Stanta (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101, where the visa applicant was over 18 years of age at the time of the decision. The applicant sought review of the decision not to grant the visa. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met the relevant criteria for the visa, specifically concerning their relationship status, engagement in full-time work, and undertaking a full-time course of study.

The primary legal issue was whether the visa applicant satisfied the requirements of regulation 101.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which stipulate conditions for applicants over 18. This included demonstrating they were not engaged to be married or had a spouse or de facto partner, were not engaged in full-time work, and were undertaking a full-time course of study within a reasonable time of completing secondary education. Crucially, these criteria had to be met both at the time of application and at the time of the decision, as per regulation 101.221(2)(b).

The Tribunal found that the applicant met the criteria regarding relationship status and engagement in full-time work, as there was consistent evidence that the applicant had never been married or in a de facto relationship, and had never held full-time employment. However, the Tribunal determined that the applicant did not satisfy the requirement of undertaking a full-time course of study. While the applicant had commenced studies, these had subsequently become part-time and enrolment had ceased. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190 regarding the interpretation of "reasonable time" and the nature of a full-time course of study, concluding that the applicant's circumstances did not meet the regulatory requirements.

Consequently, 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.