Sheriff v (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision concerning a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa to their daughter.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant had met the full-time study requirement under clause 101.213(1)(c) of the Migration Regulations. This clause requires that, after turning 18 or within a reasonable time of completing secondary education, the applicant must have been undertaking a full-time course of study leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification, and this requirement must continue to be met at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered the meaning of "reasonable time" in this context, which involves examining the surrounding circumstances, including the activities undertaken and the reasons for them.

The Tribunal reasoned that the visa applicant had not met the full-time study requirement. While acknowledging the applicant's circumstances, including the outbreak of Ebola in West Africa and the need to care for an ill father, the Tribunal found that these circumstances did not excuse the failure to commence a course of study within a reasonable period. The Tribunal applied the principles from cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* and *Hussain v MIBP*, emphasizing that the period from the commencement of study until the decision must be characterised as undertaking relevant study.

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