Lu (Migration)

[2021] AATA 960

Lu (Migration) [2021] AATA 960 (19 February 2021)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Ming Ge Lu

CASE NUMBER:  2000342

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/6531320

MEMBER:Nora Lamont

DATE:19 February 2021

PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne

DECISION:The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 417 visa:

·cl.417.211(6)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

Statement made on 19 February 2021 at 12:36pm

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa – Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) – specified work in regional Australia – completed the required amount of work – remuneration in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), ss 65, 360
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), Schedule 2, cl 417.211

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to refuse to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The applicant applied for the visa on 7 December 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visa on 7 January 2020.

2. The delegate made the decision on the basis that evidence supporting his work as required (pay slips) was not provided as required to satisfy a criterion for the grant of the visa under the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).

3. On 24 August 2020 the Tribunal received all payslips from August 2019 to March 2020 from Galati Nominees PTY LTD showing that the applicant did complete the required amount of work and was remunerated as required in the relevant legislation. In light of the new evidence received, the Tribunal is satisfied that the criterion is met and has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

4. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary, as it was able to find in favour of the applicant on the basis of the material before it, pursuant to s.360(2)(a) of the Act.

   DECISION

5. The Tribunal remits the application for reconsideration, with the direction that the applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 417 visa:

   ·cl.417.211(6)(d) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations

   Nora Lamont
   Member