CHOI (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The applicant sought to satisfy a requirement for a second such visa, which mandated the completion of three months of "specified work" in regional Australia. The applicant claimed to have undertaken this work with Farm Highway Pty Ltd between June and September 2016.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had met the criteria for the visa, specifically whether he had performed three months of specified work in regional Australia. This required the Tribunal to determine if the applicant had been remunerated for his work in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards, as stipulated by clause 417.221 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that this remuneration requirement was not met.

The Tribunal considered evidence including payslips, a piecework agreement, and bank statements. While the applicant provided numerous payslips for the period in question, the Tribunal noted that the remuneration varied significantly week by week. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not satisfied clause 417.211(5) of the Regulations, finding that the remuneration received did not meet the standards required by Australian legislation and awards. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa.