Kim (Migration)
Case
•
[2018] AATA 1445
•5 April 2018
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Kim (Migration) [2018] AATA 1445
[2018] AATA 1445
5 April 2018
CaseChat Overview and Summary
The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa made by the applicant, Kim. The dispute concerned whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth), which relates to specific work undertaken in Australia.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant had met the criteria stipulated in clause 417.211(5) of the Regulations. This clause typically requires evidence of specific types of work, such as that performed under a piecework agreement, and the presentation of payslips that align with such an agreement.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed met the requirements of clause 417.211(5). Based on this finding, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered to meet the specified criteria for the Subclass 417 visa.
The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine whether the applicant had met the criteria stipulated in clause 417.211(5) of the Regulations. This clause typically requires evidence of specific types of work, such as that performed under a piecework agreement, and the presentation of payslips that align with such an agreement.
The Tribunal found that the applicant had indeed met the requirements of clause 417.211(5). Based on this finding, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. The Tribunal directed that the applicant be considered to meet the specified criteria for the Subclass 417 visa.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
-
Remedies
-
Statutory Construction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Kim (Migration) [2018] AATA 1445
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
0
Statutory Material Cited
0