Uro (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa, Subclass 802, brought by an applicant who had turned 18. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the full-time study requirements stipulated by the Migration Regulations 1994. The applicant, who was 20 years old at the time of application, was not enrolled in full-time study and argued financial hardship. The decision was made by Member Helena Claringbold.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant, having turned 18, had satisfied the requirements of cl.802.214(1)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that an applicant, since turning 18 or within a reasonable time after completing the equivalent of Year 12, must have been undertaking a full-time course of study at an educational institution leading to a professional, trade, or vocational qualification. The Tribunal also considered whether the exception in cl.802.214(2), relating to incapacitation for work, applied.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not met the full-time study requirement as stipulated by cl.802.214(1)(c). The evidence indicated that the applicant was not enrolled in such a course at the time of application or decision. Furthermore, the Tribunal found that the applicant did not fall within the exception provided by cl.802.214(2), as there was no evidence to suggest he was incapacitated for work due to bodily or mental functions. The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.