Chheom (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, subclass 802, by an applicant who had turned 18. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) was required to determine whether the applicant met the relevant criteria for the visa, specifically concerning their relationship status, employment, and study. The applicant had completed Year 10 in their home country and undertaken one vocational education and training course in Australia, but was not currently studying and was working part-time.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 802.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which stipulated that an applicant over 18 must not be engaged to be married or have a spouse or de facto partner, must not be engaged in full-time work, and must have, since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing Year 12, been undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. The Tribunal also had to consider whether these criteria continued to be met at the time of the decision, as required by clause 802.221(2)(b).

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the criteria regarding relationship status and not being engaged in full-time work, based on their confirmation at the hearing. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant failed to meet the full-time study requirement. The applicant had not been undertaking a full-time course of study since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing Year 12, and was not currently studying. The Tribunal noted that the provision contemplated a single full-time course of study, referencing the principles in *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, as the applicant did not meet all the necessary criteria for the grant of the visa.