Saputra (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, made by the applicant, who had turned 18. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had undertaken continuous full-time study since turning 18, or within a reasonable period thereafter, as required by the visa criteria. The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the applicant's educational history, including completing junior high school in their home country before arriving in Australia on a visitor visa, undertaking English classes due to ineligibility for TAFE, and subsequently enrolling in secondary education.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant met the criteria for being a "dependent child" and whether they had undertaken continuous full-time study since turning 18. Specifically, the Tribunal had to determine if the applicant was reliant on their mother for financial and emotional support, and if there had been a break in their secondary studies that would disqualify them from meeting the continuous study requirement. The Tribunal also had to consider the statutory construction of the relevant clauses concerning the timing of the study requirement, particularly whether a break occurred between secondary and post-secondary studies.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant was a dependent child, finding as a fact that the applicant relied on their mother for both financial and emotional support, with the mother providing for accommodation, food, schooling, and clothing expenses. The Tribunal also concluded that the applicant's educational pathway, which involved a break during secondary studies but not between secondary and post-secondary education, did not disqualify them from meeting the continuous study requirement as interpreted by the Tribunal. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Minister, directing that the applicant met specific criteria related to the visa subclass.