Amida (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, before the Tribunal. The applicant, who had turned 18 at the time of the application, sought to have a decision not to grant the visa reviewed. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the specific study requirements stipulated for applicants over the age of 18.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria for a Subclass 802 visa, particularly focusing on the requirement that applicants over 18 must have been undertaking a full-time course of study since turning 18, or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. This requirement, along with others relating to relationship status and full-time work, needed to be met at the time of application and continue to be met at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant met the criteria regarding relationship status and not being engaged in full-time work, they failed to satisfy the full-time study requirement. The evidence indicated that the applicant was 21 years old at the time of application and had not been engaged in a full-time course of study as required by clause 802.214(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations. 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 continuous nature of study required.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, as the criteria for the visa were not met.