TRAN (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of a visa applicant seeking a Child (Migrant) (Class AH) visa, Subclass 101. The primary dispute concerned whether the applicant, having turned 18, met the additional criteria for the visa, specifically the requirement to be engaged in full-time study as stipulated by clause 101.213(c) of the Migration Regulations. These criteria, including the full-time study requirement, must continue to be met at the time of the decision, as per clause 101.221(2)(b).

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had been engaged in full-time study since turning 18, or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, undertaking a course leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. The Tribunal also considered whether the applicant met the other criteria for applicants over 18, namely not being engaged to be married or having a spouse or de facto partner, and not being engaged in full-time work, and whether these conditions continued to be met at the time of the decision.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 101.213(1)(c) contemplates a single full-time course of study, referencing the principles from *Sok v MIMIA* [2005] FMCA 190 regarding the interpretation of "reasonable time" and the nature of study. The Tribunal found no information suggesting the applicant had been incapacitated for work. While the applicant had provided information about resitting an examination and plans to commence a Master's degree, the Tribunal concluded that the provided information did not demonstrate that the applicant had been undertaking a full-time course of study as required by the regulations at the relevant times. The Tribunal also noted that no claims were advanced regarding other visa subclasses within Class AH.

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.