De Stael Von Holstein (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant claimed to have completed the required 88 days of specified work in regional Australia, which is a condition for this visa subclass. The dispute centred on whether the total period of work undertaken by the applicant was equivalent to at least three months of full-time employment, as stipulated by the visa requirements.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant had satisfied the requirement of carrying out specified work in regional Australia for a period equivalent to at least three months of full-time work. This involved assessing the nature of the work performed, the duration of employment with various employers, and whether this equated to the mandated full-time equivalent. The Tribunal also had to consider the definition of "specified work" and "regional Australia" as per the relevant ministerial instrument, IMMI 08/048, and the interpretation of "3 months" in the context of visa regulations.

The Tribunal accepted that the applicant had undertaken specified work in regional Australia, as defined by IMMI 08/048, with employers such as Australian Fresh Salads Pty Ltd, FS Peacock, Bream Creek Vineyard, and G.A Dinc & Z Karacam. However, the crucial determination was whether the total duration of this work, even if it amounted to 91 days according to the employers' declarations, was equivalent to three months of full-time work. The Tribunal referred to departmental guidelines suggesting that "3 months" is typically interpreted as 88 days and that the work should be the equivalent of full-time employment for the relevant employer, region, and industry. Despite the applicant's claimed 91 days of work, the Tribunal concluded that this did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 417 Working Holiday visa, finding that the applicant had not met the requirement for the specified period of full-time equivalent work in regional Australia.