Taru (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, before Senior Member Justin Owen of the Tribunal. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The applicant was in immigration detention and did not respond to the Tribunal's communications or appear at the hearing.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant met the criteria for a Subclass 802 visa, specifically those relating to relationship status, engagement in full-time work, and undertaking full-time study since turning 18, as required by clauses 802.214 and 802.221(2)(b) of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal also considered the interpretation of "full-time study" and "reasonable time" in the context of the applicant's study history.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant met the criteria regarding relationship status and not being engaged in full-time work, the evidence did not establish that the applicant had undertaken a continuous period of full-time study since turning 18, as contemplated by clause 802.214(1)(c). The Tribunal noted that the applicant's study history included periods of part-time study and a short period of full-time study, which did not satisfy the requirement for a sustained course of full-time study. The Tribunal applied the principles from *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190 regarding the interpretation of "full-time study" and "reasonable time," concluding that the applicant's study pattern did not meet the legislative requirements.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, as the criteria for the visa were not met.