Marisa (Migration) [2025] ARTA 899 (6 February 2025)
Decision an
Reasons for Decision 

Applicant:	Ms Vica Marisa
Respondent:	Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs 
Tribunal Number:	2313725
Tribunal:	General Member S Manera
Place:	Sydney
Date:	6 February 2025
Decision:	The decision under review is affirmed.

Statement made on 06 February 2025 at 2:23pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa – Subclass 500 (Student) – genuine student – genuine temporary entrant – good academic progress – value of course to benefit future career – plans to start a business – family ties in home country – maintaining ongoing residence in Australia – decision under review affirmed	

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 499; Direction No 108
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 500.212

Statement of reasons
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
1.  	This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs on 25 August 2023 to refuse to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act). 
2.  	The applicant applied for the visa on 29 June 2023. 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.  	In support of her application for a student visa, the applicant provided the following documents to the Department of Home Affairs (Department):
•	written statement by the applicant called ‘statement of purpose’;
•	evidence of her household composition;
•	evidence of her identity and insurance;
•	evidence of land and vehicle ownership in Indonesia;
•	letter from BCA Bank confirming the applicant’s mother’s bank balance;
•	student visa financial support statement by the applicant’s mother, confirming her intention to support the applicant financially in Australia; 
•	evidence of completion of a bachelor degree in international relations in Indonesia;
•	refusal notification and decision record for a student visa dated 28 June 2022;
•	Visa Entitlement Verification Online check results for the applicant;
•	Confirmation of Enrolment (COE) for the following courses:
o	Certificate IV in Project Management Practice;
o	Diploma of Project Management;
o	Advanced Diploma of Program Management.
4.  	In the applicant’s statement of purpose, the applicant states that she is seeking to complete a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice followed by a Diploma of Project Management. She states that she requires further skills in project management to progress her career in hospitality project management work, or to find work in other areas. The statement also contained, amongst other things, information regarding future salaries she may earn working for a company as a project manager.
5.  	The delegate in this case refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy the requirements of cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because it was concerned the applicant was using the student visa programme to maintain ongoing residency in Australia. The delegate was not satisfied the applicant had demonstrated the benefit that undertaking the proposed courses in Australia would provide to their career prospects compared to courses in their home country, and was not satisfied the applicant had demonstrated the value of their proposed course to their future.
6.  	The applicant applied for review on 5 September 2023. The applicant provided a copy of the delegate’s decision to the Tribunal. 
7.  	On 23 November 2024 the applicant provided the following documents to the Tribunal:
•	written statement by the applicant explaining why she chose the education provider for her proposed courses of study, why she did not choose to undertake the study in her home country, her plans for the future after completing the proposed courses, and the remuneration she expects to receive in her home country after completing the courses;
•	statement of attainment and record of results for a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice;
•	class timetable for her Diploma of Project Management;
•	news article criticising the quality of vocational education in Indonesia;
•	screenshots of salary information from salary comparison websites, including Michael Page and salary expert.com indicating the average salary for project managers in Indonesia;
•	completed Student Visa Information Form;
•	qualification certificate for a Diploma of Leadership and Management issued on 5 January 2021.
8.  	In the applicant’s written statement provided to the Tribunal on 23 November 2024, the applicant stated that she decided to obtain qualifications in the field of project management as she believes they will provide her with skills that she could apply to the hospitality industry as well as across many other areas. She also stated that she chose her to study vocational courses as she believes they will provide her with more practical skills, rather than theoretical knowledge. She stated that after completing her courses of study she intends to try to find work in the field of project management, starting as a project associate/assistant project manager and working her way up.
9.  	The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 21 January 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review. The representative attended the Tribunal hearing.
10.  	On 21 January 2025 the applicant’s representative provided the Tribunal with the following additional documents:
•	post-hearing written submissions;
•	news articles regarding Indonesians holding multiple jobs in Indonesia;
•	media release by the Australian Bureau of Statistics regarding younger people holding multiple jobs in Australia;
•	course outline for a Master of Project Management at Western Sydney University;
•	course outlines for her courses of study at Australian Pacific College.
11.  	For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
12.  	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 meets the genuine temporary entrant criterion as per cl 500.212.
Genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student (cl 500.212)
13.  	 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?
14.  	In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl 500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No 108, ‘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.
15.  	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.
16.  	During the hearing the applicant confirmed that she has completed a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice, she is currently studying a Diploma of Project Management, and she intends to commence an Advanced Diploma of Program Management in April 2025. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant is seeking to undertake study that is consistent with her current level of education, considering she has a bachelor’s degree obtained in Indonesia and she has previously completed a Diploma of Leadership and Management in Australia.
17.  	Towards the start of the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicant why she had chosen to study these courses and what she intended to do once she finished her studies. She stated that she chose these courses because everything in business must be managed as a project. She said that by studying these courses she may be able to open and manage her own business or expand or franchise her parents’ restaurant. When asked about her plans after the completion of her advanced diploma course, the applicant stated that she intends to return to Indonesia to start a fashion business with her sister. She confirmed that she does not intend to open a restaurant. When asked to provide further details regarding her plans to open a business in Indonesia, the applicant stated that she and her sister intend to buy clothing from outside of Indonesia and sell the clothes online with the assistance of social media. When asked to provide further details regarding any research she had undertaken regarding starting a business in Indonesia, the applicant stated that she has undertaken research in Indonesia, that fashion is very popular, and the market in Indonesia is good, which is why she wants to study project management. 
18.  	The Tribunal finds the applicant’s oral evidence regarding her proposed future plans upon completing her study to be undetailed and unpersuasive. The applicant provided limited detail regarding her plans for opening a business upon return to Indonesia. While she stated that she had undertaken research into opening a business, she did not provide details of the specific research she had undertaken, nor did she provide any detail regarding whether she had considered the practical steps required to open a business in Indonesia and the cost involved, how she would finance her business, and what kind of income she expected to make from her business. While the applicant provided information in her written statements and in the documents provided about the salary one could expect as a project manager, this does not relate to her proposed future plan of opening her own business. The Tribunal considers it reasonable that if the applicant genuinely intended to return to Indonesia after the completion of her studies to open a fashion business, she would have been able to provide more detailed evidence to the Tribunal regarding her future plans. 
19.  	Furthermore, the Tribunal put to the applicant during the hearing that she had not previously raised her intention to start her own fashion business in Indonesia in any of her written statements previously provided to the Department or Tribunal. Her statements do not mention her intention to start her own fashion business and they do not specifically mention her intention to enter into the fashion industry. Rather, they state that by completing these courses she would be equipped with the skills to work as a project manager in the hospitality industry or in other industries. And yet, the applicant confirmed during the hearing that she is not interested in restaurants and does not intend to open a restaurant. When this inconsistency was put to the applicant, she responded that another reason for choosing to study these courses was to pursue a career as a project manager. She stated that she could hire employees to run her business whilst pursuing a separate career. She did not provide any further information as to how she would manage to run a business whilst also building a career in project management. When the Tribunal informed the applicant that she had not mentioned this earlier during the hearing when specifically asked about her plans after the completion of her courses, the applicant said that she also maintained a goal of becoming a project manager. However, she did not explain why she had not mentioned this when specifically asked earlier in the hearing. The Tribunal is concerned by the inconsistencies between the applicant’s oral and written evidence, and the fact that she changed her oral evidence and declared an intention to find work as a project manager only when put on notice of the inconsistency by the Tribunal. No reasonable explanation was provided. In his post hearing submission, the applicant’s representative submitted that it is common for members of the applicant’s generation to juggle multiple roles, for example running their own business and working as an employee. However, this does not address the fact that the applicant failed to mention any intention of running a fashion business in her written statements, nor does it explain why the applicant failed to mention her intention to work as a project manager when specifically asked towards the start of the hearing. While it may be common for young people in this day and age to juggle multiple roles or pursue a side business, the Tribunal’s concerns regarding the inconsistencies in the applicant’s evidence are not assuaged. The Tribunal finds the applicant’s evidence regarding her proposed future plans is unclear and unpersuasive. The Tribunal finds this adds to its concerns regarding the applicant’s claimed intentions regarding her proposed future plans in Indonesia and the relevance of the courses to her proposed future employment. 
20.  	The Tribunal notes that the applicant provided documentary evidence to the Department and Tribunal regarding the remuneration she could expect to receive in her home country as a project manager. However, she did not provide any evidence regarding her expected remuneration as a business owner. Considering the Tribunal’s above-mentioned concerns regarding the applicant’s future plans, the Tribunal does not place any weight on the applicant’s evidence in relation to expected remuneration as a project manager in Indonesia.
21.  	The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s evidence regarding the benefits of studying in Australia compared with Indonesia and, based on the information provided, the Tribunal accepts the applicant has chosen to study in Australia based on the quality of education provided. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant is successfully progressing through her proposed courses. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has completed a Certificate IV in Project Management Practice and is shortly due to complete a Diploma in Project Management. The Tribunal acknowledges that successful course progression may be indicative of a genuine student. However, there are additional factors that the Tribunal must consider in its assessment of whether the applicant is a genuine temporary entrant.   
22.  	The Tribunal accepts that completion of the proposed courses may assist the applicant in obtaining employment in the field of project management and may provide her with some skills relevant to day-to-day business management. However, the Tribunal has considered the value of the applicant’s courses to her future in the context of her circumstances and evidence. The Tribunal notes from the course outlines provided that the applicant’s courses of study aim to equip her with essential management skills including, but not limited to, risk management, people management, scope and cost management, and project compliance. The Tribunal accepts that many of the skills the applicant will develop in these courses are transferable across various occupations and industries. However, the Tribunal does not accept that the applicant has demonstrated that the courses are relevant to her proposed future employment in her home country. The applicant has provided undetailed and inconsistent evidence regarding her proposed future plans. The Tribunal is of the view that if the applicant was studying her chosen courses because of their value to her future, her evidence in relation to her future plans would be consistent and would include a greater level of detail. As such, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant is not studying in Australia for any of her claimed reasons, including the claimed value to her future. Considering the applicant’s unpersuasive explanation regarding the inconsistencies in her evidence, and her unpersuasive evidence of her future plans, the Tribunal is concerned that the applicant is using the student visa programme not to add value to her future but to maintain ongoing residency in Australia. 
23.  	As to the applicant’s circumstances in her home country, the Tribunal notes and accepts from the documentary evidence provided that the applicant has substantial family ties in Indonesia, namely her parents and 4 siblings. The Tribunal also accepts that the applicant has no family or community ties with Australia that would present as a strong incentive for her to remain in Australia.
24.  	The Tribunal also accepts from the documentary evidence provided that the applicant and her parents own assets in Indonesia. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the economic circumstances of the applicant would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to her home country. Furthermore, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that military service commitments or political and civil unrest would present as a significant incentive for the applicant not to return to her home country. 
25.  	The Tribunal has also considered the applicant’s immigration history. It notes that she previously resided in Australia on a student visa and that she departed Australia during the COVID 19 pandemic, before the expiry of her previous visa, and she requested voluntarily cancellation of her former student visa as she could not return to Australia to complete her course. The Tribunal also notes that the applicant has travelled to countries other than Australia and there is no evidence that she has not complied with the migration laws of those country. The Tribunal accepts the applicant’s immigration history weighs in favour of the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant. 
26.  	In making its decision the Tribunal has weighed up all of the evidence before it, including that she is enrolled in and progressing through her proposed courses of study, that she has economic and family ties to her home country, she has previously complied with Australian migration laws during the COVID 19 pandemic, and there is no evidence that she has failed to comply with the migration laws of other countries. However, considering the significant inconsistencies between the applicant’s oral and written evidence, and the limited evidence provided by the applicant regarding her plans for the future, the Tribunal does not accept the applicant genuinely intends to return to Indonesia after the completion of her studies to open a fashion business or pursue a career in project management. The applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that these courses of study will add value to her future. The Tribunal does not accept the applicant has enrolled in these courses with the aim of finding employment as a project manager or starting her own business. The Tribunal is of the view that the applicant is instead using the student visa programme as a means of maintaining residence in Australia.
27.  	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).
28.  	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.
29.  	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
30.  	The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.

Dates of hearing:	21 January 2025  
Representative for the Applicant:	Mr Andreas Martano (MARN: 0317320)

Attachment – Direction No 108
DIRECTION NUMBER 108 – ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS
(Section 499)
I, CLARE O’NEIL, Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security give this Direction under section 499 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
Dated:

Clare O’Neil
Minister for Home Affairs and Minister for Cyber Security
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 - Preliminary
Name of Direction
This Direction is Direction No. 108 – Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.
It may be cited as Direction No. 108.
Commencement
This Direction commences on 23 March 2024.
Revocation
Direction No. 69, given under section 499 of the Act, is revoked.
Interpretation
Act means the Migration Act 1958.
Finally determined has the same meaning as is set out in subsections 5(9) and (9A) of the Act.
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 against the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications (as applicable).
This Direction also applies to members of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; who review the decisions of primary decision-makers in relation to a Student visa or Student Guardian visa application.
This Direction applies in relation to Student visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made before 23 March 2024 but not finally determined on that date, including such visa applications that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
The genuine temporary entrant criterion must be satisfied by all applicants who make an application for a Student visa and seek to satisfy the primary or secondary criteria, or an application for a Student Guardian visa and seek to satisfy the primary criteria.
Note: Direction No. 106 applies in relation to Subclass 500 (Student) visa applications and Student Guardian visa applications made on or after 23 March 2024, including visa applications made on or after that date that are remitted from the Administrative Appeals Tribunal; or the Administrative Review Tribunal, upon its establishment; or a Court.
Preamble
The Australian Government operates a student visa program 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 program 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 – 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 or Student Guardian 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 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;
d)	whether 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.
iii.	b. Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including:
iv.	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;
v.	whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances;
vi.	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
vii.	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 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.