Wantanuntarat (Migration)

[2020] AATA 5684

Wantanuntarat (Migration) [2020] AATA 5684 (30 September 2020)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Miss Pimsiri Wantanuntarat

CASE NUMBER:  1816850

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/1440651

MEMBER:Michael Biviano

DATE:30 September 2020

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

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

Statement made on 30 September 2020 at 5:35pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION –Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – subclass 500 (Student) visa– in Australia for a long period time – genuine temporary entrant criterion not met– an economic incentive to remain in Australia – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 499
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 500.212

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 23 May 2018 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 28 March 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 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) for the reason that she was not a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because she did not intend to stay in Australia temporarily.

4. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 23 March 2020 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Thai and English languages.

5. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review by her registered migration agent.

6. 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.

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

   CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

8. 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)

9. 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?

10. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl.500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No.69, ‘Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications’, made under s.499 of the Act. This Direction, which is attached to this decision, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:

    ·the applicant’s circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant’s future;

    ·the applicant’s immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;

    ·if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and

    ·any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.

11. 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.

12. The applicant is a 42-year-old Thai national who obtained a Higher Education Sector (Subclass 573) visa on 6 February 2012. She first came to Australia on a student visa on 25 February 2012. Prior to coming to Australia on a student visa, she entered Australia on a tourist visa for 3 months and studied English and then returned home and made an application for a student visa offshore.

13. The Decision Record of the delegate of the Department of Home Affairs dated 23 May 2018, which was provided to the Tribunal by the applicant, confirms the applicant made the current application for a Student Class TU Subclass 500 visa on 28 March 2018 (Decision Record). The Decision Record sets out the grounds for the refusal and confirms that the applicant has resided in Australia on two student visas and she is now on a bridging visa.

14. The Decision Record confirms that at the time of applying for the initial student visa, she proposed studying a General English, English for Academic Purposes and a Master of Management. The Master of Management course was to conclude on 25 August 2013.

15. On 26 November 2019 the applicant filed with the Tribunal a response within time pursuant to an invitation to supply student information about the courses she was studying and had studied in Australia, together with information about her entry and stay in Australia in accordance with s.359(2) of the Act (the Response). The Response included the following supporting documents:

    a.Certificate of Registration of Spi Green Co Ltd in Thailand and Baan Mai Coffee Ordinary Partnership;

    b.Certificate of Birth for her daughter Miss Peerada Ponkasamso;

    c.Certificate of Family Name Registration changing her surname from Wanta to Wantanuntarat dated June 2011;

    d.Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) numbered 98A86E81 to study the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at Crown Institute of Business and Technology commencing on 30 September 2019 with an expected completion date of 6 September 2020;

    e.Title Details for 3 properties;

    f.Letter from Spi Green confirming an offer of employment dated 16 March 2017; and

    g.Registration details for a car in Thailand.

16. On 19 March 2020, prior to the hearing, the applicant filed further documentation with the Tribunal:

    a.Statement of Genuine Temporary Entrant Criterion dated 16 March 2020 (Statement);

    b.Death Certificate of Chamrat Wanta;

    c.Academic Transcript from Crown Institute dated 9 March 2020 in the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management with a proposed completion date of 27 December 2020;

    d.Academic Transcript from Crown Institute dated 29 September 2020 in the Diploma of Leadership and Management with the Diploma;

    e.Certificate of Registration of Divorce, Marriage Certificate, and Certificate of Change of Name, Marriage; and

    f.Certificates confirming the applicant is the owner of parcels of land with a building dated 23 January 2020.

17. Prior to coming to Australia, the applicant obtained a Bachelor of Business Administration from Maejo University. She completed that course in 2000.

18. The applicant gave evidence that after completing her qualification she worked in small family business Spi Green which was involved in the sale of vitamins and supplements and coffee, which involved her husband’s family and she provided accounting and marketing services. In 2010 she separated from her husband and sold out of Spi Green in which she was a shareholder.

19. In 2010 and 2011 she was also a partner in a company that operated a café, Baan Mai Coffee. In 2012–2013 she sold out of Baan Mai Coffee to her then partner.

20. She intended to come to Australia to study a Master of Business Management at Central Queensland University on her initial student visa. The applicant undertook various English courses, but did not meet the English language requirement to undertake the Master’s degree.

21. The applicant in evidence and in the Response confirmed that:

    a.Between February 2012 and July 2013, she completed 4 English courses;

    b.In July 2013, she enrolled in a Bachelor of Business (Management and Finance), at King’s Own College and she studied 6 subjects over 2 semesters and failed 2 subjects and confirmed that she struggled primarily because of her language skills not being strong;

    c.Between May 2014 and November 2014, she was enrolled in and completed a Certificate II in Financial Services at Bridge Business College;

    d.Between November 2014 and June 2015, she was enrolled in and completed a Certificate III in Accounts Administration at Bridge Business College;

    e.Between June 2015 and May 2016, she was enrolled in and completed a Certificate IV in Accounting at Bridge Business College;

    f.Between May 2016 and April 2017, she was enrolled in and completed a Diploma of Accounting at Bridge Business College;

    g.Between April 2017 and February 2018, she was enrolled in and completed an Advanced Diploma of Accounting at Crown Institute;

    h.Between April 2018 and May 2018 she undertook IELTS Preparation at Global Education & Tourism Group Pty Ltd;

    i.Between July 2018 and September 2019, she was enrolled in and completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management at Crown Institute; and

    j.Since September 2019, she has been studying an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management at Crown Institute.

22. The applicant gave evidence that she intends to complete the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management so that she would be suitably qualified to return to Thailand and work in middle to senior management in medium to large business. She gave evidence that she can return to Spi Green and she tendered a letter from 2017, confirming an offer of employment, but considering the time that has passed since the letter there is no certainty that they would take her back. She gave evidence that she has been in constant contact with Spi Green while in Australia, and she was confident that they would employ her although she was interested in working in a minimum-sized business, where there were better conditions and a greater prospect of the payment of lump sum bonuses.

23. The applicant was questioned whether, if she was to return to Spi Green, having completed the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, or returning without completing the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management, that would impact her remuneration. She gave evidence that it would enable her to obtain a better job and higher remuneration.

24. However, in light of the applicant’s extensive qualifications and previous qualifications including a Bachelor of Business Administration in Thailand and a Diploma of Leadership and Management in Australia, and that she is now studying the Advanced Diploma, that course will only have limited impact on her gaining employment in Thailand. The Tribunal, having regard to the applicant’s current qualifications, accepts that this course will marginally improve her employment prospects and level of remuneration in Thailand, having regard to previous qualifications in Australia and Thailand.

25. The applicant has been in Australia and undertaken studies for the last 8 years and 7 months which is a long period of time and inconsistent with the stay being temporary. Before that the applicant had come to Australia on a tourist visa in September 2011 and had stayed in Australia for 3 months and completed some English studies, which is obviously inconsistent with the purpose of the tourist visa.

26. The applicant gave evidence that she could study management courses in Thailand, but not the qualification of the Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management. She claimed that the Australian qualification and course was better than those in Thailand, being a more in-depth course with better knowledge which traverses both leadership and management. She claims that the course is innovative and analyses organisation structures. The applicant claimed that studying in Australia provided her with more diverse views and enabled her to meet more international students. Considering the similar courses available back home, and the limited benefits claimed by the applicant, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it provides a reasonable motive to undertake those studies in Australia rather than in her own home country, especially having regard to the qualifications that the applicant has completed including a Bachelor of Business Administration in Thailand and a Diploma of Leadership and Management in Australia.

27. The applicant has changed her career path initially from business administration to financial services, accounts administration, accounting, to leadership and management. The courses that the applicant has undertaken are not connected and not complementary to one another. They do not lead to a career path or position in employment.

28. The Tribunal recognises that it is important to allow for reasonable changes to career and study pathways. However, this is not the case when an applicant has merely decided to change careers through undertaking short vocational education training (VET) courses. The courses which the applicant has commenced and studied whilst in Australia have all been short VET courses including the Advanced Diploma. She claims that she wishes to complete the Advanced Diploma and return home. The course that she is studying does not reveal progression in her course of study and is inconsistent with her level of education, which includes a bachelor’s degree back in Thailand, an advanced diploma and 2 diplomas in Australia.

29. The applicant has lived in Australia for more than 8 years and 7 months. She has a substantial degree of knowledge of living in Australia. The applicant has studied at Crown Institute for nearly 3 years, and the Tribunal accepts that she has a substantial degree of knowledge about the courses she is studying and intends on studying, and also about the course provider.

30. The applicant has since August 2012 worked as a cleaner in Australia part time and earns an average income of $28,000 per annum. The level of income she has received in that position has been substantial and it would not provide her with an incentive to return home to Thailand.

31. The applicant gave evidence that if she returned to Thailand, she would expect to work in middle management and her anticipated income if she worked at Spi Green would be A$2,000 to A$2,500 per calendar month, whereas if she gained employment in a medium-sized business she could expect to earn A$2,500 to A$3,000 per month. The applicant’s level of income as a cleaner working part time was A$2,333 per month. If the applicant worked in Australia on a full-time basis, her level of income in Australia would be substantially more than what she earnt in Thailand. Further the applicant conceded that the level of income in Australia, was substantially higher than the level of income she would receive in Thailand which would not present the applicant with a significant incentive to return to Thailand and provide her with an incentive to remain in Australia.

32. The applicant further conceded that the economic conditions in Thailand are not as favourable as those in Australia, which would also provide a significant incentive for her not to return home to Thailand and provide her with an incentive to remain in Australia.

33. The applicant has returned home to Thailand on 4 occasions during her stay in Australia since she obtained a student visa for a total of 18 weeks, over the 8 years and 7 months she has stayed in Australia. Considering the relatively short period of time she has spent in Thailand during that time and the small number of visits back home during that time the Tribunal finds that the applicant’s conduct is consistent with her wanting to stay in Australia permanently and not return home.

34. The applicant does have substantial assets in Thailand including 3 properties which are worth a total of A$100,000 and a car, which would ordinarily provide her with a significant incentive for her to return home.

35. In light of the applicant having lived in Australia for the past 8 years and 7 months, coupled with her living arrangements, stable employment earning a substantial income in Australia, her circumstances in Australia and that she has the potential to earn a higher level of income in Australia than back home, they present the applicant with a significant incentive to stay in Australia.

36. The applicant in the Response and in evidence confirmed that she did not have any concerns about returning to Thailand and she had no concerns about military service commitments or political and civil unrest in her own country. The Tribunal finds that they do not present as a significant incentive for her not to return home.

37. The Tribunal finds that based on the applicant’s evidence and circumstances in her home country (including her assets of her family, including substantial property holdings, together with her education and the support that she has and would receive from her family back home) relative to others in that country, she is in a good position and that would not provide a substantial incentive for her not to return home.

38. The applicant has personal ties both in Australia and in Thailand.

39. The applicant gave evidence that her mother resides in Thailand with her sister. The applicant has a daughter who is 12 years old who is also living in Thailand with her mother and those ties would ordinarily provide her with a significant incentive to return home, however she has not seen them in person since April 2019, which is a substantial period of time. She claims that she is close with her family and contacts them every day by App Line Group Chat. Notwithstanding these ties they must be balanced with the applicant’s conduct and that she has stayed in Australia for the last 8 years and 7 months. Further when coupled with her circumstances in Australia, the Tribunal finds that such ties do not provide a significant incentive for her to return home to Thailand.

40. The applicant has substantial ties to Australia. She gave evidence that she has friends here in Australia who she sees on average once per week. She has stable employment earning a substantial level of income and has lived in Australia for a long period of time. The Tribunal finds that those ties demonstrate that she has a significant incentive to remain in Australia rather than to return home.

41. The applicant in her Response confirmed that she had not been refused a visa or had a visa cancelled or considered for cancellation in Australia or elsewhere. The applicant travelled to Macao and Hong Kong in 2009 and had no issues with her visa. However the Statement tendered to the Tribunal by the applicant confirmed that she had made an application for a student visa in April 2011, which was refused. The Tribunal notes that the refusal did not prevent the grant of 2 student visas and accepts that the grounds for the refusal, would not be a basis to refuse this visa. However the applicant’s misleading answer in the Response about this issue was troubling.

1. The applicant gave evidence that she is not in breach of any of her visa conditions.

2. Based on the above matters, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant has made this application to gain a student visa to study temporarily and it considers that the primary objective of the application is to maintain an ongoing residence in Australia and to remain in Australia permanently.

3. The applicant has been in Australia for a long period time and on the basis of the above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant intends to remain in Australia temporarily.

4. 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) of the Regulations.

5. 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

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

   Michael Biviano
   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.