Erkaev (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant seeking a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the specified regional work requirement as stipulated by the relevant migration regulations.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant satisfied the criteria under clause 462.218, specifically whether they had carried out at least three months of "specified subclass 462 work" in a regional area while holding the visa, and if they had been remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The definition of "specified subclass 462 work" was also a key element, as outlined in Migration Instrument LIN 20/184, which included categories such as tourism and hospitality work.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the applicant's stated employment in the tourism and hospitality industry in Townsville, a postcode identified as regional. While the applicant initially claimed employment from June to September 2020 and later amended this to September to December 2020, the Tribunal examined the provided pay slips. The pay slips indicated that the applicant had only been remunerated for work performed between September and December 2020, which, when considered against the visa application date and the definition of specified work, did not meet the minimum three-month requirement.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant the Subclass 462 visa, finding that the applicant had not satisfied the specified regional work requirement.