Griffin (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa application made by an applicant who had worked as a support officer for Bupa Medical Services. The core dispute concerned whether the applicant's work as a customer contact call centre support officer constituted "specified Subclass 417 work" as defined by the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) and associated legislative instruments.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had fulfilled the criteria for a Subclass 417 visa, specifically whether the work undertaken met the definition of "specified Subclass 417 work" as required by clause 417.211(6) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This involved interpreting legislative instrument LIN 20/182, which specified "critical COVID-19 work in the healthcare and medical sectors" and defined "support services" within that context, as well as the geographical scope for such work.

The Tribunal reasoned that while LIN 20/182 specified "critical COVID-19 work in the healthcare and medical sectors" and included "support services such as cleaning of medical and health care facilities and equipment," the applicant's role as a customer contact call centre support officer for Bupa Medical Services did not fall within the enumerated categories of specified work. Although the applicant's work was performed in Sydney between 6 July and 18 December 2020, while holding a second Subclass 417 visa, the Tribunal concluded that this role did not constitute the type of critical COVID-19 work or support services contemplated by the instrument.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, finding that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of the visa.