TABANAO (Migration)

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

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the visa applicant, having turned 18, had, since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, been undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification, and whether this requirement continued to be met at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant was incapacitated for work due to loss of bodily or mental functions, which would exempt them from the study requirement.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not provided sufficient explanation for a gap in her studies. While the applicant claimed to have suffered bullying and stress, the Tribunal did not accept that this rendered her incapacitated for work. The Tribunal found that the period of time between completing Year 12 equivalent and the time of decision did not constitute a "reasonable time" for commencing or undertaking full-time study, nor was the applicant undertaking full-time study at the time of the decision. The Tribunal applied the principles from cases such as *Sok v MIMIA* and *Hussain v MIBP* regarding the interpretation of "reasonable time" and the continuous nature of the study requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa, as the applicant had failed to meet the criteria for a Subclass 101 visa. No claims were advanced in respect of other visa subclasses within Class AH.