CHUANG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant sought review of a decision not to grant the visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had completed the required three months of specified work in a regional area of Australia, a prerequisite for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had satisfied the criteria for the grant of the visa, specifically clause 417.211, which mandates that an applicant must have completed at least three months of specified work in a regional area of Australia while holding a Subclass 417 visa. This work must have been remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The definition of "specified work" and "regional Australia" were to be determined by reference to a ministerial instrument.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided any documentary evidence to substantiate her claim of completing the specified work. Furthermore, the applicant herself admitted in writing to the Tribunal that she had not actually completed the work described in her visa application. She alleged that a person purporting to be a Migration Agent had falsified information on her application. In light of the absence of evidence and the applicant's own admission, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the criteria under clause 417.211(5).

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