Etheve (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a decision concerning an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant, Etheve, sought to have the decision not to grant the visa reviewed. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the requirements for specified work in regional Australia, specifically regarding remuneration.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for at least three months as the holder of a Subclass 417 visa, and crucially, whether she had been remunerated in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards. The applicable instrument defining "specified work" and "regional Australia" was LIN 20/103.

The Tribunal found that while the applicant's described duties corresponded with "plant and animal cultivation" and the work was performed in "regional Australia," the remuneration requirement was not met. Analysis of 16 payslips from Royally Group Pty Ltd against the applicant's bank statement revealed that nine payslips could not be substantiated by bank deposits. Of the remaining seven payslips, the corresponding payments were not made by Royally Group Pty Ltd, but rather by "CBA Commbank app" or "MEET GROUP PTY LTD." Further submissions indicated that some payments were allegedly made in cash by an individual named Corey, who was said to have been paid on the applicant's behalf, and that efforts to link MEET GROUP PTY LTD to Royally Group Pty Ltd were unsuccessful.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa. The decision under review, which affirmed the refusal to grant the Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, was therefore affirmed.