Pham (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the review applicant against the decision to refuse a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, subclass 101, for the visa applicant. The visa applicant was over 18 years of age and the primary issue revolved around whether she met the criteria for undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. The court was required to determine if the evidence presented satisfied the requirements of clause 101.211(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The court considered whether the visa applicant had, since turning 18 or within a reasonable period after completing the equivalent of Year 12, been undertaking a full-time course of study. The evidence indicated a gap in the applicant's studies between January 2013 and September 2014, during which she could not recall her activities. While the applicant provided documentation of studies at Phu Tho Vocational Training College from 2014 to 2017, the court found that the review applicant had not satisfied the Tribunal that the visa applicant had continuously undertaken a full-time course of study leading to a relevant qualification during the required period.

Consequently, the visa applicant was found not to satisfy clause 101.211(1)(c), nor clause 101.211(2) as she was not incapacitated for work. As the applicant did not meet the criteria under clause 101.211, she also failed to meet clause 101.221. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, finding that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for a Child (Subclass 101) visa, nor for an Adoption (Subclass 102) or Orphan Relative (Subclass 117) visa, as no claims or evidence were presented for those subclasses.