1. Prior to the hearing the applicant or the person assisting her sent the Tribunal:

a) The decision of the delegate; > > b) A completed Student Visa information form (SVI form); > > c) Her current Indian passport bio-identity page; > > d) Identification documents of the applicant's husband and daughters; > > e) Her Indian school completion certificates issued by the Punjab School Education Board dated 1997 and 1999; > > f) The applicant's Confirmation of Enrolment (CoE) for a Diploma of Leadership and Management for the period 29 September 2025 to 27 September 2026; and > > g) The applicant's CoE for an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management for the period 5 October 2026 to 3 October 2027.

2. On the day of the hearing, just prior to the hearing, the person assisting the applicant sent the Tribunal:

a) A death certificate of the applicant's father; > > b) An Indian medical certificate; and > > c) Financial statements regarding the applicant's mother Sarita.

3. The applicant appeared before me on 30 October 2025 to give evidence and present arguments. The applicant was assisted in relation to the review. The person assisting her also attended the hearing. The hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Punjabi languages. The applicant's husband did not attend the hearing.
4. The hearing was conducted on MS Teams and the internet connection was stable and the audio and video were clear. I have considered all of the evidence before me, which is listed above, as well as the applicant's oral evidence, and where relevant, I have referred to both the oral evidence of the applicant at hearing and written evidence in my reasons and findings below.
5. Towards the end of the hearing, I discussed with the applicant and the person assisting her the concerns I had with her evidence and obtained the applicant's oral response to those concerns (which are discussed in my reasons below) and gave the applicant until 6 November 2025 to provide further documents to me. The further documents I requested to be provided after the hearing were evidence of the study the applicant had done up to the date of the hearing and her written response to my concerns raised in the hearing, including written submissions from the person assisting her.
6. On 5 November 2025, the person assisting the applicant sent the Tribunal a written submission and a business plan of the applicant, both of which I have considered and refer to in my reasons below.
7. I have before me the applicant's enrolment history from the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS). The PRISMS record for this applicant indicates that her enrolment in a Diploma of Leadership and Management with a start date of 22 May 2023 and a completion date of 19 May 2024 has the status of "finished". It also indicates that her enrolment in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management with a start date of 20 May 2024 and a completion date of 18 May 2025 was cancelled on 29 October 2024 for the reason that the provider was unable to deliver the course.
8. The PRISMS record then indicates that the applicant is currently studying a Diploma of Leadership and Management with a start date of 29 September 2025 and an expected completion date of 27 September 2026 and she is enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management with a start date of 5 October 2026 and an expected completion date of 3 October 2027.
9. According to the PRISMS website, the Department of Education, Skills and Employment is responsible for the Commonwealth Register of Institutions and Courses for Overseas Students. It is recorded that PRISMS is a computer system developed by the Department in association with the Department of Home Affairs for the purpose of receiving and storing information about accepted overseas students that is given to the Secretary under the ESOS Act. It is further noted that PRISMS provides a secure system for providers of registered educational institutions to comply with legislative requirements by issuing confirmations of enrolments as 'evidence of enrolment' in a registered full-time course as required by the Department of Home Affairs and reporting changes in course enrolment, particularly where study ceases, or the duration of the study changes.
10. It is therefore apparent that PRISMS is a business record of the Department of Education, Skills and Employment and is used by the Department of Home Affairs as evidence of enrolment for the purposes of assessing the grant of student visas. While it is possible providers may not update PRISMS as required, I accept that PRISMS is a reliable record of enrolments unless there is specific evidence to the contrary in relation to a particular case.

1. The criteria for a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are set out in Part 500 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The primary criteria in cl 500.211 to cl 500.218 must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Other members of the family unit, if any, who are applicants for the visa need only satisfy the secondary criteria. The issue in the present case is whether the applicant is a person who satisfies the requirement for entry and stay as a student which is in cl 500.212 of the Regulations.
2. 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:

(iii) if the applicant is a minor - the intentions of a parent, legal guardian or spouse of the applicant; 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

1. For the following reasons, the Tribunal considers the decisions under review should be affirmed.

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 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.
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.
3. The Direction also indicates that decision makers should take a reasonable and balanced approach in deciding whether or not the applicant genuinely intends on remaining in Australia temporarily.
4. After considering the applicant's written and oral evidence, and written submissions by the person assisting her, as discussed below the applicant's oral explanation of and lack of detail in how the proposed courses in Australia would assist her future plans to reinvent her former home-based clothing business, particularly given the length of time she had been in Australia prior to starting her study (time that she had to consider what she wanted to achieve from the proposed study), that she had applied for a second visitor visa once in Australia before applying for a student visa, and that her resumption of study occurred only a few weeks before the scheduled hearing, were of particular concern to me.

The applicant's decision to study in Australia

1. Early in the hearing I asked the applicant to tell me what her plans were when she first came to Australia in November 2022. She told me she initially came to visit her daughter Naina who has been studying in Australia and her written statement provided to the delegate explains the travel she did in Australia as a tourist after she first arrived.
2. I then asked the applicant why she applied for a second visitor visa after she had spent some time in Australia. She told me that she became unwell and thought she was not able to travel and so decided to remain in Australia for a bit longer and she referred me to a letter from a doctor in India that her representative had sent to the Tribunal the night before the hearing. At the time of the hearing (which was at 10am), the letter had not (as yet) been saved to the applicant's case file and so at the start of the hearing a Tribunal staff member sent me the letter by email so I was able to read the letter and discuss it with the applicant during the hearing. I discuss the contents of the letter later in this decision.
3. I then asked the applicant to describe to me her decision to then study in Australia, after being granted a second visitor visa. The applicant told me that when she applied for the second visitor visa, she discussed her personal situation with a friend in Australia, and after telling this friend that prior to covid she earned an income working from home stitching clothes but that she closed the business during covid, and wanted to start it again in the future, her friend asked the applicant what her educational background was and when the applicant explained she had no qualifications post school, her friend suggested she study.
4. In asking the applicant if this was a close friend with whom she discussed her plans, she told me that it was a neighbour she had met in Australia and that they would go to the park together. I asked the applicant if it was the case that until she had that conversation with her Australian neighbour, around the time she applied for the second visitor visa, she had not given any thought to study in Australia before and she agreed that was the case.
5. I asked the applicant if she discussed her plans to study with her husband, and she said she did.

The applicant's circumstances in her home country

1. The applicant's husband, whilst being included as a dependent applicant in the applicant's student visa, was offshore at the time she lodged her student visa application and the applicant told me at the hearing that he has remained in India throughout the duration of her time in Australia to date. I asked her if she had been to India to see him since she has been in Australia and she said she had not and so I put to that they have now been apart from each other for three years which I noted must be difficult and asked if there was any particular reason why they had not visited each other. In response she said there was no particular reason, she just wants to finish her studies and return to him. She told me she does speak with him each day via video calls.
2. In her written statement provided to the delegate the applicant stated that her parents and sisters are in India as well as her husband. She also stated in writing that her daughters live in India but when I asked her if this was the case she said no that her daughter Janvi is studying in the UK and her other daughter Naina lives in Australia.
3. I asked the applicant if she had researched courses in India and if so why she chose to study in Australia. The reasons why she chose the courses she did in Australia and how they align with her future plans in India are discussed below, but the applicant told me that leadership and management courses in India are very theoretical and do not focus on practical leadership skills (which she also wrote in her written statement before the delegate). She also told me that the types of leadership courses offered in India are located too far away from the city in which her family home is located.
4. In her written statement provided to the delegate[1] the applicant stated that after she was married (in 2001), and after becoming a mother in 2002, as "I embraced my motherhood, I decided to open my own boutique in India." The applicant's employment history in her SVI form stated her work experience prior to arriving in Australia was her being self-employed at "Navdurga Boutique" between 2019 and 2022. During the hearing I asked the applicant to clarify what was correct given the dates she was self employed in those two documents were very different. She told me that when her children were young she started the business (which was stitching clothing material) and she did this from her home. She said that in about 2008 her husband had an accident and she had to look after him and so she stopped working and that in 2019 she started marketing the business to try and grow it. I asked her if her business was still operating in her absence and if so whether someone was running it for her and she said no, she closed the business in 2022 before she came to Australia.
5. The applicant declared in her visa application and in her SVI form that after finishing school in India in 1999 she had not undertaken any further study in India which she also confirmed with me in the hearing.
6. There is no evidence before me that there is political or civil unrest in India that would result in the applicant choosing to remain in Australia indefinitely. There is no evidence before me of military commitments that would present as a significant motive for the applicant not to return to India.
7. I have considered the applicant's oral and written evidence about her circumstances in India. I accept that the applicant's husband is in India and that he may be an incentive for her to return to India however when I specifically questioned her about the length of time they are spending apart and why now, after being apart for three years she had not visited him, her response to me did not persuade me that her husband's presence in India is a significant incentive for her to return to India. However given the sentiment expressed in the applicant's husband's written statement provided to the delegate about his relationship with the applicant, and the photos of the applicant and her husband together provided with her visa application, I am prepared to give the applicant the benefit of the doubt and accept that her husband's presence in India is an incentive for her to return to India, as is the presence of her parents, sisters and her husband's family and I give weight to the applicant's personal ties in India in favour of the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant.
8. On the basis of the applicant's oral evidence, and high school completion certificates, I accept that the applicant did complete her secondary education in India in 1999. I also accept the applicant's written and oral evidence that she has not studied in India since she left school. I also accept that she has some experience working for herself stitching clothes in India primarily in the three years before she came to Australia and also some earlier ad hoc experience which was hampered by her caring responsibilities towards her husband after his accident and towards her children when they were young.
9. I consider the applicant's lack of employment experience and ties in India are a factor that weigh against her being a genuine temporary entrant because she does not have an established employment network in India that would be an incentive for her to return to.
10. I have no evidence before me of any assets in India in the applicant's name. In her SVI form provided to the Tribunal, in relation to the question asking for details of the applicant's assets, the answer is blank. Whilst the applicant's wider family (her parents and her husband's family) may have assets, I am not satisfied that the applicant has assets that serve as a financial incentive for her to return to India.
11. Considering all of the applicant's circumstances in her home country, I find on balance, they weigh against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant.

The applicant's potential circumstances in Australia

1. At the hearing the applicant told me she lives with her daughter Naina who has been in Australia studying. When I asked the applicant what her daughter was studying and when she was due to finish her course, the applicant told me she was not sure but that she knows her daughter is working in aged care.
2. The applicant told me at the hearing that she is not working and has not worked since she had been in Australia because her visitor visa and her current bridging visa do not allow her to work. The applicant also told me that she is being supported financially by her husband in India and by her daughter in Australia.
3. When I asked the applicant how much of her initial Diploma of Leadership and Management, (that started in May 2023) she said she had completed about three months, and then about one month of the current course that she started in September 2025. Whilst I do not have evidence of letters of course progress for the study the applicant has done, as the first education provider could not continue to provide the course and as the applicant has only completed about a month of the current course, I accept the applicant's oral evidence that she completed about three months of study from May 2023 to about August 2023 and then a month from September 2025 to the date of the hearing which is when she gave me her oral evidence in this regard.
4. During the hearing, I explained to the applicant that I had her enrolment history via PRISMS before me, which indicated that her CoE for the Diploma of Leadership and Management that she started in May 2023, had that status of "finished" and that the Advanced Diploma of 2024 been cancelled in October 2024 and I confirmed with her that she had not actually completed the 2023 Diploma course.
5. I also explained to the applicant that the Diploma course in which she was currently enrolled started a month before the hearing, on 29 September 2025. When I asked her the reason for the cancellation of the CoE in 2024, she told me it was because she became ill. It was not until towards the end of the hearing, when I put to the applicant that whilst I could accept that she had been unwell, as I was not convinced with the medical evidence she had provided (which is discussed below) was acceptable evidence of her gap in study, it concerned me that she had only completed about three months of her course in 2023, and then she did not study again until she commenced her current course, which she only started about a month before the hearing. It was at that point towards the end of the hearing that the person assisting the applicant told me that the reason the CoE was cancelled was because the education provider could no longer offer the course, a fact that the applicant seemed unaware of. Whilst I accept the applicant was unwell for some of the time she has been in Australia (which is discussed below), the fact that the applicant only recommenced her study a month before the hearing I find concerning and that the applicant had a period of about two years (from about August 2023 to September 2025) where she did not study at all. When I put those concerns to the applicant in the hearing, she told me that her medical condition was not for a "limited time."
6. The written submissions from the person assisting the applicant received after the hearing in response to my concerns regarding the study gap did not satisfactorily address my concerns because the submissions essentially repeat the evidence given at hearing, that is that the interruption to the applicant's studies were due to her medical and psychological difficulties (with reference to Dr Arora's letter which is discussed below) and because the education provider could not deliver the 2024 course.
7. The written submissions from the person assisting the applicant which I received after the hearing state "Continued Commitment: Following her medical leave and subsequent closure of Gills College, Ms. Kaushal immediately sought new enrollment [sic] in the sane courses as Brookside International College with future enrolment dates of September 2025 and October 2026,demonstrating commitment to achieving the qualification rather than maintaining residence." [emphasis in the original]. Whilst I accept the applicant was unwell in 2024 (which is discussed below), I do not accept that a gap of a year is "immediate" (between the applicant's Advanced Diploma CoE being cancelled in October 2024 and her enrolling in a course to commence in September 2025) or that it is indicative of the applicant demonstrating commitment but I find is indicative of the applicant using the student visa program to maintain residence in Australia.
8. I find it concerning that before me at the hearing, the applicant (who had a person assisting her) did not know that her CoE had been cancelled a year prior, due to the education provider no longer being able to deliver the course and I consider such a lack of awareness of her own enrolment indicates an applicant that is not genuinely residing in Australia for the purpose of study.
9. The applicant's lack of knowledge about why her first CoE was cancelled, her daughter residing in Australia, and the period of two years without study, I find weighs against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant.

1. The applicant came to Australia as a visitor in 2022. Since that time she has had a further visitor visa granted before applying for a student visa, which is the visa application refused that is the subject of this review.
2. During the hearing I asked the applicant why she applied for a visitor visa in Australia, before she then applied for a student visa. She told me that she became unwell once she was in Australia and that she was too unwell to return to India which is why she lodged a visitor visa application. She then told me that the person assisting her had sent a letter from her doctor to the Tribunal immediately prior to the hearing to support her evidence in this regard. When I asked the applicant the nature of her illness, she told me that she was suffering from menopause symptoms including heavy bleeding, (bleeding that lasted 6 to 7 months and then continued twice a month) and it impacted her psychologically as well as physically which meant that she could not attend her classes. She told me this is why she only completed about three months of the initial Diploma of Leadership and Management in which she was enrolled between 22 May 2023 and 19 May 2024.
3. The applicant's movement records, which I advised the applicant I had before me, indicates that she was granted a Bridging A visa in association with her onshore visitor visa application on 15 February 2023 and that her onshore visitor visa was granted on 5 March 2023.
4. During the hearing I reviewed the letter from the applicant's doctor. It is written by a Dr Arora at Sant Hospital in Ambala City, in India. Whilst it is not dated, the letter stated "...This is to certify that Reena Kaushal, age 44, has been under my medical care at Sant Hospital since January, 2024, including through online consultation(s)." The letter states that the applicant "has been experiencing significant menopausal symptoms such as fatigue, mood instability, combined with anxiety and depressive episodes... In my professional opinion, these medical and psychological factors have adversely affected her ability to continue her academic studies during this period. Due to these medical conditions, the patient is not suitable for participation in a study at that time. Prolonged confinement and study-related procedures could potentially exacerbate her depressive symptoms and interfere with hormonal stability and ongoing treatment. The patient was advised to rest and receive ongoing medical and psychological support for recovery."
5. Given the applicant's description of her illness and that was the reason she applied for a visitor visa in Australia and could not continue with her study, whether she consulted a doctor in Australia, and she claimed she tried to get an appointment but as she did not speak English, she was reliant on her daughter to go to the doctor with her to interpret and her daughter was not available to come with her to the doctor.
6. I then asked the applicant given that she has been in Australia the entire time, since she sought treatment from Dr Arora in early 2024, how could she obtain adequate care from someone in India? She responded by saying that her appointments with Dr Arora were online and that he told her to treat her menopause symptoms with meditation. I then asked how meditation would help her with the severe bleeding she described and she told me that when the bleeding started, she did not consult the doctor in India, she spoke with her mother and sister as her mother had experienced similar menopause symptoms and she said when the bleeding stopped she then had issues with her hormones which then affected her mentally.
7. Whilst I accept the applicant did suffer from poor health due to menopause symptoms, I do not accept that her health was the reason she applied for another visitor visa onshore because I consider it reasonable for the applicant, if she was bleeding as heavily as she claimed, bleeding that was a physical issue, from early 2023 onwards for six to seven months, to have sought medical treatment in Australia, and not waited until early 2024 to seek treatment from a doctor in India or to only speak with her mother and sister. Whilst I accept the applicant would have needed assistance in interpretation during a medical appointment in Australia, I do not accept her explanation that her daughter was not available to attend a doctor with her as reasonable, given that the applicant described the bleeding as both severe but also persistent, and occurring for six to seven months and then continuing twice each month thereafter.
8. Dr Arora's letter states that the applicant could not study as she was distressed due to the death of her father in India. I have before me a death certificate indicating that the applicant's father, Ashok Kumar Sarita, died on 21 June 2024. I accept that the applicant's father died and that his death was distressing for the applicant but I do not accept that his death is a reasonable explanation for the applicant not studying because by the time her father died, she had already not been studying for about 10 months (from about August 2023 to the time of his death in June 2024).
9. For the reasons explained above, whilst I accept the applicant has been unwell, I do not accept that her health was the reason why she applied for another visitor visa in early 2023 and I therefore place weight against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant because of her visitor visa application in Australia.
10. I have reflected on the applicant's oral evidence regarding the timing of her decision to remain in Australia for the purpose of study. Whilst I acknowledge that an individual's intentions can change once they arrive in Australia, I was not persuaded by the applicant's oral evidence that her decision to study in Australia had been carefully considered by her, given that she did not decide to study until after lodging a visitor visa onshore. Further, because I do not accept her claimed reason for applying for a visitor visa onshore, in the case of this applicant, the timing of her decision to study after lodging a visitor visa application onshore I consider is indicative of a person who is attempting to use the student visa program to maintain residency in Australia.

The value of the course to the applicant's future

1. During the hearing I asked the applicant about the value of her current course to her future career plans and I asked her how she planned on using her Australian qualifications, if she completed them, on return to India. In doing so, I discussed with the applicant her previous work experience in India and how that related to her future plans.
2. The applicant told me that during covid she closed her business, and that is was a small business she ran from home stitching material, and only doing what her customers wanted her to do, but that on return to India she would like to have "proper" sales and marketing plan so that she could develop a clothing business where she was designing and creating clothes that she wanted to make to then sell to a customer base. She told me she wanted to run the business "her way" and to use marketing to do this. She also told me that she wanted to find out what was in demand in the market and that she would then work out how to grow the business. I asked her if she had a business plan as to how she would achieve this, and she responded by saying her plan was to study first and then see what was required in the market and after that she would work out her business plan.
3. I confirmed with the applicant during the hearing my understanding that she wanted to focus on marketing her clothing business when she returned to India and she responded by saying yes she wanted to learn how to manage her business and then focus on marketing it and that she would like to open stores online and manage the business online and work out how to manage sales and purchases online.
4. During the hearing I put to the applicant that the subjects in her Diploma and Advanced Diploma courses, which I had reviewed, did not have a marketing focus and that the current course she is studying and future course she proposes to study had a leadership and management focus. In response to my concerns the applicant said that she had chosen the leadership courses because she thinks she will need to learn to manage 10 to 12 people to work in her business and she needs leadership skills to manage people. I then put to her that I was struggling to accept she would initially need skills to enable her to manage 10 to 12 people and then grow the business. I asked her would it not be the other way around, that she would start small, grow the business using marketing skills and then acquire leadership skills once the business had grown and she actually had a team to manage. Her response to me was that she would start small and work with her husband and then grow the business slowly after that.
5. I also put to the applicant that I was having difficulty accepting that she did not have a business plan already formulated particularly given the length of time she had had in Australia, since making the decision to study, and she responded that once she has completed her studies she would plan "better." I expressed my concerns to her that whist I understood she had not completed her initial Diploma course she had not explained to me her business plans for the future in the level of detail I would expect of someone who had been in Australia for three years and she said that to have a business plan in place she would need to be mentally stable which she was not due to her being unwell.
6. The applicant's oral response to my concerns regarding her lack of a business plan as to how she would achieve her business goals in India did not alleviate my concerns.
7. At the end of the hearing I asked the applicant and the person assisting her to address my concerns regarding the courses in which the applicant was enrolled do not align with her stated intentions as to establishing her business and the applicant's absence of a business plan, particularly given the length of time she had been in Australia in post hearing submissions.
8. The business plan that the person assisting the applicant sent to the Tribunal after the hearing also did not alleviate my concerns because the business plan is very generic in nature and contains broad statements that do not detail specifically how the applicant will grow her business from a start up to the kind of operation she told me in the hearing she wants to run and it uses language that was not in keeping with the expression of the applicant's oral evidence during the hearing. For example, the written business plan states: "Mission: Provide customized, high-quality fashion solutions tailored to individual customer needs, leveraging international management practices to grow a professional team and establish a strong market footprint." The business plan uses broad statements regarding leadership skills but does not explain why those skills are required nor how those skills will be utilised. The written business plan did not impress upon me that the applicant had researched and planned her financial approach to establishing her own business in India with any level of detail or planning because the financial elements of the plan are general in nature and do not contain specific detail such as where she would source materials, who and where her suppliers would be.
9. The applicant has been in Australia for three years and notwithstanding she was unwell for some of that time, I consider it reasonable for her to have had the time during those three years, to have researched the Indian clothing market, and formulated a more detailed plan about how she would start and grow the kind of business she described to me she wanted in the hearing, and the evidence before me indicates that is not the case which I find weighs against the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant.
10. I accept that the applicant on return to India would return to a clothing business that she would have to start from scratch (as her former business was closed during covid). I do not accept that the courses in which the applicant is enrolled would add value to her future plans to grow that business because I do not accept her evidence that she needs leadership skills to manage 10 to 12 people prior to having the skills to establish and market a business from scratch.
11. The written post-hearing submissions also did not alleviate my concerns about the value of the courses to the applicant's future because they reiterated the applicant's oral evidence about requiring leadership skills and did not satisfactorily address my concerns regarding the applicant's lack of knowledge of or skills in sales and marketing.
12. For the above reasons, I am not satisfied that the value of the courses to the applicant's future weigh in favour of the applicant being a genuine temporary entrant.

My overall assessment/conclusion regarding whether the applicant genuinely intends on remaining in Australia temporarily

1. In considering the applicant's circumstances as a whole, I am mindful that the factors in Direction 108 are a guide and should not be use as a checklist and that I must balance all of the above with other relevant factors. Whilst the applicant had provided an explanation as to why she had been unable to continue with her study in 2023 due to her health, I found her explanation as to how she sought to seek treatment for her poor health to be unconvincing and this combined with the fact that she did also not know the reason her CoE for the cancellation of the Advanced Diploma in which she was enrolled in 2024 did not satisfy me that she was an individual who was genuinely seeking to remain in Australia for the purpose of study.
2. The applicant's claims to be a genuine student in Australia were unconvincing. Her evidence at the hearing regarding the value of the proposed courses to her future was vague and undetailed and she did not satisfy me that the proposed leadership courses in which she was enrolled would assist her with the marketing experience she required to re-establish and then grow her business in India. When I put these concerns to her, the applicant's responses in the hearing, and the post hearing submissions and business plan did not satisfy me that she had a detailed knowledge of the course that she was studying, nor that she had considered the value of those courses to her future plans that she described to me during the hearing.
3. The applicant's oral evidence about the value of her studies to her future plans to expand her business in India (particularly given the length of time she has spent in Australia to consider how her proposed study would assist her), combined with the length of time she has been in Australia with only five months of study completed to date combined with unconvincing medical evidence as to the reasons why she could not complete her studies as intended, did not satisfy me that she is a genuine student for temporary stay in Australia.
4. On the basis of the above, having considered the applicant's circumstances as a whole, and having weighed the factors set out in Direction 108, I am not satisfied that the applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, I am not satisfied that the applicant meets cl 500.212(a).
5. The applicant does not meet cl 500.212(a). 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.
6. 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.
7. The second named applicant was included in the review application of the applicant when it was lodged with the AAT on 19 October 2023.
8. Section 347A of the Act specifies who has the right to apply for review of a reviewable migration decision. In the case of a decision described in s338(2), an application for review may only be made by the non-citizen who is the subject of the decision and is physically present in the migration zone when the application for review is made: s347A(1)(a) and (2). 'Migration zone' is defined in s 5(1) of the Act and generally speaking means the Australian States and Territories.
9. At the hearing the applicant told me that her husband, the second named applicant, has been in India since she arrived in Australia in 2022 and that he has not been to Australia since, evidence that I accept. On 23 October 2025, the Tribunal requested movement records from the Department for the second named applicant and a case note on the Tribunal file for this review indicates that movement records for the second named applicant do not exist. As a consequence, the Tribunal finds that the second named applicant was not in the migration zone at the relevant time (being the day on which the review application was lodged with the AAT on 19 October 2023. As such, the application for review is not an application properly made under s347A. The Tribunal cannot review the decision in relation to the second named applicant: s348 of the Act.

1. The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Student (Temporary) (Class TU) visa.
2. The Tribunal does not have jurisdiction in relation to the second named applicant.

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Ajay Bansal (MARN: 1569359)

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] The statement titled "Genuine Temporary Entrant Statement" dated 4 May 2023.