Wu (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of an applicant for a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa, Subclass 417. The central dispute concerned whether the applicant had fulfilled the requirements for specified work in regional Australia and had been remunerated in accordance with relevant Australian legislation and awards.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had completed at least three months of full-time equivalent specified work in regional Australia while holding a Subclass 417 visa, and if the remuneration received for this work, from 1 December 2015 onwards, complied with Australian legislation and awards. The definition of "specified work" and "regional Australia" were to be interpreted by reference to IMMI 17/018.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had provided fortnightly payslips indicating payment at the minimum award level, but these were inconsistent with his bank statements. The bank statements did not show regular fortnightly deposits correlating with the payslip amounts or issue dates. Furthermore, the applicant stated he was employed by labour hire agencies rather than directly by the nominated employer, and could not produce employment contracts, despite acknowledging their existence. Due to these discrepancies and the failure to provide sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims regarding remuneration and employment, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant did not meet the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the applicant a Working Holiday (Temporary) (Class TZ) visa.