CHANG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review by the applicant, Chang, of a decision not to grant her a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements for a second Subclass 417 visa, specifically concerning the completion of specified work in regional Australia. The decision was made by the Tribunal, presided over by Member Christine Cody.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia, as required by clause 417.211 of the Migration Regulations. This clause mandates that an applicant must have completed at least three months of full-time equivalent specified work in regional Australia while holding a Subclass 417 visa, and have been remunerated in accordance with Australian law and awards. The Tribunal also had to consider whether to exercise its discretion to adjourn the review further, given the applicant's failure to provide requested information.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had failed to provide any evidence to substantiate her claim of having worked as a fruit picker in regional Australia for the required period. Despite the applicant's assertion of employment from 7 November 2016 to 20 February 2017, no supporting documentation was submitted to the Department or the Tribunal. Furthermore, the applicant did not respond to the Tribunal's specific requests for information. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that it was not satisfied, on the evidence before it, that the applicant had met the criteria for the grant of the visa. The Tribunal also determined that the applicant had been afforded a fair opportunity to provide the necessary information and had not responded, thus declining to grant a further adjournment.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417.