Makwati (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, where the visa applicant was over 18 years of age. The applicant had completed a Bachelor's degree, was not undertaking a full-time course of study, was not working, and had no incapacity for work. The applicant lived with their mother in Zimbabwe, who was now deceased. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the relevant criteria for the visa.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of clause 101.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant, having turned 18, had, since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, been undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. This requirement, as stipulated by clause 101.221(2)(b), must continue to be met at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had completed their studies by August 2014, which was one year and six months prior to the application being filed. The applicant had not undertaken any postgraduate studies or any other full-time course of study since then. The Tribunal noted that the applicant claimed to be financially dependent on the review applicant and had not worked. Applying the principles from cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* and *Hussain v MIBP*, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not been undertaking a full-time course of study as required by the regulations, nor were they incapacitated for work.

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