Modica (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by a visa applicant against the decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to affirm the refusal of a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, specifically Subclass 101. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant, who had turned 18 prior to the application, had met the criteria for full-time study as required by the relevant migration regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the visa applicant had fulfilled the criteria relating to full-time study under cl.101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations, both at the time of application and at the time of the decision. This involved assessing whether, since turning 18, the applicant had been undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification, and whether this study had continued to be undertaken at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's stated study history, which included an English course from 2013 to 2014 and a health care services course from January to October 2017, was insufficient to meet the requirements. The Tribunal noted significant gaps in the applicant's study history and a lack of explanation for these periods. Furthermore, evidence provided only confirmed employment for a limited period in 2015, not continuous study. Applying the principles from cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* and *Hussain v MIBP*, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's conduct, characterised as a whole, did not demonstrate the undertaking of relevant full-time study.

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