicant’s immigration history does not raise concerns for the Tribunal. 

12. In addition to the factors set out above, the Tribunal has also turned its mind, and had regard, to the following factors as a guide to assessing the GTE criterion in this case:

    a.     the applicant’s circumstances in their home country relative to the circumstances of others in that country;

    b.     the applicant’s ties with Australia which would present as a strong incentive to remain in Australia (including family and community ties).

13. There is no evidence or information available to the Tribunal in respect of these factors as they apply to guide a decision the applicant’s case. 

14. The Tribunal has had regard to all other relevant information provided by the applicant (or information otherwise available to the Tribunal) when assessing the applicant’s intention to temporarily stay in Australia, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant. 

15. In weighing the available information the Tribunal has taken care to draw no inferences adverse or unfavourable to the applicant from any absence(s) of evidence or information.  That said, in the absence of evidence or information pertaining to a relevant factor or factors it is impossible for the Tribunal to weigh those factors in the applicant’s favour.

16. The little weight the Tribunal places on the absence of political or military unrest in the applicant’s home country, and her personal ties there, together with her compliance with previous visas and positive immigration history, is insufficient to dispel the Tribunal’s concerns, for the reasons set out above, as to the vague and unpersuasive evidence the applicant has offered as reasons for her study in Australia and career pathway thereafter. 

17. Overall, the Tribunal is not satisfied that that the applicant is not simply now proposing further short, inexpensive courses in order to gain a student visa with the primary objective of maintaining ongoing residence in Australia.

18. 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).

19. 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.

20. 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

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

Damian Creedon
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

1. Decision makers should have regard to the applicant’s circumstances in their home country and the applicant’s potential circumstances in Australia.

2. For primary applicants of Subclass 500 Student visas, decision makers should have regard to the value of the course to the applicant’s future.

3. 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

1. 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.

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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

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

2. 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

1. 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

1. 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.