Klug (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding a decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically Subclass 101. The review applicant, who was the visa applicant's stepfather, and the visa applicant's mother sought to demonstrate that the visa applicant was wholly or substantially reliant on them for financial support and was a dependent child of the sponsor.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 101 visa, particularly concerning his financial dependence on the sponsor and his engagement in full-time study. Key issues included the intermittent nature of the visa applicant's study, periods where he was not studying, his employment during these gaps, and his living arrangements, including renting his own apartment and being in a relationship.

The Tribunal considered evidence regarding the visa applicant's study history, which was marked by several interruptions. These interruptions were attributed to the visa applicant's confusion about his career path, financial difficulties experienced by his mother and stepfather, and his own decision to work. The Tribunal noted that the visa applicant had ceased studies for significant periods, including from December 2013 to January 2014, and again from mid-2016 to January 2018, during which time his mother stated she could not financially support him. The Tribunal found that the visa applicant's intermittent study pattern and periods of full-time work, coupled with his independent living arrangements and relationship status, indicated he was not wholly or substantially reliant on the sponsor for financial support as required by the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, as the necessary criteria were not met.