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.

1. The Tribunal has taken into consideration evidence adduced to the Department and Tribunal and the applicant's oral evidence at hearing. The Tribunal has also considered the applicant's record in the Provider Registration and International Student Management System (PRISMS) and travel movement records.

The applicant's circumstances in her home country

1. The applicant is a 28-year-old female national of Columbia. Her family in Columbia comprises of her parents, her brother and members of her extended family, including her grandmother, aunts and uncles. The applicant maintains communication with her family via telephone and social media.
2. The applicant is a qualified optometrist. She holds a Bachelor of Optometry and Diploma in Paediatric Optometry and Low Vision. She told the Tribunal that the Bachelor degree took five years and her Diploma one year to complete.
3. She was employed as an optometrist from 2020 until her departure for Australia in December 2022.
4. The applicant claimed to own property, a plot of land which she claimed she would develop into a patisserie and student accommodation upon her return to Columbia. In support she relied on a document titled 'Certificate of information' and another untranslated document.
5. Since the applicant's arrival in Australia, she has not returned to Columbia. She told the Tribunal that her family visited her in Australia on one occasion in 2024.
6. There is no evidence to support the applicant has military obligations in Columbia. The Tribunal is not aware of any political and/or civil unrest in Columbia that would be a relevant consideration for this applicant.

1. The applicant first entered Australia on 20 December 2022 on a Student (Subclass 500) visa to study English.
2. She told the Tribunal that she completed a General English course between 27 February 2023 and 19 November 2023. She then completed a Certificate III in Patisserie between 29 January 2024 and 10 January 2025 and a Certificate IV in Patisserie between 27 January 2025 and 11 July 2025.
3. She is currently enrolled and studying a Diploma of Hospitality Management which she commenced on 14 July 2025 and is due to complete on 9 January 2026.
4. 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. The applicant's record accessed by the Tribunal on 10 December 2025 confirms the same.
5. By omission, the applicant represented to both the Department and Tribunal that she had no family in Australia. However, upon questioning by the Tribunal, it was established that she has multiple family members in Australia, including her husband, a cousin and her brother-in-law (her husband's brother) with whom she resides.
6. After further questioning by the Tribunal, it was revealed that the applicant arrived in Australia on 20 December 2022 with her husband, who, like the applicant, was the holder of a student visa. The applicant stated that she has been in a relationship with her husband for almost nine years and that they married in Australia in May 2024. There are no children of the relationship. The applicant gave evidence that her husband's student visa is due to expire in March 2026.
7. The applicant's cousin and brother-in-law arrived in Australia on 6 June 2024 each on a student visa. The applicant stated that her cousin has applied for a further student visa which is yet to be determined by the Department. She also gave evidence that her brother-in-law's student visa is due to expire in approximately August 2026.
8. At hearing the Tribunal raised with the applicant that she had attempted to mislead the Department and Tribunal by omitting the presence of her family in Australia. The applicant claimed that this information had been provided on the advice of her agent at the time of visa application. Her representative submitted that it was standard practice for education agencies to omit such information. The representative who appeared at hearing was not the same representative who lodged the visa application on behalf of the applicant.
9. The applicant told the Tribunal that for the past two years in Australia, she has been employed as an optical assistant earning AUD34,000 per annum and was previously employed as a cleaner. The applicant pays for her own tuition fees. She further stated that her husband has been employed as a land surveyor for the past two years and is currently studying an Advanced Diploma in Civil Construction Design. He has not departed Australia since his arrival, with his parents visiting during this period. The applicant told the Tribunal that her husband worked as a land surveyor in Columbia.

The value of the applicant's courses to her future

1. In her visa application, the applicant stated that she intended to return to Columbia following the completion of her studies in Australia and relevantly stated:

...I hope to continue working in my career as an optometrist but having the opportunity to develop my baking skills with friends and family. I have always wanted to have my own optometry and I think I can provide some pastries and sweets to my patients, and I can merge the dots of my life which are my passion and my professional skills...

1. When asked about the value of her course to her future and her future employment plans, the applicant stated that she intended to return to Columbia to continue her career as an optometrist. She also indicated that she planned to develop a business in pastry and hospitality management and to establish a business providing student accommodation as a second source of income. She claimed in Latin America it was common for professionals to operate businesses alongside their primary occupation.
2. When asked to elaborate, the applicant stated that she wished to develop her skills in Australia. She repeated she intended to operate a café specialising in pastries and to develop a student accommodation complex, stating that labour costs were low in the region.
3. Noting that the applicant was due to complete her course within one month, the Tribunal asked whether she had any evidence to support her claims. The applicant replied in the negative. The Tribunal then referred the applicant to a document titled 'Business Plans' which she gave evidence of having prepared herself. The Tribunal raised concerns that the document lacked detail and consisted of a series of basic dot points. It also noted the absence of key components that would be expected to support the applicant's stated intention of starting a business, including financial planning, calculations of start-up and operation costs, revenue projections, compliance with legal and regulatory requirements, floor plans and marketing strategies.
4. The Tribunal asked why the applicant had decided to change her entire career direction from health to hospitality having regard to her academic and employment record. The applicant stated she wanted to develop her skills in pastry but was unable to provide any further explanation. When asked why she wished to study in a field unrelated to her previous studies and employment, the applicant responded that she saw an opportunity to study something different in Australia.
5. The Tribunal raised concerns regarding the value and relevancy of the course, noting that it appeared to be at a lower educational level and unrelated to the applicant's previous employment history. When invited to comment the applicant replied, 'no comment'.
6. When asked why she could not undertake this course in her home country or somewhere in that region, she claimed the courses did not provide the same level of knowledge and were basic.

1. The Tribunal noted to the applicant that she had been onshore in Australia for approximately three years and had undertaken various courses unrelated to her employment history. The Tribunal indicated that this raised concerns that she may be using the student visa program to maintain an ongoing residency in Australia. The applicant replied that she intended to return to Columbia, develop a business plan and resume her career as an optometrist.
2. Other than the student visa, which is the subject of this review, there is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has had a visa in Australia or for any other country refused or cancelled.

1. The Tribunal accepts that there are several factors favourable to the visa grant. The applicant has completed courses in Australia and is currently enrolled. There is no evidence to support the applicant has military obligations in Columbia. There is no evidence of any political or civil unrest in Columbia that would be a relevant consideration for this applicant, and she did not claim to fear returning to Columbia. The Tribunal further accepts that she has complied with her visa conditions. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that the applicant has had a previous visa for Australia, or any other country, refused or cancelled, other than the visa which is the subject of this review.
2. The Tribunal further accepts that the applicant has parents, a sibling and some extended family who reside in Columbia. However, the Tribunal does not consider that these circumstances in and of themselves demonstrate a significant incentive for the applicant to return home. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has not returned to Columbia, even for a temporary visit, in approximately three years since her arrival in Australia. Rather, the applicant has managed to maintain personal relations with her family from overseas remotely. The Tribunal also makes this assessment noting her evidence that her parents and in-laws have visited the applicant and her husband while they have been in Australia and that further family members have joined them, are residing with them and are currently onshore, be it on temporary visas.
3. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was employed as an optometrist in Columbia, the Tribunal does not consider that this, of itself, demonstrates a significant incentive for the applicant to return to her home country. The Tribunal notes that the applicant has also been employed in Australia, including in the optometry field for two years.
4. The applicant claimed to own property in Columbia which she claimed she would develop into a patisserie and student accommodation upon her return. In support she relied on a document titled 'Certificate of information'. The document was discussed extensively at hearing. The Tribunal raised concerns that, on its face, the document appeared to be issued to interested parties rather than constitute proof of ownership, such as registration as the owner. The Tribunal further notes that the document purports to record the purchase date as 24 September 2024, yet at the time of notarisation on 27 November 2025, more than one year later, the applicant was still not registered as the owner. This raises further concerns regarding her claims of ownership. When asked if she had any other corroborative evidence in support she replied in the negative. The applicant was unable to provide any additional detail or assistance to the Tribunal. The Tribunal afforded the applicant an opportunity to provide further evidence post-hearing which was not forthcoming.
5. The Tribunal has had regard to the representative's submission concerning an untranslated document titled 'Central Park Socorro' in support of the applicant's claims of ownership. The Tribunal put to the applicant and representative at hearing, that as the document was not translated, the Tribunal cannot speculate as to its contents. The applicant was invited to provide a translation but did not do so.
6. The Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is the owner of a plot of land in Columbia which she intends to develop. Other than asserting ownership, the applicant was unable to provide any further evidence in support. The only document provided was a Certificate of Purchase Information, which appears to be issued for prospective or interested parties. The Tribunal finds it perplexing that the applicant did not adduce further evidence in support of her claims. Were she the lawful owner, the Tribunal would expect her to provide such evidence without difficulty. Overall, the Tribunal considers the evidence to be highly unsatisfactory and is not satisfied that she owns the land.
7. The applicant has family ties in Australia that are of particular concern to the Tribunal. Her husband, her brother-in-law and cousin are living in Australia and although the Tribunal accepts, they are on temporary visas, the Tribunal has serious concerns that given they are onshore and reside together this will act as an incentive for the applicant to remain.
8. The Tribunal notes that the applicant did not disclose the existence of her family in Australia, and it was only identified after the Tribunal asked probing questions. The Tribunal has considered the applicant's explanation for not disclosing this information but does not regard it to be credible. The Tribunal does not accept that this was a mere oversight or mistake by her agent given the applicant has been in a long-standing relationship with her husband for almost nine years (including prior to her coming to Australia), travelled to Australia with him, is now legally married to him (including marrying in Australia) and resides with him along with two other family members and the Tribunal considers that she was well aware of the relevance of this information. The Tribunal also makes this assessment noting the applicant is highly educated, holds multiple qualifications and is bilingual. The applicant has also had multiple opportunities to disclose this information to both the Department and Tribunal but failed to do so. Rather, the Tribunal considers that the applicant deliberately withheld this information as she was acutely aware that it would undermine the strength of her claims. Overall, the Tribunal considers that the applicant is prepared to make any representations or omissions she thinks will advance her case to obtain a student visa.
9. The Tribunal has also considered the representative's submission that agents often provide incorrect information as a matter of common practice. The Tribunal does not accept this submission and draws the conclusion that the representative acted on the instructions of the applicant. The Tribunal also makes this assessment noting that the representative who appeared at the hearing also omitted reference in his submissions to the existence of the applicant's family in Australia.
10. It is also of concern that the applicant's study is unrelated to her previous study and employment. Whilst the Tribunal accepts that individuals may seek to enhance their knowledge and experience and have a second income, the Tribunal found the applicant's evidence regarding her career plans to be vague and unsatisfactory. She was unable to provide the level of detail that would be expected of a person about to establish a business and undertake a large development. The Tribunal has considered her business plan but regards it to be scant and lacking in detail and her assertions were not supported by credible evidence. Given the time and investment in her Australian studies, the Tribunal would expect the applicant to be able to provide more detail, even if some aspects are still under consideration. Overall, the Tribunal found her evidence to be unconvincing and not credible. The Tribunal considers that she is using her study as a pathway to maintain residence in Australia.
11. Having considered the totality of the evidence and all of the relevant factors listed in Direction 108, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student and is not satisfied that she intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily. Accordingly, the applicant does not meet cl 500.212(a). It follows, that 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.
12. Given the above findings, the Tribunal finds that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 500 (Student) visa are not met. The applicant does not claim to meet the criteria for a Subclass 590 (Student Guardian) visa. Accordingly, the decision under review must be affirmed.

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

Representative for the Applicant: Mr Harris Neil Lawrence (MARN: 2217720)

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.