Federal Court. AAT wrote: "a successful applicant had to be both a genuine student and have a genuine intention to remain in Australia temporarily". Was AAT's approach wrong because "cl 572.223(1)(a) only requires a determination that the visa applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and ... there is no additional requirement that the applicant be a genuine student"? As studying in Australia would necessarily prolong Appellant's stay, was it wrong for AAT to reason that appellant wanted to prolong her stay? Was AAT required to make a finding in relation to each factor in Direction No 53?
Some of the questions to the Federal Court (FCA) were as follows:
Question 1: Was the Tribunal's approach wrong because "cl 572.223(1)(a) only requires a determination that the visa applicant intends genuinely to stay in Australia temporarily and ... there is no additional requirement that the applicant be a genuine student"?
Question 2: As undertaking a course of study in Australia would inevitably prolong the appellant’s stay in Australia, did the Tribunal make a jurisdictional error by relying on its finding that Appellant "was seeking to prolong her stay in Australia when concluding that she was not intending to stay in Australia temporarily"?
Question 3: In assessing whether cl 572.223(1)(a) was satisfied, was the Tribunal required to make a finding in relation to each matter identified in Direction No 53?
The FCA answered those questions as follows: