Harradi (Migration)

The applicant, Harradi, sought judicial review of a decision by the delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs to affirm the refusal of a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had satisfied the requirement of having completed at least three months of full-time work. The decision under review was affirmed by the Administrative Appeals Tribunal. The matter came before Holub J of the Federal Circuit and Family Court of Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the Tribunal had erred in law in its interpretation and application of the "three months full time work" requirement for the subclass 417 visa. Specifically, the Court had to determine if the Tribunal had correctly assessed whether the applicant's period of work, which was stated as 73 days, met this criterion.

Holub J found that the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the legislative instrument. The Court noted that the instrument required a period of "at least three months" of full-time work. The applicant's stated period of 73 days, when considered in light of the common understanding of "three months" in this context (typically 90 or 91 days), did not meet the minimum requirement. The Tribunal's finding that the applicant had not satisfied this condition was therefore upheld.

The application for judicial review was dismissed.