Pantollano (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant, having turned 18, had met the requirement of undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification, either since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Australian Year 12. The applicant had not claimed to be incapacitated for work.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had been undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution since turning 18, or within six months or a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Australian Year 12, and if this requirement continued to be met at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also had to consider what constituted a "reasonable time" in this context, taking into account surrounding circumstances, activities undertaken, and reasons for any lack of relevant activity.

The Tribunal reasoned that the criteria for a Subclass 101 visa, specifically clause 101.213(1)(c), required the applicant to have been undertaking full-time study. This requirement, if applicable, must continue to be met at the time of the decision, as per clause 101.221(2)(b). The Tribunal noted that the applicant had engaged in a one-month barista course for personal and financial reasons, but found a lack of evidence to support claims of incapacity or that this constituted full-time study in the manner contemplated by the legislation. The Tribunal concluded that there were periods since the applicant turned 18 where they were not engaged in full-time study, and that the applicant was not studying at the time of the decision.

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 visa were not met.