Casella (Migration)

The applicant sought judicial review of a decision made by the Migration Review Tribunal concerning his application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement of having undertaken at least three months of specified work in regional Australia while holding a subclass 417 visa and being remunerated in accordance with Australian law.

The legal issues before the court were whether the applicant had met the criteria under clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, specifically concerning the duration and nature of his work in regional Australia, and whether he had been appropriately remunerated for this work. The court was required to determine if the work undertaken by the applicant qualified as "specified work" and if the locations where he performed this work constituted "regional Australia" as defined by the relevant legislative instrument, the Migration (LIN20/103: Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa – Regional Australia and Specified Work) Instrument 2020.

The court considered the evidence presented by the applicant, including payslips, bank statements, and detailed submissions outlining the dates, locations, and nature of his employment. The court found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he had carried out specified work in regional postcodes, including Queensland postcodes 4670 and 4390, and that this work fell within the definition of specified work, such as harvesting and packing fruit and vegetables, and animal husbandry. The court also accepted that the applicant had been remunerated for this work.

Consequently, the court remitted the application for the visa to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for the subclass 417 visa.