Wong (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the applicant against the decision of a delegate to refuse her application for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa. The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant was a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student, as required by clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant genuinely intended to stay in Australia temporarily, having regard to her circumstances, immigration history, and any other relevant matters, in accordance with Ministerial Direction 69. This Direction outlines various factors to be considered, including the applicant's circumstances in her home country and in Australia, the value of the proposed course to her future, and her immigration history.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant had family in her home country, these connections did not constitute a significant incentive for her to return. Conversely, her immigration history indicated a prolonged period of study in Australia, with various unrelated courses undertaken since 2010. The Tribunal noted that the applicant had returned to Australia after a two-year absence for medical treatment and recommenced studies, but her extensive study history and the lack of strong ties to her home country weighed against a finding that she genuinely intended to stay temporarily. The Tribunal also considered her current living arrangements in Australia with her brother, who is a permanent resident, and the jointly owned property, but concluded these did not provide an incentive to cease residence in Australia.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 500 (Student) visa, finding that the criteria for the visa were not met.