Tribunal: Member Wendy Banfield
The Department of Immigration and Border Protection (the Department) refused to grant the applicants’ Student visas because they were not satisfied the primary applicant intended to genuinely stay in Australia temporarily as a student. The applicants applied to the AAT for a review of the decision.
The primary applicant arrived in Australia in 2010 to undertake studies in Business. The secondary applicants are his wife and child. The applicant claimed that he came to Australia to study and acquire skills before returning home to Indonesia to develop a business. During his time in Australia, the applicant had completed three courses in Business and three in the field of IT and, at the time of the AAT review, he was studying a course in Marketing and Communications. The applicant denied he had enrolled in further courses in order to extend his stay in Australia. He said he planned to return to Indonesia after his current course of study.
The AAT was not satisfied that the applicant intended to pursue his stated plan to open a retail hardware store in his home country and noted that he had told the Department that he intended to develop an e-commerce business. The AAT found the applicant’s evidence regarding how he would utilise his skills in the future contradictory and unpersuasive. The AAT did not consider the applicant had demonstrated that it was or is necessary for him to study a course in marketing given his work experience in a retail hardware business and in marketing. The AAT noted that during the hearing the applicant made reference to remaining in Australia for economic reasons.
The AAT was not satisfied that the applicant intended genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and therefore he and his family did not meet the requirements for the visa.
The AAT affirmed the Department’s decision.
Read the full decision on AustLII.
 Clause 500.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994.