Ruan (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by the review applicant, the father of the visa applicant, against a decision of the Migration Review Tribunal. The dispute centred on whether the visa applicant had met the study requirement for a Subclass 101 (Child) visa, specifically whether she had undertaken eligible full-time study within a reasonable time of completing her secondary education.

The primary legal issue before the court was to determine what constituted a "reasonable time" for the visa applicant to commence eligible full-time study, as required by clause 101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations. This involved considering the surrounding circumstances, including the actual time elapsed, the activities undertaken during that period, their purpose, and the reasons for any inaction, drawing on principles established in cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190.

The Tribunal found that the visa applicant had consistently intended to pursue full-time study and had enrolled in a university course in China shortly after completing high school in 2011, graduating in 2014. While a subsequent dispute between her divorced parents regarding tuition fees and living expenses delayed her enrolment in further studies, the Tribunal was satisfied that she had independently undertaken study at the Beijing Xinfengshang Wedding Training Institute between October 2014 and September 2015. The Tribunal concluded that the steps taken by both the applicant and her father were consistently aimed at facilitating her full-time study, and in the specific circumstances of this case, the period taken to commence her subsequent interior design course at the Beijing Professional Business Institute was reasonable and fulfilled the requirements of clause 101.213(1)(c). The court remitted the decision for reconsideration.