JIANG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, subclass 417, made by the applicant. The applicant sought review of the decision not to grant her this visa. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the specified work and remuneration requirements for the visa.

The Tribunal was required to determine two primary issues: firstly, whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for a period equivalent to at least three months of full-time work, as a holder of a previous subclass 417 visa; and secondly, whether the applicant had been remunerated for this work in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards. The applicable award for the applicant's work was the Horticulture Award 2010.

The Tribunal considered the applicant's claims regarding her employment with AS BOTAK and Metropolitan Mik, as detailed in her Form 1263. A key piece of evidence was the applicant's bank statement for June 2016, which indicated travel between Tasmania and Queensland during a period the applicant claimed to have been working for AS BOTAK. The applicant later clarified her work periods, stating she had not been working between 1 June 2016 and 17 June 2016 due to travel. The Tribunal found that the applicant's evidence, particularly the bank statement and her subsequent explanation, raised doubts about the veracity of her claims regarding the duration and continuity of her specified work. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that for piecework rates to apply under the Horticulture Award 2010, a written agreement signed by both employer and employee was required, which was not established.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of the visa. The decision not to grant the subclass 417 Working Holiday visa was affirmed.