Veit (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application by an individual seeking a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa. The dispute centred on whether the applicant had fulfilled the requirement of performing at least three months of specified work in Australia and receiving appropriate remuneration for that work, as stipulated by the visa conditions.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the applicant had met the criteria outlined in clause 462.218 of the Migration Regulations 1994. Specifically, the Tribunal had to assess whether the applicant had carried out a period or periods of specified Subclass 462 work, that the total period was at least three months, and that remuneration was provided in accordance with Australian legislation and awards. The delegate had been satisfied with the remuneration evidence for one employer but not the other, leading to the refusal of the visa.

The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate the required period of specified work and remuneration. While the delegate had concerns regarding the evidence of payment from PK’s Resort Pty Ltd, the Tribunal reviewed the available material, including payslips, superannuation payments, and bank statements, and concluded that the applicant had been remunerated in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards for the work performed at both PK’s Resort and Snowman Employments Pty Ltd. The Tribunal also confirmed that the occupation of Kitchenhand met the definition of specified work for the Subclass 462 visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for the Subclass 462 visa to the Minister for reconsideration, with a direction that the applicant met the criteria under clause 462.218 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.