Clazie (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant sought to satisfy the criteria for this visa, which included undertaking a period of specified work in regional Australia. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant's employment history met the visa requirements for this specified work.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia, as defined by clause 417.211(5) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause mandates that an applicant must have completed a total period of work equivalent to at least three months of full-time work in regional Australia while holding a Subclass 417 visa, and must have been remunerated accordingly. The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant's stated work period met this threshold, considering their travel movements in and out of Australia.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's documented travel history, which indicated multiple departures from and re-entries into Australia during the period they claimed to have undertaken specified work. Based on these movements, the Tribunal calculated that the applicant could have worked in regional Australia for a maximum of 25 days. This period was found to be significantly less than the minimum requirement of 88 days (equivalent to three months full-time work) stipulated by the visa subclass. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not satisfy the criteria for the grant of the visa.

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