Kingok (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The visa applicant, who had turned 18 at the time of application, claimed to be undertaking secondary study in Sudan, which was disrupted by government changes and civil unrest, leading to delays in enrolling in tertiary education. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant continued to satisfy the criteria for the visa at the time of the decision, particularly concerning the requirement to be undertaking a full-time course of study after turning 18.

The central legal issue was whether the visa applicant met the requirements of clause 101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which mandates that an applicant over 18 must have, since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, been undertaking a full-time course of study. This criterion must also be met at the time of the decision, as per clause 101.221(2)(b). The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding the disruption to his education in Sudan, including delays in receiving examination results and difficulties in enrolling in tertiary studies due to political instability and financial matters.

The Tribunal found a significant lack of documentary evidence to substantiate the claims made by the review applicant regarding the timing of key events, such as when the visa applicant commenced post-secondary study. While accepting that the visa applicant had completed secondary school in July 2019, the Tribunal was not satisfied that he had commenced post-secondary study within six months or a reasonable time thereafter. The Tribunal noted inconsistencies in the review applicant's testimony regarding the duration of the delay in receiving results and the reasons for the delay in university enrolment, shifting from claims of widespread protests to financial difficulties. Furthermore, the Tribunal gave little weight to the claim that the visa applicant's landlady had siphoned off funds, as there was no supporting evidence. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the visa applicant did not continue to satisfy the criterion in clause 101.213(1)(c).

As a result of these findings, the Tribunal determined that the visa applicant did not continue to satisfy the criterion in clause 101.213, and therefore, clause 101.221(2)(b) was not met. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa.