1. In considering whether the applicant satisfies cl 500.212(a), the Tribunal must have regard to Direction No 69, 'Assessing the genuine temporary entrant criterion for Student visa and Student Guardian visa applications', made under s 499 of the Act. This Direction, which was in effect when the Applicant applied for a student visa, requires the Tribunal to have regard to a number of specified factors in relation to:
   • the applicant's circumstances in their home country, potential circumstances in Australia, and the value of the course to the applicant's future;
   • the applicant's immigration history, including previous applications for an Australian visa or for visas to other countries, and previous travel to Australia or other countries;
   • if the applicant is a minor, the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; and
   • any other relevant information provided by the applicant, or information otherwise available to the decision maker, including information that may be either beneficial or unfavourable to the applicant.
2. The Direction indicates that the factors specified should not be used as a checklist but rather, are intended only to guide decision makers when considering the applicant's circumstances as a whole, in reaching a finding about whether the applicant satisfies the genuine temporary entrant criterion.

1. I will set out my discussion of the evidence and my findings in this matter through a chronology of key events.
2. 19 November 2018 - the Applicant arrived in Australia on a student visa which was to expire on 25 March 2021.[2]
3. 9 August 2019 - the Applicant was granted a bridging visa to stay in Australia. There was no explanation in the Delegate's decision why it was necessary to grant the Applicant a bridging visa on this date when his student visa granted in November 2018 was otherwise still current until March 2021. It may be because the Applicant's student visa was cancelled because, as the chronology below shows, the Applicant had not enrolled in a course after his arrival in Australia in November 2018, until 19 August 2019.
4. 15 July 2019 - the Applicant enrolled in a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology with the enrolment to finish on 27 June 2021.[3] However, the records from the PRISMS database show that the enrolment in that course was cancelled.
5. 19 August 2019 - the Applicant enrolled in a Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology with the enrolment to finish on 1 August 2021.
6. 6 September 2019 - the Applicant was granted a further student visa, to expire on 1 October 2021. Again, there is no explanation for that in the Delegate's decision, but it appears that by this time, the Applicant had enrolled in a course in Australia (the Certificate III described in the previous item in this chronology) then made an application for a further student visa based on that enrolment.
7. 23 November 2019 - the Applicant returned to his home country, the Philippines on this date for three weeks and returned to Australia on 12 December 2019.
8. 29 September 2021 - the Applicant was granted a further bridging visa on this date to cease effect on 2 February 2022. There is no explanation for that in the Delegate's decision, but it appears that by this time, the Applicant's enrolment in the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology had finished and at that time the Applicant was not enrolled in a further course in Australia. As shown by the chronology entries below, it appears that the Applicant remedied that by enrolling in a further course, a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery.
9. 5 October 2021 - the Applicant enrolled in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, with the enrolment to finish on 2 April 2023.
10. 2 February 2022 - the Applicant was granted a further student visa which visa was to expire on 10 November 2023. It appears that this student visa was granted to enable the Applicant to study the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery.
11. 30 June 2022 - the Applicant departed Australia on this date to spend six weeks in the Philippines, returning to Australia on 2 August 2022.
12. 10 April 2023 - the Applicant is recorded in the PRISMS database to have enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management course with the enrolment to finish on 10 September 2023, but the enrolment is stated to have been cancelled. The reason given is 'Deferment/Suspension - Compassionate or compelling circumstances'.
13. 15 May 2023 - the Applicant is recorded to have enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management course on this date, to finish on 15 October 2023, but the enrolment is recorded in PRISMS to have been cancelled for the reason ' Non-commencement of studies'.
14. 10 November 2023 - the Applicant made a further application for the student visa which is the subject of this decision. He needed to do that because the previous student visa granted on 2 February 2022 expired on this date. He was granted a bridging visa on 14 November 2023 set to expire on 27 August 2025 to allow that further application to be decided.
15. 29 January 2024 - the Applicant made a further enrolment in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management for which the enrolment finished on 27 July 2025.
16. 18 May 2024 - the date of the Delegate's decision refusing the Applicant's application for a student visa.
17. 1 September 2025 - the Applicant is recorded to have enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management course, with the enrolment to finish on 1 March 2026, but the enrolment is recorded in PRISMS to have been cancelled, with the reason recorded being 'Deferment/Suspension - Compassionate or compelling circumstances'. Despite that reason, six weeks afterwards, as described in the next entry in this chronology below, the Applicant enrolled in another Diploma of Hospitality Management course which he says he is now studying.
18. 13 October 2025 - the Applicant is enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management with the enrolment due to finish on 12 April 2026.
19. It follows from this chronology that by the time the Delegate had made the decision to refuse the grant of a student visa, the Applicant had not finished his enrolment in the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management, nor had he enrolled in the Diploma of Hospitality Management course.

1. The Delegate made a decision refusing the Applicant's application for a student visa, on 18 May 2024. The Delegate took the following factors into account in arriving at that decision:

(a) the Applicant had not demonstrated economic ties to his home country. The Delegate acknowledged that the Applicant has personal ties to his home country in the form of his immediate family. However, the Delegate found these ties do not, of themselves, constitute a strong incentive to return home at the completion of the proposed study;

(b) the highest level of the Applicant's education had been to undertake an enrolment in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery. The Delegate noted that he had been enrolled in an unrelated course, which appears to be a reference to the Certificate III in Light Vehicle Mechanical Technology. Without a credible explanation for the change in educational/career aspirations, the Delegate placed limited weight on the benefits to be derived from the then proposed course in the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management;

(c) referring to the Applicant's general statements on his intention to study in Australia, the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant had shown a realistic level of knowledge regarding his personal circumstances in Australia and that raised concerns regarding the Applicants motivation to study in Australia;

(d) the Applicant did not satisfy the Delegate that his study plan in Australia would assist him in obtaining employment or improving his employment prospects in the Philippines in the future.

1. Weighing all of these factors as a whole, the Delegate was not satisfied that the Applicant intended genuinely to stay temporarily in Australia and therefore refused to grant the Applicant a student visa. The Applicant applied to the then Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the AAT) to review that decision on 1 June 2024.
2. Although the Applicant made his application to the then AAT, under the provisions of the Migration Act and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal Act 1975 (Cth), the application may continue to be heard by the Administrative Review Tribunal under transitional provisions in the Administrative Review Tribunal (Consequential and Transitional Provisions No. 1) Act 2024 (Cth).

1. On 21 August 2025, the Applicant provided to the Tribunal a completed Request for Student Visa Information form ('the Response document'). In that document, amongst other things, the Applicant candidly stated that he did not complete the courses he had undertaken in Australia prior to the course he was then undertaking, of a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management. Those courses in which he was enrolled are listed in the chronology above.
2. In the Response document, the Applicant does not offer a reason for not completing the four courses in which he was enrolled, but did not complete. The closest he comes to an explanation in the Response document, in answer to a question why he chose the education provider for the courses he is currently studying or proposed study in the future is that he is currently studying at the Canterbury Technical Institute (CTI). However, the education provider for the hospitality industry courses which he did not complete was the Brisbane Professional College. He said that:

Contrary to Brisbane Professional College (BPC), which only recently began offering culinary and hospitality programmes, CTI has been purposefully teaching those courses for some time, and its graduates have a strong track record of succeeding in the workforce after completing their programme.

1. Elsewhere in the Response document, the Applicant described his work history in Australia to have been working since he arrived in Australia, mostly in the hospitality industry, first as a cleaner/dishwasher, then as a catering assistant, and since August 2023, as a cook/chef. He said he had a wife and two daughters living in the Philippines as well as his parents and siblings.
2. In the Response document, he described his future employment plans as being that he wanted to 'mimic the food business practises in my hometown'. His objective was to work as a chef, acquire more knowledge and abilities via job experience and eventually open his own restaurant, serving a variety of foreign cuisines.

Invitation to hearing and request for a decision without a hearing

1. On 21 November 2025, the Tribunal sent the Applicant's representative an invitation to attend a hearing at the Tribunal on 10 December 2025. The Tribunal received a Response to hearing notice from the Applicant to that invitation on 28 November 2025 stating that he would be participating in the hearing but his representative would not. In response to a question on the Response to hearing notice about whether he intended to rely on any documents at the hearing, he ticked a box saying 'no'.
2. Despite that indication, on 4 December 2025, prior to the date for hearing, either the Applicant or his representative provided a bundle of 14 documents to the Tribunal comprising the following:

(a) a document headed 'Statements from Joseph Echin', undated but apparently from the Applicant, described in further detail below;

(b) a Confirmation of Enrolment document for the Applicant stating that he was enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management at CTI with the course stating on 13 October 2025 and to end on 12 April 2026;

(c) a 'Witness statement to the Tribunal' by a person named Emeterio Salaila, who describes himself as an Australian citizen in support of the Applicant's application, again described in further detail below;[4]

(d) several statements of earnings from past and present employers indicating the Applicant's work in the hospitality industry;

(e) several photographs of the Applicant located in a kitchen setting.[5] The photographs are unlabelled and undated, and do not indicate whether the kitchen setting is in the facilities of an education provider, or in a workplace setting. In one photograph, the Applicant is shown wearing an identity card but it is impossible to make out from that whether it is an identity card issued by an employer or by an education provider. However, in another photograph, the Applicant is shown wearing what appears to be an identity card with the words 'Air New Zealand' written on it;

(f) a letter addressed 'To whom it may concern' from CTI dated 1 December 2025 confirming that the Applicant is enrolled with CTI in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management which commenced on 29 January 2024 and finished on 27 July 2025 and a Diploma of Hospitality Management which commenced on 13 October 2025 and is due to finish on 12 April 2026. The letter confirms that the Applicant had completed 93% of the course requirements of the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management;

(g) a 'Statement of Attainment' issued by BPI and dated 7 April 2023 stating that the Applicant had attained competencies in a total of 29 units in a Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery.

1. In more detail, the document headed 'Statements from Joseph Echin' says that he had completed the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management and was waiting for the certificate. He also stated that he was currently enrolled in a Diploma of Hospitality Management and commenced that course in October 2025. He said he worked at an Air New Zealand airport lounge as a cook, which is corroborated by the photograph I have described above of him wearing an identity card with the words 'Air New Zealand' written on it.
2. The Applicant said he would be returning to the Philippines once the diploma is completed and he had already been 'researching for potential employers with my new skill'.
3. The 'Witness statement' by Mr Salalila is in the nature of a personal reference for the Applicant, but also does comment on the Applicant's studies here. He said he had known the Applicant for over seven years and 'have witnessed his struggles during all his studies in Australia' without saying what those struggles were. However, he said:

Joseph had always being hard working and dedicated to his studies. He really aims to achieve a skill in order to be able to provide for his former wife and two children once he returns back to the Philippines.

1. He continued that the Applicant had to work to finance his studies as well as provide for his children, one of whom is a 'special child' while maintaining and strictly following the working hours limitations of a student visa holder he said that the:

pressure and pain had resulted in a strain to his relationship, resulting in a marital separation.

1. There is perhaps something of an explanation about the Applicant not completing some of the courses in hospitality he had commenced, in the following from Mr Salalila:

I feel that the education providers had failed to help him to reach his goal successfully, hence a change of course pathway. Joseph even had to accept a loss of over 15 studied units in order to continue his studies, an abuse of international students in my opinion, just to complete his cookery course. Misleading and expensive agents, he had to endure, just to reach his goal.

1. Not included in the 14 documents which the Applicant had sent to the Tribunal, were the results in the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management for which the Applicant's enrolment had finished on 27 June 2025, nor for the Diploma of Hospitality Management which the Applicant was enrolled to commence on 13 October 2025.
2. After the 14 documents were provided to the Tribunal, both the Applicant and his representative provided email correspondence to the Tribunal, indicating a dispute had broken out between them about the approach to the Tribunal hearing.
3. On 9 December 2025, the Applicant's representative sent an email to the Tribunal stating that the Applicant did not want to attend the hearing but wants the application decided on the documents he has to rely upon. The representative also said:

It has been well explained to him that the supporting documents are not enough and his attendance is a must.

The applicant has been getting advice from unregistered agents/lawyers and he has been sending me threatening emails.

1. That email was copied to the Applicant and the representative requested the Applicant to reply to all parties to the email.
2. Later the same day, the Applicant sent an email to the Tribunal and to his representative stating:

As I have been advised by my agent Sushesh to attend the hearing by myself without him or an interpreter, I have decided not to attend the hearing, and allow the Tribunal to decide without my presence.

1. Shortly after that, and again on the same day, the Applicant's representative sent an email to the Tribunal and to the Applicant in particular saying:

Please check the attached file with your signature where you confirmed that you will attend the hearing without me but with the help of an interpreter.

As advised earlier, I am more than happy to attend the hearing but if you are just blaming me for no reason, I don't have to say much.

1. The file the representative referred to was the Response to hearing notice signed by the Applicant on 28 November 2025 (referred to in paragraph [37] above) where the Applicant said he would take part in the hearing but his representative would not be participating.
2. The Applicant responded to that email again later the same day, sent to the Tribunal and the representative stating:

I have informed Sushesh that I will not be attending the hearing on numerous occasions, over a week ago, allowing the Tribunal to make a decision based on the 14 documents I have submitted without a hearing.

Sushesh has now come up with a document that he made me sign blank, contradicting my wishes.

1. If the Applicant was contending that somehow, the representative compelled the Applicant to sign a blank piece of paper that was used subsequently for the signed Response to hearing notice, then I am against that contention. The signed Response to hearing notice is a printed form that has, in Part 5, a completed section containing the Applicant's name and the date in handwriting and a signature.
2. The final email in this round of correspondence was an email from the representative to the Tribunal and the Applicant again on 9 December 2025 relevantly suggesting that the Applicant attend the Tribunal hearing so that he can speak personally rather than someone sending emails on his behalf.

1. The Applicant did not join in the Teams hearing through which the hearing was conducted on 10 December 2025 and for which the Applicant had been sent a link to join the hearing. His representative did attend and said that he had tried telephoning the Applicant several times the day before.
2. A Hearing Officer of the Tribunal called the telephone number for the Applicant during the hearing but received only an answering service. I left a message to say that I am a Member of the Tribunal and I was calling to find out if he intended to participate in the hearing and I would call back in another five minutes.
3. The Hearing Officer called the Applicant's number again after five minutes and again there was no answer to that call. I left a second message saying that I was calling again further to my previous call. I also left a message saying that I would issue directions to the Applicant to provide:

(a) a copy of his Certificate IV in Kitchen Management which he was due to finish in July 2025; and

(b) a document on the letterhead of his education provider, describing the progress he had made in his current (diploma) course.

1. After that second call, the representative said that he had asked the Applicant for a copy of the Certificate IV but the Applicant said he had not finished the course.
2. Following the hearing, I issued written directions to the Applicant under s 79(1) of the Administrative Review Tribunal Act 2024 (Cth) (the ART Act) to provide documents as described in paragraph [56] above, by 19 December 2025.
3. On 16 December 2025, the Applicant responded to the directions by providing the following documents to the Tribunal:

(a) a letter, on CTI letterhead, dated 11 December 2025, stating that the Applicant was enrolled in the Certificate IV which finished on 27 July 2025, and the diploma as discussed above due to finish on 12 April 2026. The letter stated that the Applicant had completed 93% of the course requirements of the Certificate IV, and to confirm that he has currently satisfactory course progress and attendance in the Diploma course;

(b) a series of documents, also dated 11 December 2025, again on CTI letterhead describing the subjects the Applicant had attained in the Certificate IV course. Those documents state that the Applicant had been either assessed as competent, or had been granted credit transfers for a total of 31 units, with credit given by way of transfer in seven of those units.

1. On 18 December 2025, the Applicant provided a further statement to the Tribunal saying that he had completed and attended all the theoretical part of the Certificate IV course and was therefore able to commence the Diploma. The last course assessment was to submit a logbook. I am aware from other cases concerning hospitality courses, that a student is required to complete, and have assessed, a logbook describing work experience that the student has undertaken, in a commercial kitchen.
2. In that statement, the Applicant explained that there was a delay in him submitting the logbook because he had not seen his children for over three years and that was coupled with financial strain and feeling depressed. Further, he had to make an 'emergency travel' back to the Philippines as his parents were both hospitalised in September 2025, causing further delays in submitting the assessment.
3. I observe that the Applicant's explanation of travelling to the Philippines aligns with the movement records obtained by the Tribunal for the Applicant which records him travelling to the Philippines for almost four weeks in September 2025. Further, the Applicant supported his need to travel to the Philippines with medical certificates referring to each of his parents being admitted to the hospital which provided the medical certificates, in the case of the Applicant's father, stating that he had suffered a severe stroke, and was admitted to hospital on 29 August 2025.
4. The Applicant's statement also explained that the assessing chef had not been able to sign the logbook on time for her 'personal reasons'. He also said that the upcoming Christmas holiday period may also further delay the Certificate IV and his teacher Vipin Dobhal had gone on holidays for a month until 19 January 2026. The Applicant attached a screenshot of a text from Vipin Dobhal. That text explained that it would take some time to process the Applicant's logbooks and would not happen until New Year 2026. The text concluded that if the Applicant wanted to submit his logbook he was asked to do that by the same day as the text (which is undated) and that the teacher was going away for four weeks and coming back on 19 January (2026).

Whether the Tribunal should make a decision without a hearing

1. Section 106 of the ART Act describes the circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach a decision without a hearing where the matter is a review of a decision (in this case, a decision made by the Delegate).
2. Relevantly, s 106(1) provides that the Tribunal may make its decision in the proceeding after considering the documents and things given to the Tribunal and without holding a hearing in the proceeding if s 106(3) applies. The criteria for the Tribunal making a decision without a hearing contained in s 106(3) apply if the only parties to the proceeding are the Applicant and a 'non-participating party' to the proceeding. That factor applies in this case, since the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs is a 'non-participating party'.[6]
3. Since that is the case, the criteria under which the Tribunal may make a decision without holding a hearing are:
   • the Applicant has requested the Tribunal to make its decision without holding the hearing of the proceeding (s 106(3)(b)(ii)); and
   • it appears to the Tribunal that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding (s 106(3)(c)).
4. The expression 'adequately determined' is not defined in the ART Act. The Macquarie Dictionary defines 'adequate' as 'equal to the requirement or occasion; fully sufficient, suitable or fit' and in a legal context as 'reasonably sufficient for starting legal action' in the sense of 'adequate grounds'.[7] I do not consider that 'adequately determined' requires a decision favourable to the Applicant, as it if did, sub-paragraph 106(3)(b)(i), which contemplates a decision being made wholly in favour of the Applicant, would be superfluous.
5. The Tribunal decided that way in 2010120 (Refugee),[8] by a Tribunal panel consisting of the President, Kyrou J, and Deputy Presidents Burford and Dordevic. My decision is in accordance with the principles described in that case for when the Tribunal may make a decision 'on the papers' under s 106 of the ART Act.
6. The starting point for ascertaining the meaning of a statutory provision is the text of the statute whilst, at the same time, having regard to its context and purpose.[9] Section 106 of the ART Act relates to circumstances in which the Tribunal may reach its decision on review without a hearing. It is found in Part 4, Division 8, Subdivision C of the ART Act which sets out the process for the Tribunal making decisions on review of 'reviewable decisions'.[10]
7. The objective of the ART is set out in s 9 of the ART Act and says:

The Tribunal must pursue the objective of providing an independent mechanism of review that:

a) is fair and just; and

b) ensures that applications to the Tribunal are resolved as quickly, and with as little formality and expense, as a proper consideration of the matters before the Tribunal permits; and

c) is accessible and responsive to the diverse needs of parties to proceedings; and

d) improves the transparency and quality of government decision-making; and

e) promotes public trust and confidence in the Tribunal.

1. In my view, that objective informs the meaning of whether the Applicant's application can be 'adequately determined' without a hearing.
2. In the context of s 106 and the ART Act more broadly, in my view, 'adequately determined' means that the Tribunal may make its decision without holding a hearing in the proceeding, and in that way resolving the proceeding quickly, if it also appears to the Tribunal that this can be done in a fully sufficient or suitable manner based on all the evidence before it and where it would be reasonable in all the circumstances to do so.[11]
3. Based on the evidence before the Tribunal, I have decided to give effect to the Applicant's request to decide this matter without holding a hearing of the proceeding, and I am satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the parties to the proceeding. The Applicant has taken up opportunities to provide documents to the Tribunal to make out his case including by providing the 14 documents on 4 December 2025. The Tribunal also issued directions to the Applicant to provide specific documents, and the Applicant did provide documents in response.
4. The Tribunal has given the Applicant the opportunity to attend a hearing where he would be able to present evidence and submissions in support of his case. He declined that opportunity. As the Tribunal noted in 2010120 (Refugee), the Tribunal is not under a general duty to undertake its own inquiries in addition to the information placed before it by an applicant[12] and generally, it is up to an applicant to make out their case.[13]
5. The email correspondence between the Applicant, his representative and the Tribunal as recipient, on 9 December 2025 as described above reveals an imbroglio whether the Applicant would or should attend the hearing. At the end of the day, I am satisfied that the Applicant unambiguously decided that he would not participate at the hearing and would leave it to the Tribunal to make a decision based on the documents he had provided. His representative had advised him that it was in his interests to appear at the hearing, and that explains the initial Response to the hearing notice that the Applicant would appear in person but his representative would not. However, the exchange of emails from 9 December does reveal the Applicant was unambiguous about not intending to participate in the hearing.
6. Taking all of the circumstances into account, and especially that the Applicant has provided the bundle of documents he wished to rely upon to the Tribunal, and he responded to the Tribunal's directions on specific documents to be provided, I am satisfied that the issues for determination in the proceeding can be adequately determined in the absence of the Applicant attending a hearing.

Reasoning on whether the Applicant is a genuine temporary entrant into Australia for the purposes of study

1. it is clear from the chronology of relevant events that the Applicant had a chequered start to his study in Australia. In his Response document, he candidly admitted not completing the four courses he had enrolled in prior to the Certificate IV in Kitchen Management and his current Diploma in Hospitality Management.
2. In my view, a chequered history such as that of the Applicant's to study in Australia, without academic redemption is a weighty matter against a finding that an applicant is genuinely in Australia for the temporary purpose of study.
3. It appears from the evidence that the Applicant took his studies seriously whilst enrolled in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery for which he commenced the enrolment in October 2021. After something happened to cause the Applicant to be granted a bridging visa, he was subsequently granted a further student visa in February 2022 whilst enrolled in the Certificate IV in Commercial Cookery, which may have prompted the Applicant to diligently pursue his studies in that course. The enrolment in that course finished on 2 April 2023. Included in the documents which the Applicant provided on 4 December 2025 was a statement of attainment issued by the BPC on 7 April 2023 at about the time when his enrolment in that course finished, stating that he had attained competency in a total of 29 units.
4. In his Response document, the applicant candidly admitted not completing that course, despite it would seem, obtaining competency in 29 units for that course. The Applicant did not explain why he did not complete that course despite attaining competency in 29 units in that course. The Applicant could have explained that had he attended the Tribunal hearing, and a genuine applicant has nothing to fear from attending a Tribunal hearing, apart from applicants unfamiliar with tribunal processes being naturally apprehensive and nervous about a hearing. Notwithstanding that, in my view, the Applicant's genuineness in his studies can be addressed by analysing his more recent performance.
5. Commencing 29 January 2024, the Applicant enrolled in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management for which the enrolment finished on 27 July 2025. The Applicant has not yet been issued with that certificate, but I am satisfied from the statement of results that the Applicant has been assessed as competent, or has been granted credit for all of the units in that course. He needs to have a logbook of his work experience assessed to be issued with the Certificate IV, and in my view, he has explained the circumstances in which he has not been able to have his logbook assessed. The Applicant has recently commenced the Diploma of Hospitality Management course and his education provider has written that his performance and attendance in the early days of that course are satisfactory.
6. In short, I am persuaded that the Applicant has redeemed himself academically from the early chequered history of his studies in Australia.
7. Whilst working in Australia, the Applicant has mostly worked in the hospitality industry, which is consistent with his studies in that area and stated intention to work as a chef on returning to the Philippines. This is a factor in his favour in an application for a student visa for the purposes of studying hospitality.
8. As to the future, the Applicant has said that he will return to the Philippines after he finishes the Diploma in April 2026. That will forestall him undertaking further study after that point. He has described a career goal of obtaining experience as a chef in the Philippines then hoping to open his own restaurant there.
9. The Applicant has close family in the Philippines and although he appears to have separated from his wife, says he has sent money to his wife whilst working in Australia. He has returned to the Philippines on several occasions since being in Australia including only in September 2025, because his elderly parents had been admitted to hospital. From those circumstances, I am satisfied that the Applicant's family ties to the Philippines are strong and enduring, such that I am satisfied that when the Applicant completes his Diploma in April 2026, he will return to the Philippines.
10. Taking all of the Applicant's circumstances into account overall, I am satisfied that the Applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the Applicant meets cl 500.212(a).

Does the Applicant intend to comply with visa conditions?

1. For the applicant for a student visa to meet cl 500.212(b), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant intends to comply with any conditions subject to which the visa is granted, having regard to the applicant's record of compliance with any condition of any visa they previously held, and the applicant's stated intention to comply with any conditions to which the visa may be subject.
2. A visa granted to an applicant who meets the primary criteria must have the following conditions imposed (cl 500.611(1)): 8105 (work limitation), 8202 (enrolment/course progress/course attendance), 8501 (health insurance), 8516 (continue to satisfy criteria), 8517 (dependents' education), 8532 (arrangements for under 18s) and 8533 (notify address/education provider). For visa applications made on or after 1 July 2022, condition 8208 (no critical technology related study without approval) must also be imposed. The following conditions may also be imposed in some cases (cl 500.611(2)): 8303 (no disruptive or violent activity) and 8534 (limited visa entitlement).
3. Again, the Applicant's history of study in Australia and compliance with past student visas granted to him has been chequered. His enrolment in some courses was cancelled, but on two occasions, his enrolment was deferred or suspended due to 'Compassionate or compelling circumstances'. His explanation about the reasons for that at a hearing would have assisted his case, but again I think my focus must be on more recent times in the life of his study in Australia.
4. The Applicant has worked in Australia whilst being subject to a limitation on the hours which he may work. The evidence in the statement of Mr Salalila states that he has strictly followed the working hour limitations of a student visa holder which at least demonstrates consciousness by the Applicant of the need to comply with that condition of either the student visas granted to him or the bridging visas pending finalisation of applications for a student visa.
5. There is nothing specific in the Delegate's decision that suggests non-compliance with visa conditions on the part of the Applicant.
6. On the basis of the above, I am satisfied that the Applicant intends to comply with the conditions subject to which the visa is granted as required by cl 500.212(b).

Is the Applicant a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because of any other relevant matter?

1. For the applicant for a student visa to meet cl 500.212(c), the Tribunal must be satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student because of any other relevant matter (in addition to the requirements in cl 500.212(a) and (b)).
2. There are no other relevant matters that I consider need to be taken into account in the Applicant's application for a student visa.

1. Accordingly, I am satisfied that the Applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student as required by cl 500.212.
2. Given the above findings, the appropriate course is to remit the application for the visa to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa.

1. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and remits the application for a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa for reconsideration, in accordance with the order that the Applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa:
   • cl 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Sushesh Khanal (MARN: 1678926)

[1] As was the then Minister's then title.

[2] The Tribunal has obtained the list of the Applicant's movements into and out of Australia from the Commonwealth department which administers the Act (the Department). The information on the Applicant's movements in this chronology comes from that list.

[3] The Tribunal obtained a record of the Applicant's studies in Australia by reference to the course in which the Applicant enrolled and the current status of that enrolment, from the PRISMS database. The dates of the Applicant's enrolment in courses in the chronology comes from that database. PRISMS is an acronym for the Provider Registration and International Student Management System operated by the Commonwealth Government.

[4] That statement is accompanied by a copy of a passport page identifying Mr Salalila as an Australian citizen.

[5] Also, a photograph showing the Applicant with two young children. Although the photograph is unlabelled and there is no description of it provided by or on behalf of the Applicant, I assume that the photograph shows the Applicant with his children in the Philippines.

[6] Section 348A(1) of the Act provides that the Minister is taken to be a non-participating party to a proceeding for review of a 'reviewable migration decision' for the purposes of the ART Act.

[7] https://app.macquariedictionary.com.au/ (accessed 23 December 2025).

[9] SZTAL v MIBP [2017] HCA 34, [14]; Project Blue Sky v Australian Broadcasting Authority [1998] HCA 28.

[11] See the decision of the Federal Circuit and Family Court in EIZ20 v Child Support Registrar [2023] FedCFamC2G 637 (20 July 2023).

[12] Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v SZIAI (2009) 111 ALD 15, 16[1], 21 [24]; [2009] HCA 39.

[13] WAKK v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCAFC 225, [73].