Can it be said that, whether an applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student is answered by reason only of the particular criteria in cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Do the words in cl 500.212(a) concern only with how long a visa applicant intends to stay in Australia? In assessing whether an applicant "is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student", must applicants satisfy each of cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)? Are some of the factors in Direction No 69 also relevant to cl 500.212(c)? Did the group introduction process at the start of the Tribunal hearing amount to a denial of procedural fairness? Should a litigant be expected to put on an appeal before being entitled to settled reasons from the court below?
The questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Can it be said that, whether an applicant is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student is answered by reason only of the particular criteria in cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)?
Question 2: Do the words in cl 500.212(a) concern only with how long a visa applicant intends to stay in Australia?
Question 3: In assessing whether an applicant "is a genuine applicant for entry and stay as a student", must applicants satisfy each of cll 500.212(a), (b) and (c)?
Question 4: Are some of the factors in Direction No 69 also relevant to cl 500.212(c)?
Question 5: Did the group introduction process at the start of the Tribunal hearing amount to a denial of procedural fairness?
Question 6: Should a litigant be expected to put on an appeal before being entitled to settled reasons from the court below?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: