Do (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, where the applicant was over 18 years of age. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the specific criteria for this visa subclass, particularly concerning their study status and relationship history.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 101.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which apply to applicants over 18. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant met the criteria relating to their relationship status, engagement in full-time work, and undertaking a full-time course of study since turning 18, and whether these criteria continued to be met at the time of the decision as required by clause 101.221(2)(b).

The Tribunal reasoned that while the applicant met the requirements regarding their relationship status and not being engaged in full-time work, they failed to satisfy the full-time study requirement. The Tribunal noted that clause 101.213(1)(c) contemplates a continuous period of full-time study or a reasonable time after completing secondary education. Citing precedent from *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190, the Tribunal considered the applicant's activities and the reasons for any gaps in study. Furthermore, applying the principles from *Hussain v MIBP* [2017] FCCA 3247 and *Opoku-Ware v MIBP* (2015) 297 FLR 416, the Tribunal found that the applicant's conduct, characterised as a whole, did not demonstrate they had been undertaking relevant study continuously until the time of the decision, nor were they studying at the time of the decision.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 101 visa were not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.