1508322 (MIGRATION)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 887 Skilled (Residence) visa. The applicant sought to demonstrate that she had worked full-time in a specified regional area for at least one year, as required by clause 887.213 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The central dispute revolved around whether a "specified regional area" was applicable to the applicant's circumstances, given the conditions attached to her Subclass 475 visa, which she held at the time of her Subclass 887 application. The Tribunal was required to determine the correct interpretation of the definition of "specified regional area" under clause 887.111 and its interaction with the conditions that must be imposed on a Subclass 475 visa under clause 475.6 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

The Tribunal considered whether the applicant's Subclass 475 visa was subject to either Condition 8549 or Condition 8539, as these conditions are determinative of the applicable "specified regional area" under clause 887.111. While the Department's movement records did not indicate that these conditions were imposed, the Tribunal noted that clause 475.6 of Schedule 2 stipulated that these conditions "must be imposed" depending on the nature of the sponsorship. Drawing on the authority of *Krummrey v MIMIA* [2005] FCAFC 258, the Tribunal reasoned that the language "must be imposed" indicated an intention that the visa was subject to these conditions by operation of the Regulations, rather than requiring a separate act of imposition by the Minister.

Given this interpretation, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's Subclass 475 visa was indeed subject to either Condition 8549 or 8539, thereby establishing a "specified regional area" applicable to her situation. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Subclass 887 visa for reconsideration by the Minister, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clauses 887.212 and 887.213 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.