Direction 69. GTE – “must” to “should” 

Paramjeet Kaur v Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs [2022] FCA 670 – report by Staff Writer

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is image.png
Migration Case Law Updates

A few words from the Founder of VISA, Mr Anthony Robinson. BA. LLB. GDLP. LLM. Master Migration Lawyer and Senior Fellow.

We are very excited about our latest venture. As many may know VISA has recently entered the publishing business with the production of our Industry Newsletter: “Migration Case Law Updates“. VISA, through its team of staff writers and researchers, hopes to produce high quality, regular case reports and articles of interest for those professionals working in the Migration and Refugee legal space or those studying Immigration or the emerging field of Crimmigration.

It should also be noted, that in keeping with VISA’s philosophy of providing superior member benefits at an extremely cost effective prices – the Migration Case Law Updates, unlike other similar newsletters that charge up to $500 per yearly subscription, the Migration Case Law Updates is FREE when you join VISA!

In this article the crew at “Migration Case Law Updates tackle a case that give a glimpse into what the Court is thinking about the difference in the words “must” and “should” in the old and new direction, particularly – does the change have any real world impacts for clients facing refusal due to GTE.

We also thank our Corporate Sponsors LexisNexis for this report and remember when you join VISA you can enjoy 10% of subscription to LexisNexis Practical Guidance – Immigration Law .

Date: 6 June 2022 Court: Federal Court of Australia Judge(s): Middleton J Judgment date: 10 June 2022

MIGRATION — student visa application — genuine temporary entrant criterion — interpretation of Ministerial Direction No 69 — Kaur v Minister for Home Affairs [2019] FCA 2026 followed — appeal from the Federal Circuit Court of Australia — whether Administrative Appeals Tribunal misconstrued or misapplied Ministerial Direction No 69 — whether illogicality or irrationality in reasoning


The appellants are citizens of India. The first appellant arrived in Australia in 2007 holding a student visa. The second and third Appellants are her family. Between 2007 and 2017, the first applicant completed a series of educational courses in Australia.

IF you wish to continue reading this article join VISA

Be advised this is general information only and is not intended to be relied upon as legal advice. VISA makes no warrantees or guarantees of the information on this webpage. For all legal issues we urge you to contact our Corporate Partners AR LAW SERVICES: Master Migration & Regulatory Lawyers. Specialist Crimmigration Law Firm.

AR LAW SERVICES: Master Migration & Regulatory Lawyers
Join VISA to enjoy 10% of subscription to LexisNexis Practical Guidance – Immigration Law .

Leave a Reply