CHONG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, made by a Malaysian national. The review applicant, the visa applicant's mother, resided in Australia as a permanent resident. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the visa applicant, who was over 18 years of age, met the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning his study and employment history since turning 18, and the consistency of evidence provided regarding his relationship status and financial support. The decision was made by the Tribunal.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 101.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to applicants over 18 years of age who have not undertaken full-time study since turning 18. This involved assessing whether periods of employment and internship, as claimed by the applicant, constituted full-time study or if they were genuine periods of work. Additionally, the Tribunal had to consider any contradictions in the evidence presented regarding the applicant's relationship status and the nature and extent of financial support provided by his mother.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It found that the visa applicant, who was 25 years old, had not met the criteria for the Subclass 101 visa. The evidence presented regarding his post-secondary education and subsequent employment or internships was inconsistent and did not demonstrate that he had undertaken full-time study since turning 18. Furthermore, there were discrepancies in the information provided about his relationship status and the financial support he received. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied the requirements of the visa.