Alba (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal reviewed a decision concerning an application for a Child (Residence) (Class AH) visa, subclass 101. The applicant, Alba, sought this visa, but the primary issue revolved around whether she met the criteria specified in clause 101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which relates to full-time study.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Alba met the criteria for applicants over 18 years of age, specifically whether she had been undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification since turning 18, or within a reasonable time after completing Year 12. Crucially, this criterion, along with others, must continue to be met at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered whether Alba was incapacitated for work, which would exempt her from the study requirement.

The Tribunal noted that while the applicant met the criteria regarding relationship status and not being engaged in full-time work at the time of application, the evidence indicated she had not been undertaking full-time study since 2018. The Tribunal applied the principles from cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* and *Hussain v MIBP*, which clarify the interpretation of "reasonable time" and the need to assess the applicant's conduct as a whole from the commencement of study until the decision. The Tribunal found that the applicant was not studying at the time of the decision and had not been undertaking a full-time course of study as required by the regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Alba the Subclass 101 visa, as the criteria for its grant were not met. No claims were advanced in respect of other visa subclasses within Class AH.