Hayag (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, made by Don Franco Hayag. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant, who was over 18 years of age at the time of application, met the full-time study requirements stipulated by the visa subclass. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had, at the time the application was lodged, been validly enrolled in and actively participating in a full-time post-secondary course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. Furthermore, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant had been undertaking such a course since turning 18, or had commenced studies within a reasonable period after completing secondary education, and whether these requirements continued to be met at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that to satisfy clause 101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations, the applicant needed to provide evidence of both enrolment and active participation in a full-time course of study. The Tribunal reviewed extensive documentary evidence, including academic transcripts, correspondence, and financial transaction reports. It noted a significant study gap of approximately four years after the applicant turned 18, which was not adequately explained or bridged by the evidence presented. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated that they were actively participating in a full-time course of study as required by the regulations.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, as the applicant had not met the relevant criteria. No claims were advanced in respect of other visa subclasses within Class AH.