1. According to the Student Visa Information ('SVI') form completed by the applicant, she has been enrolled in the following:

1. However, the applicant's list is less than half the list in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System ('PRISMS') maintained by the Department of Education. According to the PRISMS record, the applicant has been enrolled in:

1. It is important to note that the reference to 'Finished' in the PRISMS records is not evidence that the applicant successfully completed the course; rather, it merely shows that each course's end date has passed.
2. The applicant's own evidence is that she actually completed four courses, as listed above in paragraph ‎11.

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. 108, 'Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications', made under s 499. 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; 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.

1. The applicant is a woman aged 31 from India. Her parents, a sister and a brother, reside in India.
2. I accept the applicant's evidence that her parents are currently looking for a suitable match for an arranged marriage with the applicant as they are eager for her to get married next year and it is her 'last deadline'; that she does not object to the arranged marriage because it is her culture and tradition and she trusts her parents will find the right man who will respect her; and that she can refuse her parents' choice and they would then choose another man.
3. The applicant has been employed at Nando's since January 2017 - firstly as a Team Member and then later, from 10 October 2024, as a Shift Supervisor. She currently earns on average, between AUD 500 to 600 per week.

1. The applicant has not visited any countries other than Australia.
2. The applicant first arrived in Australia on 26 December 2013 on a student visa that expired on 30 August 2016.
3. She returned to India on 15 May 2016 and then came back to Australia on 5 July 2016 and was granted a bridging visa on 31 August 2016. She was granted another student visa on 21 March 2019 that expired on 2 June 2021.
4. The applicant returned to India on 22 October 2019 and came back to Australia on 20 November 2019. She obtained a bridging visa on 2 June 2021.
5. On 15 December 2022 the applicant was granted another student visa that expired on 17 November 2023. The applicant obtained a bridging visa on 17 November 2023.
6. In summary, the applicant has been in Australia since December 2013, that is, 12 years. During that time, she has returned to India only twice and for relatively short durations - the first occasion for almost two months and the second occasion, for almost one month. To put it another way, in the past 12 years, the applicant has spent only three months total, in India.
7. The applicant has not returned to India since her last arrival in Australia in November 2019, that is, six years ago - even after travel restrictions were lifted.
8. During the hearing, I put my concern to the applicant that her immigration history might cause me to conclude that her ties or incentive to return to India are not strong.
9. I accept the applicant's explanation that she could not travel during Covid. However, even after taking into account the Covid-related travel restrictions, the applicant did not provide a reasonable explanation for not having returned to India more often during the previous 12 years or for not having returned to India at all after Covid-related travel restrictions were lifted. And, neither the applicant nor her representative made submissions as to what travel restrictions aside from the Covid-related travel restrictions, had been imposed on her.

1. As shown above at paragraph ‎12, the PRISMS record shows numerous re-enrolments. During the hearing, I put to the applicant that according to the PRISMS record, she had a total of 28 enrolments, including the two current enrolments and of those 28 enrolments:
   • 8 were business courses - including two which she completed
   • 3 were leadership and management courses - including one which she completed
   • 5 were commercial cookery courses - and that does not include the one occasion where the course provider was unable to deliver the course
   • 4 were hospitality management courses - and that does not include her current 'approved' enrolment or the earlier one occasion where the course provider was unable to deliver the course
   • 3 were kitchen management courses - and that does not include her current/existing enrolment.
2. I told the applicant that the information in the preceding paragraph might cause me concern that she was using the student visa program as a way of extending her stay in Australia indefinitely.
3. The applicant's response was that she did not have an explanation. She was mentally and emotionally disturbed during that time, and she is sorry.
4. I also told the applicant that her non-completion of a course since 2016, that is, nine years ago, might also cause me concern that she was using the student visa program as a way of extending her stay in Australia indefinitely.
5. The applicant's reply was that when she started her study in commercial cookery, she had medical problems, including Covid. There was also 'too much drama going on in the family' and she 'couldn't handle it'.
6. I also told the applicant that her previous three enrolments in Certificate IV in Kitchen Management in 2023, 2024 and 2025 without completion, might cause me concern that she was not genuinely interested in completing that course.
7. The applicant's reply was that she is more positive and confident in the Charlton Brown College. She feels this is the one that she will finish because she has completed more than half the course and her trainer is very helpful. Her trainer is like a father figure to her, and he keeps her on track to make sure she achieves her targets.
8. In addition to the applicant's response at the hearing, I note that her written submissions included that:

When I first moved to Australia for further studies, I enrolled in a Diploma in Business and Management. However, during the COVID-19 pandemic, I faced serious family problems as my brother became very ill. This situation affected me both mentally and emotionally. Due to the lockdown restrictions at that time, I was unable to return to my home country and was constantly worried about my family, as they had to take my brother to the hospital almost every day. This caused me great stress and made it difficult for me to concentrate on my studies.

In addition, I was personally affected by COVID-19, and although I recovered within a few weeks, I continued to experience health issues afterward, which further impacted my academic performance.

Fortunately, my family is now in good health, and my brother has fully recovered. I have returned to my studies with full focus and commitment. I have been attending college regularly, completing all my practical work and assignments on time. There is only one year left for me to complete my course in Australia, and after finishing my studies, I plan to return to my home country to build my professional career.

1. The applicant's written and oral explanations for her lack of progress in her studies, are not persuasive.
2. Neither the applicant's mental health issues nor her brother's illness, provide a reasonable explanation for her lack of academic progress over nine years. After the hearing, the applicant provided medical certificates from various general practitioners. Those medical certificates lacked details about the nature and/or severity of the applicant's health issues. According to a 'Patient Subpoena Export' from Horizon Family Doctors covering a date range from 28 February 1994 to 12 November 2025, the following medical certificates were issued for the applicant:
   • 'unfit for work' (emphasis added) from:
     •  25 March 2019 to 27 March 2019
     •  6 November 2020 to 8 November 2020
     •  3 March 2021 to 3 March 2021
     •  9 March 2021 to 9 March 2021
     •  13 April 2021 to 13 April 2021
     •  4 June 2021 to 5 June 2021
     •  1 November 2021 to 1 November 2021
     •  25 January 2022 to 25 January 2022
     •  31 January 2022 to 31 January 2022
     •  7 March 2022 to 8 March 2022 'due to pain in her arm'
     •  13 March 2022 to 14 March 2022 'due to complications from her recent surgery'
     •  28 March 2022 to 29 March 2022
     •  16 May 2022 to 17 May 2022
     •  29 August 2022 to 30 August 2022
     •  17 June 2023 to 18 June 2023
     •  14 May 2024 to 16 May 2024
     •  21 May 2024 to 22 May 2024 'due to a medical condition'
   • 'unfit for work/study' from 3 February 2021 to 3 February 2021
   • 'unwell and unfit for college' from 28 May 2024 to 29 May 2024.
3. I also note the applicant provided a medical certificate dated 12 November 2025, which stated that she had 'presented to this clinic with symptoms of Anxiety, Stress and Panic Attacks on 26 August 2024.'
4. While I accept that the above medical certificates show that the applicant had medical issues from time to time during the past six years, given their brevity and vagueness, I have not given them significant weight. Consequently, I am not satisfied that the applicant's mental health issues (or any physical health issues) were of such severity that they adversely impacted her ability to progress her studies over a nine-year period. Indeed, the applicant's own evidence was that she did not seek treatment from a psychologist or psychiatrist for her emotional or mental health issues.
5. I also note the letter dated 12 November 2025 from the applicant's employer at Nando's ('the Nando's letter'). According to the applicant's employer:

...Ms. Bharti is employed at Nando's Australia in the position of Shift Supervisor. She has been part of our team since 2017 and continues to perform her duties with dedication and professionalism.

Ms. Bharti has been experiencing ongoing health and medical challenges that limit her working ability. In consideration of her condition, we have approved a reduced work schedule for her.

As her manager, I confirm that Nando's is fully supportive of Ms. Bharti during this period. She continues to carry out her responsibilities responsibly and to the best of her ability. At no time has her employment been at risk or affected due to her medical situation. (emphasis added)

1. The Nando's letter does not advance the applicant's case. It does not contain details as to when the applicant's health issues first began to limit her working ability. It also does not specify how the applicant's work schedule had been reduced, such as the change in number of hours or shifts, or the change in duties/tasks. In any event, it is clear that the applicant's health issues have not prevented her from continuing to work, albeit at a reduced schedule. Indeed, despite any health issues, the applicant progressed from Team Member to Shift Supervisor, according to her SVI form, which stated:

1. Having considered the medical certificates and the Nando's letter, I do not find it reasonable in the circumstances, that the applicant's health issues were of such severity as to significantly impair her studies over nine years, yet not to fully prevent her working during the same period.

1. In her SVI form, the applicant stated that she could earn AUD 15,000 - 25,000 per annum in India, as a head chef, kitchen manager or hospitality supervisor in mid-sized to large, well-known companies and AUD 25,000 - 40,000 per annum in UAE, Singapore or Qatar for comparable roles in addition to free accommodation or other service charge benefits.
2. It is noteworthy that according to the SVI form, while in Australia, the applicant has while employed at Nando's, earned an annual salary of $20,800 as a Team Member from 2017 to 2024 and then $26,000 as a Shift Supervisor since 2024. Based on the applicant's own information, the remuneration she could potentially earn in India, does not provide a strong incentive to return there after completion of her studies when she has actually earned more in Australia, and that is without having completed her studies.
3. I have placed no weight on the potential remuneration in UAE, Singapore or Qatar because during the hearing, the applicant's evidence was that she had never been to those countries, she had no friends or family there, she does not know what the requirements are to work in those countries, and she does not know if she is eligible to work in those countries. The potential remuneration in UAE, Singapore or Qatar is therefore irrelevant in circumstances where there is no reason to believe that the applicant may work there.

1. I have considered all the above matters cumulatively.
2. I accept that the applicant does have ties to India and that her parents are presently searching for a match for an arranged marriage for her. Also, I accept that the applicant has made some progress in her current enrolment.
3. However, I have placed more weight on the applicant's immigration and visa history, the minimal course progression overall during her 12 years in Australia and the fact that she last successfully completed a course in November 2016, that is, nine years ago. This is because together, those matters provide the most persuasive evidence as to the applicant's intentions.
4. I am not satisfied, given the multiple enrolments and re-enrolments in the same courses during the past 12 years - including the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management, which she is now currently studying - that she will indeed complete the course. Both her SVI form and the PRISMS record show numerous courses that the applicant did not complete.
5. I find that the applicant's ties or incentive to return to India and the value of the course to her future, are outweighed by the benefits to the applicant in remaining in Australia. This is evident from the applicant's length of time in Australia with minimal course progression and little time back home in India.
6. 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).
7. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met and it is not necessary to consider the matters specified in clauses 500.212(b) and (c). The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa.
8. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

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

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Awais Tahir (MARN: 2117698)

DIRECTION NUMBER 108 - ASSESSING THE GENUINE TEMPORARY ENTRANT CRITERION FOR STUDENT VISA AND STUDENT GUARDIAN VISA APPLICATIONS

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).

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.

This Direction is Direction No. 108 - Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications.

Direction No. 69, given under section 499 of the Act, is revoked.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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 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; > > 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.

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.

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: > > 1. 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 > 2. 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. > 3. b. Previous travels to Australia or other countries, including: > 4. 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; > 5. whether the applicant previously held a visa that was cancelled or considered for cancellation, and the associated circumstances; > 6. 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 > 7. 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 Student visa is a minor, decision makers should have regard to the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant.

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.

[1] Unless otherwise stated, all references to sections are to the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)

[2] Unless otherwise stated, all references to clauses are to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth)

[3] See the transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth)