Sangsuwan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, made by an applicant who had turned 18. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant continued to meet the specific criteria for this visa subclass at the time of the decision, particularly concerning their study status.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 101.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This regulation mandates that if a visa applicant is over 18, they must continue to meet certain study-related criteria, as outlined in regulation 101.213(1)(c), from the time of application until the time of the decision. The central question was whether the applicant had been undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification, and whether this status persisted at the time the decision was made.

The Tribunal reasoned that for an applicant over 18, the requirement to be undertaking a full-time course of study must be met both at the time of application and at the time of the decision. The applicant had completed secondary schooling in 2013 and a Bachelor of Business Administration in May 2016. Following this, the applicant was employed from September 2016 to June 2017. The Tribunal gave no weight to two short cooking classes as they were not considered a full-time course of study leading to a relevant qualification. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that the applicant was not studying at the time of the decision, and had been employed after completing tertiary studies. Therefore, the applicant did not meet the ongoing study requirement stipulated by regulation 101.221(2)(b).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, as the necessary criteria were not met.