At Kris Ahn Lawyers, we are committed to delivering exceptional results, especially in the most complex and challenging immigration cases. This case study highlights how our Accredited Specialist in Immigration Law, Kris Ahn, and our highly skilled lawyer, Daman Sharma, successfully helped an applicant overturn a student visa refusal through a winning ART appeal, with invaluable support from our dedicated assistant, Elaine Ong.

Background

A South Korean applicant, who arrived in Australia in 2019 on a Working Holiday Visa (Subclass 417), initially enrolled in Chemical Engineering in his home country. However, after discovering a passion for the culinary arts, he shifted to part-time work in hospitality. To formalise this career change, he enrolled in a Certificate IV in Kitchen Management and a Diploma of Hospitality Management in Brisbane.

Unfortunately, his student visa (Subclass 500) application was refused because he failed to meet the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement. The refusal was based on weak ties to his home country, doubts about the value of his studies for future employment, and insufficient justification for his career transition. Seeking to overturn the decision, the applicant approached Kris Ahn Lawyers to challenge the refusal through the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART).

Critical Reasons for the Student Visa Refusal

The Department of Home Affairs refused the student visa application under clause 500.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), stating the applicant did not meet the Genuine Temporary Entrant (GTE) requirement. The key reasons for refusal included:

1. Lack of Economic and Personal Ties to Home Country

• The applicant did not demonstrate strong economic ties to South Korea, such as employment, assets, or financial commitments.
• Although the applicant had family ties, the Department found these insufficient to establish a strong incentive to return home after completing his studies.

2. Concerns About Study Intentions

• The applicant had not provided sufficient evidence that he had thoroughly researched study options in South Korea or other countries before choosing Australia.
• The Department questioned whether the applicant had a clear understanding of his potential circumstances in Australia, such as whether he was using the student visa to maintain ongoing residence rather than for the purpose of study.

3. Doubt Over the Course’s Value to Future Employment

• The applicant stated that he would return to South Korea and work as a chef, but did not provide convincing evidence of job opportunities in South Korea that required an Australian qualification.
• The Department was not satisfied that the course would significantly improve the applicant’s career prospects.
• The high cost of studying in Australia was considered unlikely to be offset by the potential income in the applicant’s expected field of work.

4. Insufficient Justification for Career Change

• The applicant did not clearly explain why he was transitioning from Chemical Engineering to Hospitality or how this change would benefit him in his home country.
• The Department viewed this as an indication that the applicant’s primary motivation may not be the quality of education but rather staying in Australia.

5. Lack of a Strong GTE Statement

• The Department noted that the applicant had not provided a compelling statement explaining how his course would lead to meaningful employment in South Korea.
• This raised concerns that the applicant may be using the student visa to prolong his stay in Australia rather than for genuine study purposes.

Our Approach: Strategic Expertise to Build a Strong Case

At Kris Ahn Lawyers, we don’t just respond to refusals – we proactively build winning cases. Our team goes beyond standard appeal strategies, taking extra measures to secure outcomes. For this case, we conducted an extensive review of Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) and AAT decisions, identifying patterns in affirmed refusals and successful remittals.

This in-depth analysis enabled us to proactively address all key reasons for refusal and ensure the ART had a clear and compelling case for approving the appeal.

Our approach was meticulously structured, incorporating:

1. ART & AAT Decision Analysis – Strategic Case Building

We undertook comprehensive research into past ART and AAT decisions, compiling a detailed analysis of cases that had been affirmed and remitted.

• We identified the key factors that led to refusals, such as inconsistent study history, economic incentives to stay in Australia, and a lack of strong ties to the home country.
• We shaped our submission around successful case precedents, ensuring our arguments were aligned with ART rulings that resulted in visa approvals.
• Our insights formed the backbone of our case, demonstrating that the applicant’s study path and career aspirations were consistent with genuine student visa requirements.

This is a mere instance of the initiative we take at KAL to pre-emptively counter the common pitfalls that lead to visa rejections.

2. High-Impact Legal Submissions – Clarifying the Case

We prepared a tailored, strategic submission that directly addressed the ART’s concerns in a clear and persuasive manner.

• We demonstrated that the applicant had a legitimate study plan by aligning their education history, career aspirations, and study choices with the requirements of Australian migration law.
• We proactively countered every point of concern, ensuring there was no room for doubt about the applicant’s eligibility.
• The ART Member complimented our submission, noting that it clarified key issues and significantly expedited the decision-making process.

3. Demonstrating Genuine Study Intentions – Our Approach

Rather than relying on generic arguments, we provided concrete evidence of our client’s genuine intention to study.

• We showed the applicant’s academic commitment by providing a structured study timeline that detailed his progression and achievements in his current course.
• We proved that the career shift was justified by documenting his prior work experience in hospitality and his growing professional expertise in the industry.
• We demonstrated the necessity of studying in Australia by comparing South Korea’s culinary education system with Australia’s internationally recognised hospitality qualifications, proving that Australia offered superior training and career prospects.

4. Market Research & Business Plan – Building a Future Roadmap

We didn’t just rely on the applicant’s intentions—we built the applicant’s case for him.

• We conducted market research on South Korea’s hospitality industry, showcasing how an Australian qualification would give the applicant a competitive advantage.
• We developed a comprehensive career roadmap, including an industry-focused business plan that detailed how the applicant’s skills would be applied upon returning home.
• We linked the applicant’s studies to real-world employment prospects, ensuring that his course was seen as a steppingstone to a defined career path, not just a means of staying in Australia.

5. Addressing Concerns About Economic Incentives to Stay in Australia

• We proved that the applicant’s part-time employment was necessary for study-related expenses, not an indication of long-term settlement intent.
• We eliminated the risk of perceived economic dependence on Australia by showcasing family financial support, a clear career plan, and limited local economic ties.

Outcome: A Successful ART Appeal

On 7 February 2025, the ART ruled in favour of the applicant, determining that the applicant met the GTE requirement and remitting the application to the Department of Home Affairs for reconsideration. The Tribunal’s decision also resulted in a partial refund of the application fee ($1687.00).

Key Factors Strengthening the Applicant’s Case

• Strong academic progress and course consistency.
• Clear career pathway and relevance of studies to future employment.
• Compliance with visa conditions and no adverse immigration history.
• Financial support and family ties in the home country.
• Limited economic incentive to remain in Australia in the long term.

How Kris Ahn Lawyers Can Assist

At Kris Ahn Lawyers, we take extra measures to secure outcomes – our work doesn’t stop at drafting standard submissions. We:

• Analyse Tribunal Decisions: Our team studies ART & AAT cases to build the strongest case possible.
• Create Market Research & Business Plans: We tailor submissions with real-world data to strengthen your career claims.
• Prepare High-Impact Legal Submissions: Our submissions are designed to address weaknesses proactively and clarify key issues for Tribunal Members.
• Deliver Strategic Representation: Our experience at the Administrative Review Tribunal (ART) and the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) ensures expert advocacy.

If you are facing a student visa refusal or need assistance with your GTE requirements, contact Kris Ahn Lawyers today for expert guidance.

Disclaimer: Not Legal Advice

The information provided in this blog post/article is for general informational purposes only. It does not constitute legal advice or create a representative-client relationship. While we strive to provide accurate and up-to-date information, the content may not reflect the most current legal developments or specific circumstances.

Do not rely solely on the information presented here – but please book in a consultation with us to see how you this information applies to you and may benefit you. Any reliance on the material in this post is at your own risk.

Australian immigration law is arguably one of the most complex laws in Australia. Seek professional legal advice tailored to your individual needs before making any decisions based on the content of this post.