Lynch (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, where the applicant, Mr. Lynch, sought review of the Department's decision to refuse his visa application. The core dispute revolved around whether the applicant had fulfilled the requirement of undertaking at least three months of specified work in regional Australia while holding a Subclass 417 visa, as mandated by clause 417.211(5) of the relevant legislative instrument. The review was conducted by the Tribunal.

The legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for a total period of at least three months, and whether he had been remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The Tribunal was required to interpret clause 417.211(5) and the applicable instrument, IMMI 17/018, which defined "specified work" and "regional Australia." The Department's refusal was based on the applicant not having completed the minimum three-month work period.

The Tribunal reasoned that the legislation, specifically clause 417.211(5), required a total period of at least three months of specified work. The applicant acknowledged working only 40 days, albeit over a 15-week period, packing bananas in the Innisfail region. While the applicant claimed to have received misinformation suggesting part-time work in that region would suffice, the Tribunal found no provision in the legislation allowing for a reduced work period based on geographical location or part-time engagement. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant's 40 days of work did not meet the minimum three-month requirement.

Accordingly, the Tribunal affirmed the Department's decision not to grant the applicant the Working Holiday visa, as he failed to satisfy the criteria stipulated in clause 417.211(5)(2)(b).