Roa (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Minister not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802. The applicant, who was over 18 years of age, sought to satisfy the criteria for the visa by demonstrating full-time study and dependence on a parent.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the requirements for the Subclass 802 visa, specifically concerning full-time study and dependence. The applicant had completed three years of university study but had a 15-month gap in their studies. Evidence of financial transfers was presented to support the claim of dependence.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of the visa. While the applicant had undertaken university study, the significant gap in their education raised questions about their continued full-time study status. The Tribunal concluded that, based on the evidence before it, the applicant had not established that they were still undertaking full-time study or were dependent on a parent in a manner that satisfied the visa requirements. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision to refuse the visa.