Migration (Refund of Second Instalment of Visa Application Charge) Instrument (LIN 23/022) 2023

The instrument is short and tightly focused; it revolves around a small set of statutory and administrative concepts. Each concept is relevant to understanding the mechanism the instrument creates.

• Second instalment of the visa application charge. The instrument repeatedly identifies the object as the “second instalment of the visa application charge.” It does not set amounts, timing, or conditions for that charge; instead it identifies which Schedule 1 provisions are “the provisions … under which the second instalment … is payable.” The charge itself and its quantum remain governed by Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations and any other applicable charging rules outside this instrument.

• Specification of Schedule 1 provisions. The instrument exercises delegated power under paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994 to “specify … the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Regulations under which the second instalment … is payable.” In practice that means the Schedule to the instrument lists the relevant Schedule 1 items, by cross‑reference to the Migration Regulations (for example, item references such as “Item 1 of the table under paragraph 1104AA(2)(b)”, or “1114(2)(b)(i)”), and associates each cross‑reference with a plain language visa description and an administrative class code (for example, “Class EA”, “Class AN”, etc.).

• Refund entitlement under regulation 2.12H. The instrument contains a NOTE that reproduces the operative refund rule in reg 2.12H in summary form: “Regulation 2.12H specifies that the Minister must refund the amount paid by way of the second instalment ... if any of certain specified circumstances exist and a written request is received from a specified person.” LIN 23/022 does not itself define those “certain specified circumstances” nor the identity of the “specified person”; it simply links the Schedule 1 provisions to the instalment regime subject to reg 2.12H’s refund rule.

• Delegated decision‑making. The instrument is signed by Karin Maier “delegate of the Minister,” reflecting that the specification power under paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) is capable of being exercised by a delegate. The signature line identifies the delegate’s position: Assistant Secretary, Skilled Visa Branch. The instrument therefore records an administrative decision by the Department acting within the Minister’s delegated authority.

• Retroactive commencement. The instrument states that it “is taken to have commenced on 2 October 2022,” although it is dated 2 February 2023. That retroactive commencement determines the temporal reach of the specification, that is, which second instalments and applications are to be treated as within the scope of the instrument.

• Visa class mapping. The Schedule is a table that pairs Schedule 1 item references with visa descriptions and class codes. The mapping provides a practical checklist for identifying which visa applications are subject to the second instalment requirement set out in Schedule 1 and thereby potentially subject to a refund under reg 2.12H if the statutory conditions are later met.

These concepts are the instrument’s building blocks. The instrument does not attempt to change the refund test in reg 2.12H, the quantum of charges, nor the administrative refund process; it confines itself to the specification function and the mapping listed in its Schedule.

The instrument primarily affects three categories of actors: visa applicants (or persons who have paid a second instalment), the Department of Home Affairs as administrator of visa charges and refunds, and the delegate/ministerial decision‑makers responsible for refunding under regulation 2.12H.

1. Visa applicants whose visa subclass appears in the Schedule. The Schedule lists a sequence of Schedule 1 item references paired with visa descriptions and administrative class codes. Those visa descriptions and class codes identify the categories of visa applicants whose applications are within the instrument’s scope for the second instalment. The list as published in the Schedule includes (non‑exhaustive enumeration, reproduced from the Schedule):

   • Business Skills - Business Talent (Permanent), Class EA (items under paragraph 1104AA(2)(b), Items 1 and 2).
   • Business Skills - Established Business (Residence), Class BH (1104A(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
   • Business Skills (Residence), Class DF (1104B(2)(b)(i)).
   • Business Skills (Permanent), Class EC (item under paragraph 1104BA(2)(b)).
   • Distinguished Talent (Migrant), Class AL (1112(2)(b)(i)).
   • Employer Nomination (Migrant), Class AN (1114(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
   • Employer Nomination (Permanent), Class EN (item(s) under paragraph 1114B(2)(b)).
   • Regional Employer Nomination (Permanent), Class RN (item(s) under paragraph 1114C(2)(b)).
   • Special Eligibility, Class CB (1118A(2)(b)(i)).
   • Labour Agreement (Migrant), Class AU (1121(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
   • Labour Agreement (Residence), Class BV (1121A(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
   • Skilled - Independent (Permanent), Class SI (item under paragraph 1137(2)(b)).
   • Skilled - Nominated (Permanent), Class SN (item under paragraph 1138(2)(b)).
   • Business Skills (Provisional), Class UR (1202A(2)(b)(i) and (ii)).
   • Business Skills (Provisional) and Class EB (items under paragraph 1202B(2)(b)).
   • Skilled Regional Sponsored (Provisional), Class SP (item under paragraph 1230(2)(b)).
   • And several other Business Skills, Employer Nomination and Skilled stream entries as set out verbatim in the Schedule.

   Any person who has paid, or is required to pay, the second instalment in respect of an application for a visa described in the Schedule will be directly affected: the instrument designates that the relevant Schedule 1 provisions govern the second instalment payable for those visas, and the refund framework under reg 2.12H may therefore apply.

2. Persons eligible to request refunds under regulation 2.12H. The instrument’s note makes clear the refund rule in reg 2.12H is central to the practical effect: the Minister must refund the amount paid by way of the second instalment “if any of certain specified circumstances exist and a written request is received from a specified person.” The identity of that “specified person” and the “certain specified circumstances” are matters defined in regulation 2.12H and the Migration Regulations; the Schedule does not itself define them. Therefore, applicants, sponsors, authorised representatives, or other persons who qualify as the “specified person” under reg 2.12H are affected because they may exercise the right to request a refund where the statutory criteria are met.

3. Departmental administrators and delegates. The instrument is made by an Assistant Secretary “delegate of the Minister” under paragraph 2.12H(2)(f). That means departmental decision‑makers and the Minister’s delegates are the actors responsible for (a) applying the Schedule when determining whether a second instalment is payable for a given visa application, and (b) processing refund requests under regulation 2.12H where relevant. The Schedule provides these administrators with the explicit cross‑references they must use when treating an application for charge purposes.

4. Legal and compliance advisers. Lawyers, registered migration agents, accountants and recruiters who advise clients on visa costs, refunds or financial planning for migration will be affected in that they must check the Schedule to identify whether a client’s visa falls within the specified provisions for the second instalment and whether reg 2.12H’s refund pathway is available.

The instrument does not change who pays the charge in general, nor does it by itself grant or remove eligibility for visas. Its practical effect is to define the universe of Schedule 1 provisions that attract a second instalment for the purposes of charging and refunding under the Migration Regulations. Individuals not falling within the listed visa classes are outside the instrument’s specified scope.

The instrument creates administrative clarity about which Schedule 1 items attract a second instalment; it does not itself create new substantive duties or rights beyond the specification function. Nevertheless the instrument situates two practical duties and one statutory right within its framework.

Duties

• Delegate’s specification duty. The instrument is made under paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) of the Migration Regulations 1994, by a delegate of the Minister. That paragraph provides the regulatory power to “specify … the provisions of Schedule 1 … under which the second instalment … is payable.” The instrument exercises that delegated duty by identifying the list of Schedule 1 provisions in its Schedule. The duty is an administrative one: to maintain a list of the Schedule 1 items that will attract a second instalment.

• Compliance duty on applicants (payable obligation). By specifying the Schedule 1 provisions “under which the second instalment … is payable,” the instrument makes plain which visa applications are subject to the second instalment payment obligation set out in Schedule 1 to the Regulations. Applicants whose applications fall under those specified provisions must comply with the payment obligation in accordance with the Migration Regulations and Schedule 1.

Rights

• Refund entitlement under regulation 2.12H. The instrument’s NOTE reproduces (in summary) the key right that exists under regulation 2.12H: “the Minister must refund the amount paid by way of the second instalment of the visa application charge in relation to an application for a visa, if any of certain specified circumstances exist and a written request is received from a specified person.” The instrument itself does not define the “certain specified circumstances” nor the “specified person.” Those are defined by regulation 2.12H and the Migration Regulations. For present purposes the important point is that specifying which Schedule 1 provisions attract a second instalment brings applications for the listed visa classes within the scope of the refund entitlement that reg 2.12H creates, subject to its substantive conditions.

Practical duties arising from the instrument

• Identify the applicable Schedule 1 item. Advisers and applicants must map the visa application to the exact Schedule 1 item referenced in the Schedule (for instance, distinguishing item references such as 1114(2)(b)(i) versus the table under paragraph 1114B(2)(b)). The instrument’s Schedule supplies those exact references; compliance requires referencing the same.

• Make a written request when seeking a refund. The instrument’s note emphasises that a refund requires “a written request … from a specified person”: that is a procedural duty for anyone seeking a refund in reliance on reg 2.12H. The instrument does not indicate the form or timing for such a request; the duty to submit a written request remains as set out in the underlying regulation.

Limits and non‑duties

• The instrument does not create an obligation on the Minister beyond what reg 2.12H provides. It does not, for example, prescribe timeframes for processing refunds, the evidence required to establish the “specified circumstances,” or internal administrative steps for decision‑making. Those obligations, if any, are in the Migration Regulations or in departmental practice, not in this instrument.

• The instrument does not change payment amounts, nor does it affect other payment instalments (for example, a first instalment is unaffected by this instrument).

In short: the instrument codifies which Schedule 1 items attract a second instalment, thereby making clear the set of applications in which the statutory refund right in reg 2.12H may operate; the procedural duties (such as lodging a written request) remain governed by regulation 2.12H and departmental processes.

LIN 23/022 is a specification instrument; it does not itself create criminal offences, civil penalties, or specific sanctioning mechanisms. The instrument’s text contains no penalty clauses, no enforcement provisions, and no administrative penalty regimes. The enforcement consequences that are relevant flow from the Migration Regulations 1994 and the broader migration charging framework, not from the instrument itself.

What the instrument does for enforcement:

• Administrative clarity for charging. By identifying which Schedule 1 provisions are the ones “under which the second instalment … is payable,” the instrument reduces ambiguity for departmental staff about when the second instalment should be demanded and invoiced. That clarity can indirectly affect enforcement in practice: it reduces the risk of mistaken charge notices or demand letters being issued for visa classes not listed, and it focuses compliance and debt recovery activity on the correctly specified universe of applications.

• Refund obligation enforcement via regulation 2.12H. The instrument reiterates (in its NOTE) that regulation 2.12H “specifies that the Minister must refund the amount paid by way of the second instalment … if any of certain specified circumstances exist and a written request is received from a specified person.” Enforcement of that refund obligation is statutory: if a refund is due under reg 2.12H, the Minister (or delegated officer) has the duty to pay. The instrument itself does not set the enforcement mechanism for failures to refund, but refusal to refund where reg 2.12H’s conditions are met could give rise to statutory merits review rights or judicial review of administrative decisions under general administrative law principles , none of which the instrument addresses directly.

Limits on enforcement powers in this instrument

• No direct penalty provisions. The instrument contains no power to fine, imprison, or otherwise penalise private parties. It neither amends nor creates offences.

• No procedural enforcement detail. The instrument does not provide time limits for lodging refund requests, does not prescribe the required evidence, and does not provide an appeals mechanism. Those procedural specifics are matters for the Migration Regulations (not reproduced in the instrument) and departmental administrative practice.

Practical enforcement implications for practitioners

• Administrative recourse. If a refund is refused despite a prima facie satisfaction of the criteria in reg 2.12H, the affected person’s recourse will be by engaging with the Department’s administrative procedures, seeking internal review or other review avenues provided by migration law, or by seeking judicial review where lawful grounds exist. LIN 23/022 itself does not describe or restrict those recourses.

• Record‑keeping and evidence. Because LIN 23/022 fixes which visa classes are within scope of the second instalment and therefore the reg 2.12H refund rule, applicants and advisers should maintain documentary proof of payments and any factual basis for a refund request (for example, evidence that a regulatory condition in reg 2.12H is met). The instrument does not require a form of evidence but it makes accurate identification of the relevant Schedule 1 item a necessary first step before seeking enforcement of the refund right.

In summary, LIN 23/022 does not create penalties or specify enforcement mechanisms; it functions as an administrative mapping instrument that feeds into the enforcement architecture of the Migration Regulations and departmental processes, and the statutory refund obligation in reg 2.12H remains the operative enforcement hook for refunds of second instalments.

LIN 23/022 is expressly a subordinate instrument operating in the regulatory framework provided by the Migration Regulations 1994. Its interaction with other laws is therefore primarily through the Migration Regulations and the Schedule 1 charging regime.

Key interactions recorded in the instrument

• Migration Regulations 1994, paragraph 2.12H(2)(f). The instrument is made under this delegated power. The instrument therefore sits beneath the statutory/regulatory architecture created by the Regulations; it is not an independent primary law. The instrument’s authority is derivative: its legal effect is valid only to the extent the instrument correctly exercises the power given by para 2.12H(2)(f).

• Schedule 1 to the Migration Regulations. The instrument’s Schedule lists “the provisions of Schedule 1 to the Regulations under which the second instalment of the visa application charge is payable.” That means the instrument operates by reference to Schedule 1: it identifies particular Schedule 1 items as the ones governing the second instalment for particular visa classes. The payment obligations, amounts and other substantive charging rules remain in Schedule 1 itself; LIN 23/022 simply points to the specific Schedule 1 entries that matter for the second instalment.

• Regulation 2.12H’s refund rule. The instrument’s note reiterates the existence of a statutory refund mechanism in reg 2.12H: a refund must be made where certain circumstances are met and a written request is received. The instrument therefore interacts with reg 2.12H in two ways: (i) it uses para 2.12H(2)(f) as its power to specify the Schedule 1 provisions, and (ii) it places the specified Schedule 1 items within the operative domain of the reg 2.12H refund rule, making the listed visas subject to that refund mechanism.

Other legal interactions not addressed in the instrument

• The instrument does not alter migration substantive law (eligibility, character, health), visa conditions, or other statutory terms that govern visas. Those matters are governed by other parts of the Migration Regulations and by the Migration Act 1958; LIN 23/022 does not purport to modify them.

• Administrative law and review. The instrument does not describe avenues for merits review or judicial review of decisions about refunds. Those review rights would be found in the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations, and in the general law. Since the instrument is a specification, disputes over refunds, refusals or delay would be resolved by reference to those regimes, not by the instrument itself.

• Temporal interaction. The instrument is “taken to have commenced on 2 October 2022.” That backdating means the specification applies to the period from that date. Its retroactive commencement interacts with the temporal rules of the Migration Regulations and any legal or administrative consequences for payments, invoices, or refunds issued in that interval: where second instalments were paid after 2 October 2022 for the listed visa classes, LIN 23/022’s specification applies to those payments.

Practical consequence of interactions

• For charging and refund administration, departmental officers must read LIN 23/022 together with Schedule 1 and reg 2.12H to determine whether a second instalment was payable, and whether a refund must be made when a written request and the required circumstances are presented. For advisers and applicants, compliance depends on mapping a given visa application to the precise Schedule 1 paragraph referenced in LIN 23/022 and then applying reg 2.12H’s refund test.

The instrument therefore functions as a connective tissue between the Schedule 1 charging table and the refund rule in regulation 2.12H; it does not operate independently of, or override, the substantive rules contained elsewhere in the Migration Regulations.

The instrument itself contains a succinct amendment and commencement record; the document does not include a history of earlier instruments or later amendments. From the instrument text the following is ascertainable:

• Instrument identity and reference. The instrument is titled Migration (Refund of Second Instalment of Visa Application Charge) Instrument (LIN 23/022) 2023 and is identified by the code LIN 23/022. That identifier is the official reference for the instrument.

• Delegate and date of making. The instrument is dated 2 February 2023 and is signed by Karin Maier as “delegate of the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs,” with the position shown as Assistant Secretary, Skilled Visa Branch. The date of signature indicates when the delegate certified the specification and finalised the instrument.

• Commencement. The instrument expressly provides that it “is taken to have commenced on 2 October 2022.” That is a retroactive or backdated commencement provision. The instrument therefore has effect, for legal purposes, from that earlier date rather than the signature date. The instrument does not state why the backdating was used; it simply records the commencement date.

• No prior versions listed. The instrument does not reproduce any prior versions, nor does it record amendment of an earlier instrument. The Schedule is presented as the operative list; there is no marginal note indicating that LIN 23/022 amends or replaces a former specification instrument. From the instrument alone, therefore, LIN 23/022 should be read as the operative specification instrument in force as at its commencement date.

• No subsequent amendment recorded in the document. The instrument text does not record later modifications. Any subsequent amendments to the Migration Regulations or to the Schedule 1 provisions that affect the second instalment regime would be recorded separately in later instruments or in updates to the Migration Regulations. Those are not included in this instrument.

Practical notes on the amendment trail for advisers

• Verify current status. Because LIN 23/022 does not include a consolidated history with subsequent amendments, users should verify the current status of the instrument and any later specification instruments on the Federal Register of Legislation or via departmental legal registers. The instrument’s retroactive commencement means that payments and refund claims from 2 October 2022 onwards may be affected by LIN 23/022; practitioners should confirm whether later instruments have amended the list or the procedural context.

• Delegation records. The instrument was signed by an Assistant Secretary acting as delegate. Where delegation chains matter for legal validity or challenge, practitioners should confirm that the delegation instrument or instrument of appointment authorising that Assistant Secretary to make the specification under paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) remained in force at the relevant time.

In sum, LIN 23/022’s own amendment history is limited to a signature date of 2 February 2023 and an operative commencement backdated to 2 October 2022. The instrument does not indicate prior or subsequent amendments within its text; users must consult the official registers for any further changes.

The instrument itself contains no reference to any litigation, legal challenges, or case law. There are no cases, decisions, or judicial proceedings mentioned in LIN 23/022 or its Schedule. From the instrument’s text alone the following points follow:

• No recorded litigation in the instrument. LIN 23/022 does not report or summarise any legal disputes, nor does it cite any judicial authority as the basis for its specification. It is an administrative specification instrument and is presented without accompanying legal history.

• Potential for administrative or judicial review exists in principle. While LIN 23/022 does not itself mention remedies, administrative decisions about whether a second instalment was payable, or about whether a refund must be made under regulation 2.12H, will ordinarily be subject to the review pathways and judicial review principles that govern migration decision‑making under Australian administrative law. LIN 23/022 does not alter or specify those review paths; any litigation relating to refunds or to the proper application of the Schedule would be litigated under the Migration Act, the Migration Regulations, and general administrative law.

• No examples, precedents or case names provided. The instrument does not name any cases or administrative decisions that interpret paragraph 2.12H(2)(f), regulation 2.12H, Schedule 1, or the concept of second instalments. Users seeking case law must search the decisions that interpret the relevant provisions of the Migration Regulations or disputes about refund obligations; LIN 23/022 itself provides no litigation signposts.

Practical implications for advisers and litigants

• If a client believes a refund is due under reg 2.12H and the Department refuses or delays, the client’s options for challenge remain the statutory and common law remedies available in migration and administrative law. LIN 23/022 informs the factual matrix (which visa classes are within scope), but it does not constrain the availability of merits review or judicial review where provided by other laws.

• Any litigation that questions the validity of LIN 23/022 would likely focus on the legal limits of the delegated power in paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) and on whether the instrument properly specifies Schedule 1 provisions. Such litigation is possible in principle, but the instrument contains no record of such proceedings.

In short: LIN 23/022 contains no litigation history or precedent material. Practitioners must consult case law and administrative decisions external to the instrument to find precedents on disputes about second instalments or refunds under regulation 2.12H.

The instrument’s narrow scope nonetheless contains several practical traps and sources of confusion that advisers, applicants and departmental officers should watch for. These are not speculative policy judgements; they are concrete implementation and legal‑mapping issues that follow from the text.

1. Retroactive commencement. LIN 23/022 “is taken to have commenced on 2 October 2022” despite being dated 2 February 2023. That backdating matters: payments of second instalments made between 2 October 2022 and 2 February 2023 will be caught by the instrument’s specification if they relate to the listed provisions. Practitioners must check payment dates carefully. The instrument does not explain why commencement is backdated or how the Department handled billing in the interim period.

2. Scope limited to the second instalment only. The instrument only specifies the Schedule 1 provisions “under which the second instalment of the visa application charge is payable.” It does not speak to first instalments, third instalments (if any), or other fees. A common mistake is to assume the mapping applies to all instalments or to other fees; it does not.

3. Refund criteria not stated in the instrument. The NOTE in the instrument restates that regulation 2.12H provides a refund mechanism where “certain specified circumstances exist and a written request is received from a specified person.” The instrument does not replicate the content of those circumstances or identify the specified person. Practitioners must consult regulation 2.12H itself to determine eligibility for refunds; relying solely on LIN 23/022 will leave a practitioner blind to the substantive refund test.

4. Exact cross‑reference mapping required. The Schedule uses precise Migration Regulations cross‑references (for example, “1104A(2)(b)(i)”). If an adviser or applicant looks only at the visa subclass name and ignores the exact Schedule 1 paragraph the risk is misclassification. The Schedule ties the instalment obligation to specific regulatory paragraphs; matching must be precise. Some table entries refer to “Item 1 of the table under paragraph …” and similar formulations,small differences in item numbering can matter.

5. Multiple visa descriptions for a single class code. The Schedule sometimes lists the same visa description multiple times against a class code (for example, “Business Skills - Business Talent (Permanent)” appears in multiple item rows both as Item 1 and Item 2 under certain paragraphs). Practitioners must trace which particular item applies to a particular application, not assume class codes alone suffice.

6. The instrument is a specification, not a procedural manual. LIN 23/022 does not specify how to make the “written request” required by regulation 2.12H, how evidence is to be supplied, nor timeframes for processing refunds. Assume the Department’s usual administrative forms or online processes will govern , but verify those processes separately.

7. Delegation and authority. The instrument is signed by an Assistant Secretary acting as a delegate of the Minister. Where the validity of a specification might be questioned, a party could inquire whether the delegation instrument authorising that Assistant Secretary to exercise paragraph 2.12H(2)(f) was in force at the relevant time. LIN 23/022 does not reproduce the underlying instrument of delegation.

8. No penalty or enforcement detail in this instrument. If a refund is denied, LIN 23/022 does not prescribe an internal review route or appeal channel. That omission can create procedural friction and delay. Practitioners should identify which statutory review paths apply in the event of disputes.

9. Dependence on the Migration Regulations remaining unchanged. LIN 23/022 references specific paragraphs in the Migration Regulations, which may themselves be subject to amendment or renumbering. Over time, if the Regulations are reworked, the Schedule references in LIN 23/022 could become mismatched. Users should confirm the current text of the Migration Regulations and Schedule 1 rather than relying on the printed Schedule alone.

10. Partial visibility for non‑specialists. The Schedule pairs legal references with visa class codes; non‑specialists may focus on the class code (for example, “Class EN”) and not appreciate that the charge obligation is actually tied to the Schedule 1 paragraph. That can lead to mistaken assumptions about whether a second instalment was payable.

These are practical “gotchas” that arise directly from the instrument’s form and content. They point to the need for precise mapping to the Migration Regulations, careful date checks because of retroactive commencement, and reliance on reg 2.12H and departmental guidance for the substantive refund test and procedural requirements.

Complying with the legal and administrative regime set out by LIN 23/022 requires precise, document‑centric actions. The instrument itself is a mapping device; compliance therefore means using the mapping correctly and then following the refund test and departmental procedures in regulation 2.12H and associated materials. The following step‑by‑step checklist describes concrete actions a practitioner, applicant or sponsor should take.

1. Identify the visa and the exact Schedule 1 reference. Start with the application’s visa description and subclass. Then cross‑check the Schedule in LIN 23/022 to find the precise Schedule 1 item reference (for example, “1114(2)(b)(i)” or “Item 1 of the table under paragraph 1202B(2)(b)”). Do not rely solely on the class code or plain English description; the Schedule uses specific regulatory paragraph/item references. Accurate identification determines whether the second instalment was payable.

2. Confirm the payment history and dates. Check whether a second instalment payment was made in respect of the application. Note the payment date. Because LIN 23/022 is “taken to have commenced on 2 October 2022,” payments made on or after that date in relation to applications under the listed Schedule 1 items fall within the instrument’s specification. Keep original receipts, transaction IDs, and bank records.

3. Consult regulation 2.12H for refund eligibility and procedural requirements. LIN 23/022 does not set out the “certain specified circumstances” entitling a refund, nor does it define the “specified person” who may make a written request. Refer to regulation 2.12H(quoted in the Schedule note) and any departmental guidance to determine:

   • Whether the factual circumstances that ground the refund exist for your client.
   • Who qualifies as the “specified person” to lodge the written request (applicant, sponsor, authorised representative, etc.).
   • Any statutory time limits or conditions for lodging a request.

4. Prepare and lodge a written request as required. The NOTE to the instrument emphasises a written request is mandatory for a refund under reg 2.12H. Prepare the written request carefully:

   • Address it to the Department or to the specified officer identified in departmental forms and guidance.
   • Identify the visa application, visa class code, and the Schedule 1 paragraph that LIN 23/022 specifies.
   • Attach proof of payment of the second instalment (receipts, transaction details).
   • Provide factual and documentary evidence showing the existence of the circumstances required by reg 2.12H.
   • If lodging via a registered migration agent or authorised representative, include an authority to act if required.

5. Keep contemporaneous records. Retain copies of the written request, all supporting documents, proof of postage or electronic transmission, and any Departmental acknowledgements. Given LIN 23/022’s backdated commencement to 2 October 2022, records are particularly relevant for payments in the intervening period.

6. Follow departmental forms and online processes. The Department of Home Affairs typically provides forms or online templates for charge-related matters. Use the official channels indicated by the Department for refund requests, and note any form numbers referenced in departmental guidance or the Migration Regulations.

7. Monitor departmental responses and timelines. Because LIN 23/022 does not set processing timeframes, note the Department’s expected timelines and follow up if responses are delayed. If the Department requests additional evidence, respond promptly and keep versions and dates.

8. Consider review rights early. If a refund is refused and you consider the decision incorrect in law, identify any internal review options, merits review avenues or judicial review options applicable under migration and administrative law. LIN 23/022 itself does not limit any statutory review rights, but you will need to connect the dispute to regulation 2.12H and to the administrative decision to refuse the refund.

9. Re‑check the legal references if regulations change. Because the Schedule lists specific legislative paragraph references, confirm that those paragraphs remain current. If the Migration Regulations have been amended, confirm whether those amendments affect the identification in LIN 23/022.

10. Advise clients of limits and expectations. When advising clients, explain that LIN 23/022 specifies which visa categories are subject to the second instalment and that the availability of a refund depends on the separate refund test in regulation 2.12H and on making a written request. Do not promise refunds based solely on inclusion in LIN 23/022; the inclusion only places the application in the class for which a second instalment is payable and hence potentially refundable under the statutory test.

Compliance, in short, is a two‑stage exercise: (1) use LIN 23/022 to identify whether the application falls within the specified Schedule 1 items that require a second instalment; and (2) if a refund is sought, satisfy the procedural and substantive criteria in regulation 2.12H and departmental practice, by lodging a properly documented written request and following up through the Department’s administrative channels.