Nowitzki (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by Ms. Nowitzki for review of a decision concerning her Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The applicant sought to establish that she had completed three months of specified work in a regional area while holding her first Subclass 417 visa, a requirement for her current visa application. The primary dispute centred on whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy the Tribunal of her eligible regional work with multiple employers.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had carried out the requisite specified work in regional Australia for the purposes of the Subclass 417 visa. This involved assessing the documentary evidence provided by the applicant, including statutory declarations, letters from employers, tax returns, bank statements, and border passes, to determine if it sufficiently substantiated her claims of employment and the nature of that employment. The Tribunal also had to consider the impact of the unavailability of one employer due to personal circumstances on the assessment of the evidence.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the initial departmental decision accepted only one period of employment, the additional evidence submitted by the applicant before the Tribunal, including a statutory declaration and corroborating letters and statements from other employers, provided a more complete picture. Crucially, the Tribunal noted that one employer, Margot Rees, was unavailable to provide further documentation due to her husband's serious illness and hospitalisation. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence, including a letter from a related business owner and her own statutory declaration, to satisfy the requirement of having completed 92 days of specified work in a regional area. The Tribunal was satisfied that the work undertaken met the definition of 'specified work' and was performed in a regional area, and that the applicant was remunerated in accordance with Australian legislation.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the visa to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant had met the criteria under clause 417.211(5) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The Minister was to consider the remaining criteria for the Subclass 417 visa.