An International applicant from India has been refused Australian student visa after the Department of Home Affairs was not satisfied that the applicant was “a genuine temporary entrant”.
Gaj Raj
The federal circuit court of Australia has dismissed Mr Singh’s appeal to review the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal, which had affirmed the minister’s decision not to grant the applicant the visa.
According to the Department of Home Affairs, “All applicants for a Student visa must show they are coming to Australia temporarily to gain a quality education.”
Perth-based Mr Singh had arrived in Australia in December 2011 after completing a Bachelor of Information Technology in India. He was studying for a Master of Science (Information Technology) in Australia. In August 2015, he finished his Master of Science (Information Technology) degree and received a Class VC subclass 485 Skilled – Graduate (Temporary) visa, valid from December 2015 to December 2018.
After his 485 visa expired in December 2018, he applied for a Class TU Subclass 500 Student visa and joined the Diploma of Business in January 2019.
However, the Department refused him a student visa on 5 March 2019. Mr Singh lodged his application for review of that decision with the Tribunal on 12 March 2019.
Shortly after receiving the Department’s notification of the refusal of his visa application, the applicant withdrew from his Diploma of Business course.
He enrolled in an Advanced Diploma of Leadership and Management course to be offered by Perth College of Business and Technology between 31 August 2020 and 20 August 2021.
According to the court’s documents, “The Tribunal then noted that it had asked the applicant why he had withdrawn from the Diploma in Business and noted that the applicant had explained that because his visa was refused, he did not believe he could study.”
“The Tribunal had difficulty accepting this explanation as the applicant’s “bridging visa notice” clearly stated that there were no conditions and the applicant had continued working. The Tribunal considered it open to infer that the applicant had enrolled in the course shortly prior to the Tribunal’s decision because he did not want to have the decision affirmed on the basis of non-enrolment. This, the Tribunal found, weighed against a finding that the applicant was a genuine temporary entrant.”
The Tribunal determined that there was no evidence that the applicant had been refused a visa, had a visa cancelled or had breached any conditions attached to any of his visas. This weighed in the applicant’s favour.
However, the Tribunal considered the applicant’s immigration and study history weighed against him being a genuine temporary entrant.
While the Tribunal accepted that the applicant was “close to his family”, the Tribunal did not accept that the applicant’s ties to India constituted a strong incentive to return to India,” reads the Federal Circuit Court’s judgement.
“The applicant also stated at hearing that although he is unmarried, he has a girlfriend in Australia, who is an international student from Mauritius studying for a bachelor’s degree in hospitality management. The applicant’s evidence was that at the date of hearing, she had three years to go before she finished her studies. The Tribunal finds that the applicant has personal ties to Australia by reason of all of these relationships. His relationship with his girlfriend is, the Tribunal finds, a particularly strong tie giving the applicant a pressing reason to attempt to stay in Australia,” it reads further.
Based on the various findings, the Tribunal was not satisfied that Mr Singh was “a genuine temporary entrant” and affirmed the Department’s decision to refuse the visa.
Judge Kendall of the Federal Circuit Court found no jurisdictional error in the Tribunal’s decision and dismissed Mr Singh’s appeal.
