Astin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant for a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa. The applicant's claim for the visa was based on having completed a specified period of regional work. The primary decision maker had refused the visa, finding that the applicant had not met the requirement of undertaking at least three months of specified Subclass 462 work after 18 November 2016.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant satisfied clause 462.218(b) of the Migration Regulations, which requires that if an applicant has previously held a Subclass 462 visa, they must have carried out a period or periods of specified Subclass 462 work after 18 November 2016, totalling at least three months and remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The applicant contended that the date requirement was not clearly communicated and that he had completed sufficient work to meet the extension requirements for his visa.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant's employment with Baybel Shearing from 25 August 2016 to 30 August 2016 could not be counted towards the requirement because it occurred before the specified date of 18 November 2016. When this period was excluded, the applicant had not accumulated the required three months of work after that date. The applicant's submissions regarding his understanding of the visa conditions and the timing of regulatory amendments did not alter the clear wording of the regulation. The Tribunal was therefore not satisfied that the applicant met clause 462.218(b).

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa.