1410112 (Migration) - [2015] AATA 3040

1410112 (Migration) [2015] AATA 3040 (1 July 2015)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Mr Durairaj Paul Thiraviam
Mrs Florence S Thuraisingam
Miss Sheida Durairaj
Master Danush Durairaj
CASE NUMBER:  1410112
DIBP REFERENCE(S):  CLF2014/17077
MEMBER:Filip Gelev
DATE:1 July 2015
PLACE OF DECISION:  Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision under review not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) Subclass 892 visas

Statement made on 01 July 2015 at 4:15pm

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 4 June 2014 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) Subclass 892 visa under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 4 February 2014. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that cl. 892.211 was not met, because the applicant had not demonstrated an ownership interest in one or more actively operating businesses in Australia for at least two years immediately before the application was made.
The applicants appeared before the Tribunal on 24 February 2015 to give evidence and present arguments.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issues in the present case are whether the applicants satisfy the time of application criterion in cl. 892.211 and the time of decision criterion in cl. 892.221. Clause 892.211 requires that the applicant has had, and continues to have, an ownership interest in 1 or more actively operating main business in Australia for at least 2 years immediately before the application is made. Clause 892.221 requires that the applicant continues to have, an ownership interest in 1 or more actively operating main business in Australia at the time of decision.
In this case, on the material before it, the Tribunal considers that it is open to it to make findings in respect of the first named visa applicant’s ability to meet the time of decision criteria in cl.892.221, even though this issue was not considered by the delegate.
The Tribunal is empowered to determine an application by reference to a specified criterion which has not been addressed by the primary decision maker. If the Tribunal is not satisfied that a criterion is met, and it is a necessary prerequisite for the grant of a visa, then the Tribunal will sufficiently exercise its jurisdiction by affirming the delegate’s decision on that basis: Hui v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2011] FMCA 486; Jin v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2009] FMCA 540.
The Tribunal finds that the applicant does not satisfy either cl. 892.211, nor cl. 892.221.
892.211
The delegate refused the visa application on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy clause 892.211 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations at the time of application. Clause 892.211 provides:
892.211
(1) The applicant has had, and continues to have, an ownership interest in 1 or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least 2 years immediately before the application is made.
Regulation 1.03 defines provides that ‘ownership interest’ has the meaning given to it in subsection 134(10) of the Act, which states:
‘ownership interest’
in relation to a business, means an interest in the business as:
(a)    a shareholder in a company that carries on the business; or
(b)    a partner in a partnership that carries on the business; or
(c)    the sole proprietor of the business;
including such an interest held indirectly through one or more interposed companies, partnerships or trusts;
Regulation 1.03 also provides that ‘main business’ is defined in regulation 1.11 as follows:
(1)      For the purposes of these Regulations and subject to subregulation (2), a business is a main business in relation to an applicant for a visa if:
(a)the applicant has, or has had, an ownership interest in the business; and
(b)     the applicant maintains, or has maintained, direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business; …
(2)       If an applicant has, or has had, an ownership interest in more than 1 qualifying business that would, except for this subregulation, be a main business in relation to the applicant, the applicant must not nominate more than 2 of those qualifying businesses as main businesses.
Regulation 1.03 further defines a ‘qualifying business’ as:
‘qualifying business’
means an enterprise that:
(a) is operated for the purpose of making profit through the provision of goods, services or goods and services (other than the provision of rental property) to the public; and
(b) is not operated primarily or substantially for the purpose of speculative or passive investment.
The applicant applied for the subclass 892 visa on 4 February 2014. Therefore, pursuant to cl.892.211(1) the relevant two year period is 4 February 2012 to 3 February 2014.
The Tribunal accepts the applicants’ evidence that after arriving in Australia in June 2011 they tried as best as they could to run a business (the Tribunal uses the plural ‘they’ because the first and second named applicant were both involved). Blitz Ingredients was set up on 2 September 2011. Eventually this business venture was abandoned and the applicants purchased a café business, Rosaria’s café, in September 2012.
On 13 September 2011 the applicants signed a service agreement with Flavo Blitz to sell Flavo Blitz products in Victoria. Flavo Blitz is a company based in Malaysia, with an office in Sydney. It manufactures ingredients such as emulsifiers, stabilizers, pure ghee, lecithin and flavours. The idea was to sell to wholesalers such as Valentine, Nuttalex, and Temptations. The applicants immediately started organising meetings with potential customers.
The applicants have conceded that they did not generate any profit or turnover at all from trade with customers. However, at the hearing both the first named applicant and the representative referred to the business having a ‘long gestation period’. The first named applicant explained to the Tribunal that the business generated fees of $1,000 from Flavo Blitz as agreed pursuant to cl. 1.1(b) of the Service Agreement between Flavo Blitz and Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd.
The applicants showed the Tribunal extensive costs incurred in relation to the business. For example, according to their BAS statement from January to March 2012 they had costs of $8,394 for travelling expenses.[1]
[1] Business Activity Statement for the first three months of 2012.
At the hearing the Tribunal asked the applicants about the sales totalling $3,382 in the period July to September 2012 which sum appears in the relevant BAS statement. The applicants said the sales came from the café business purchased in August 2012. They conceded that after September 2012 they made no further attempts to operate the Flavo Blitz business.
The meaning of the word business
A useful starting point is to consider first the minimum requirements for an enterprise to be considered a ‘business’ before considering the ‘active operation’ issue. The Tribunal notes that the word ‘business’ is not defined in the Act or Regulations. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal has concluded that ‘business’ does not refer to the legal entity which in the present case is Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd.
The applicants’ representative argued in oral submissions that the Tribunal should not put too much emphasis on the fact that the business did not generate any profit, it was actively operating and it was genuinely operating. There is no requirement for the business to succeed. At all times the company was run with a view to make a profit. She said that they picked an industry with long lead times.
The Tribunal accepts that the legislation does not require that the relevant business or businesses made a profit. An applicant can use her or his best efforts and spend money on a business, but there is no guarantee that it will be profitable. The definition of qualifying business, set out above, provides that the business must be operated for the purpose of making a profit and it is not operated primarily or substantially for the purpose of speculative or passive investment.
The Tribunal observes that the focus of the wording in clause 892.211 is on the applicant having an ownership interest in an actively operating main business, rather than merely possessing an interest a corporate entity. The mere fact that the applicants registered a corporate entity, Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd, does not mean that it was a business (which must also be actively operating, see further below).
The wording used in the definition of a ‘main business’ in regulation 1.11 focuses on the applicant having an ownership in the business, rather than in a company. Notably, in terms of the value of an applicant’s interest in the business subregulation 1.11(1)(c) distinguishes between corporate entities and ‘the business’. Similarly, the definition of a ‘qualifying business’ in regulation 1.03 suggests that the relevant business in question must be an ‘enterprise’ that is operated for the purposes of a profit through the provision of goods and services to the public and not operated primarily or substantially for the purpose of speculative or passive investment.
Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the language used in clause 892.211 and regulations 1.03 and 1.11 strongly supports the view that the ‘main business’ or the business is something independent of the corporate entity that is registered to operate the business. In particular, the Tribunal considers that if the legislature had intended that an applicant maintain an ownership interest in a registered company and no more, then the Regulations could easily have been drafted to achieve this.
There is judicial support for this view. In Re Tang and Minister for Immigration [2000] AATA 997, Deputy President McMahon looked at the overall context of the expression focusing on the ‘day to day management’ in determining if there was a business. He held at [20]:
On these facts, it seems to me that Tiproll Pty Limited is not carrying on a business and its activities are therefore not an eligible business. The reference in subparagraph 134(1)(b) to the “day-to-day management of that business” indicates that an eligible business must have some element of continuity and repetition.
The meaning of the word business was discussed in the case of Kushner v MIAC [2009] FMCA 390 (per Driver FM at [47]-[48]):
…. Mr Kushner’s motivation for establishing a company and commencing trading activity was relevant to the issue before the Tribunal if it pointed to the business being a sham and not engaged in ongoing trading. The High Court in Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16; (1980) 144 CLR 1 was dealing with an agistment business. Relevantly at 8-9 Mason J (as he then was) stated:
I accept, then, that ‘business' in the sub-section has the ordinary or popular meaning which it would be given in the expression ‘carrying on the business of grazing’. It denotes grazing activities undertaken as a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern, that is, activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis. Putting aside the question whether the activities have a ‘grazing’ character, the critical issue for decision is whether the material before the Court reasonably admits of different conclusions on the question whether the appellant's activities constitute a ‘business’. On the facts as found, I conclude that the appellant's activities amounted to a business and that no other conclusion was reasonably open….
In the present case it was certainly arguable that Gravy Clothing was a ‘business’. Mr Kushner had submitted documentary evidence of trading activity, albeit recent. However, the evidence did not necessarily point to a going concern. While there was evidence of goods being ordered and billed for, there was scant evidence of payment or shipment of the goods. The evidence of trading activity was recent and the Tribunal regarded it as ad hoc activity. It was relatively small scale. In my view, on the material before it, the Tribunal was entitled to conclude that the business of Gravy Clothing lacked the important element of continuity and repetition over a reasonable period. The Tribunal lacked confidence that the asserted business was a going concern. The Tribunal was entitled to the conclusion it reached on the material before it. The Tribunal was also entitled to have regard to what it saw as Mr Kushner’s motivation in undertaking the trading activities in order to determine whether those activities amounted to a going concern.
Taking the above into account, the Tribunal concludes that in order for an enterprise to be a business it needs some form of continuity and repetition over a reasonable period and with a permanent character. The line between a passive investment and an actively operating business may not always be clear. In the present case no business transaction were ever entered into. The research and marketing efforts of the applicants did not bear any fruit. There was no trading as such.
The meaning of the words ‘actively operating’
The words ‘actively operating’ in 892.211(1) go to describing the nature of the applicant’s involvement in the business. In other words, the involvement of the applicant must be active in an enterprise that has a repetitive, continuous and permanent character.
The Tribunal notes that ‘actively operating’ is not defined in the Act or Regulations. The Tribunal therefore has regard to its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary defines ‘actively’ as an adverb of active, which it defines, inter alia as ‘in a state of action, in actual progress or motion, constantly engaged in action; busy; in accounting, to be profitable; busy.’[2] The Dictionary goes on to define the verb operating, inter alia as ‘to work or run, to perform some process of work or treatment, to carry on transactions in some commodity, to keep (something) working or in operation’.[3]
[2] The Macquarie Dictionary Online © Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. – accessed at The Macquarie Dictionary Online © Macquarie Dictionary Publishers Pty Ltd. – accessed at >
Accordingly, the Tribunal considers that the composite expression ‘actively operating’ is intended to mean that the thing, in this case the main business, is being worked or run, carried on, in an engaged, active manner, by an applicant.
While the applicants conceded that the business failed to make a profit, they claimed that they tried their best to turn a profit and they were actively operating the main business.
The applicants provided a diary of their ‘business activities’, that is, their attempts to sell Flavo Blitz ingredients in Australia. They insisted that they spent ‘easily’ 25-30 hours a week contacting and following up potential customers and they asserted that the time spent should be counted as operating a business.
The Tribunal spent a considerable part of the hearing going through individual diary entries entered in the applicants’ business diary. After the hearing, the applicants provided to the Tribunal a very helpful one page summary of their ‘activities’ in the period January to July 2012.
On the basis of the oral and written evidence, the Tribunal notes the following.
In the first half of March 2012 the applicants had contact with 4 potential customers. In the second half of March there are only two entries – ‘follow up letter to Wiltons Food’ (16 March) and ‘spoke with Lee Dang for Uni Lever products (19 March).
In the period 25 April to 16 May 2012 there is only one entry, which was an email sent on 8 May 2012.
In June 2012, after a meeting on 14 June, there are no further entries for the remainder of the month.
In all of July 2012 there are 3 entries related to contact with potential customers – one call, one email and one request for samples from a potential customer.
The Tribunal accepts that the ‘slowing down’ of activities related to Flavo Blitz can partly be explained by the fact that the applicants paid a 10% deposit on 17 July 2012 towards purchasing the café business.
At the hearing the applicants said that by August 2012 they were training staff for the café. The Tribunal observed that this did not necessarily demonstrate that they were operating a business. The Tribunal said that even if it accepted that they were actively operating the café by August, there still appeared to be a gap in the period March-August 2012. The applicants said that by March 2012 they were already making offers on cafés and getting ready to buy a new business. The Tribunal considers this to be an acknowledgment that the applicants had realised by about March 2012 that the Flavo Blitz business would attract very few or no customers.
The applicants acknowledged at the hearing that the café business was not operating until 23 September 2012. Therefore, the Tribunal considers that it is open to it to make a finding that the applicants were not operating a café business up until 23 September 2012.
The applicants’ oral and written evidence shows that while they were trying to sell Flavo Blitz ingredients, from at least March 2012 until September 2012, on most days no business was being carried out. On most days the applicants did no more than make one phone call, send one email or one piece of mail, or attend one meeting. There were periods of several weeks, as set out above, during which the applicants did not even communicate with potential customers and appear to have undertaken no work.
The Tribunal considers that the sending of emails, ordinary mail and the attendance of meetings with potential customers does not, without more, amount to the carrying on of a business. The Tribunal considers that during the period March to September 2012, until the applicants purchased a café, Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd was not an actively operating business.
The overwhelming impression given by the evidence relating to the Flavo Blitz enterprise is that it was a failure. It never achieved any sales. While the Tribunal accepts that the nature of the business may be such that a longer than usual ‘lead up time’ is necessary for it to start generating a profit, the reality is that it never did generate any turnover, let alone a profit. Even if it can be said that there was a ‘business’ – and the Tribunal does not accept that – the Tribunal finds that there was no ‘actively operating’ business.
Direct and continuous involvement in management of the business day to day
As set out above, r.1.03 the definition of ‘main business’ in r.1.11 requires that
… the applicant maintains, or has maintained, direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business
The Tribunal has had regards to the departmental guidelines contained in the Procedure Advice Manual (PAM3). The Tribunal observes that whilst it may be guided by policy, it is not bound to follow it.[4] The Courts have held that the PAM3 guidelines constitute no more than an administrative advisory guide to decision makers in relation to the application of the Act and Regulations and that they are incapable of being elevated into legally necessary or relevant considerations. Indeed, there is judicial authority to the effect that the policy guidelines in PAM3 cannot go beyond the wording of the legislation, even where they are favourable to an applicant.[5] Nevertheless, they provide some useful guidance. At 54.3 the PAM3 guidelines state:
Continuous involvement from day to day
An applicant is expected to consistently spend a significant portion of their time managing the business on an ongoing basis from day to day. For a business to be considered a ‘main business’ it is intended that the visa applicant would be involved in actively exercising their claimed management role:
•     without any significant or frequent breaks in their management involvement
•     without any significant or frequent gaps in the activities of the business and
•     on any ordinary business day.
Whether a break or gap is significant will depend on the nature of the business and the particulars of the applicant’s management role.
[4]     See Brennan, J. in Re Drake (No. 2) (1978-1980) 2 ALD 634
[5]     See Chow v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2002] FCA 1429, Lobo v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[2003] FCAFC 168; Visnumolakala v Minister for Immigration [2006] FMCA 1209 Alimi v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2007] FMCA 1520; Durzi v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs2006] FCA 1767 at [49]; Moller v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] FMCA 168 at [14]; and Sakhno v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship[2007] FMCA 1492 (at [55]

In particular, there is an expectation that an applicant would spend a significant portion of their time managing the business from day to day. In light of the long periods of time – March to September 2012 – during which there were few or no activities whatever undertaken and the many days on which the activities were extremely limited – e.g. a single email or a single phone call in a full business day – the Tribunal finds that in the period March to September 2012 it cannot be said that the applicant maintained ‘management of the business from day to day’. It is not simply the case that there was an actively operating business run by people other than the applicant; rather, there was virtually no ‘management of the business from day to day’ by anyone during that period. Thus, the applicant does not satisfy the definition of ‘main business’ for the purposes of cl. 892.211.
Therefore the Tribunal concludes that the applicant was not involved in an ‘actively operating … main business’ until 23 September 2012. As a result, at the time of application on 3 February 2014 the applicant had only been involved in actively operating a business for, at best, a little over 17 months. Therefore, the applicant does not satisfy cl. 892.211.
892.221
At the hearing it transpired that on 1 February 2014, some 2 days before applying for the visa, the applicants sold the café they acquired in September 2012.
On the application form the applicants stated that their main business was Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd and that the major activity of the business is ‘Trading, Café, Lunch hot food and Takeaway Food’.
At the Tribunal hearing it became apparent that the applicant no longer had an ownership interest in the main business nominated for the purposes of the visa application, namely, Rosaria’s café.
After selling the café, the applicant started running a courier business called National Fleet Services Pty Ltd, ABN 43 085 912 689.
When the Tribunal asked how the business was going, at first the applicants said it was generating ‘less profit’ than it used to. The first named applicant said they were focusing more on a hair dressing salon, because the third named applicant is a qualified hairdresser.
When the Tribunal invited the applicant to be more specific, he admitted that since September 2014 the courier business has been generating no income at all and, at least at the time of the hearing, the hairdressing salon was not yet up and running. The applicant told the Tribunal that they had obtained ‘all the quotations’ and the drawings were ready, but that business venture was on hold.
The Tribunal noted that even though Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd was still registered as an entity, it appeared that it – and the applicants – were not engaged in any business activities. The Tribunal stated that it needed to consider this issue (as well as the issue relating to Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd and the period February to September 2012 in cl. 892.211) before it makes its decision.
In this case, on the material before it, it is open to the Tribunal to make findings in respect of the applicant’s ability to meet the time of decision criteria in clause 892.221, even though this was not the basis for the delegate’s refusal.
Clause 892.221 requires that an applicant:
(a) continues to satisfy the criteria in clauses 892.211 and 892.214; and
(b) if the applicant met the requirements of paragraph 892.212(b), continues to meet those requirements.
The Tribunal notes that the terms of clause 892.211(1) encompass two temporal requirements. Firstly, it requires that an applicant ‘has had … an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years before the application is made’; and secondly, that an applicant ‘… continues to have, an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia’ at the time of application. Clause 892.221 then qualifies the temporal elements in clause 892.211 by requiring an applicant to continue to satisfy the criteria in clause 892.211 at the time of decision.
Clause 892.221 appears in subdivision 892.22 of Part 892 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations as a ‘time of decision’ criterion. The relevant Explanatory Statement provides that clause 892.221 requires the applicant to continue to satisfy the criteria in clause 892.211 to ensure that ‘nothing material has changed in the applicant’s circumstances’ since the time of application. As a result, in order to ascertain the proper construction of clause 892.221, it becomes necessary to examine the requirements of clause 892.211.
There are two cases which deal with the construction of cl. 845.213 of the Regulations: Baldassarra v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs[6] (Baldassarra) and Tung-Liang Liang v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (Liang).[7]
[6] [2005] FCA 239
[7] [2009] FCA 189
The Tribunal acknowledges that Baldassarra and Liang considered a different legislative provision and that, therefore, they are not direct authority for the interpretation of clause 892.221. Nevertheless, the Tribunal considers both of these cases to provide appropriate guidance on the proper construction of cl. 892.221.
In discussing the meaning of the word ‘continues’ Logan J in Liang noted[8] that the meaning of the term ‘continues to satisfy’ will depend on the context in which it is used. His Honour held that if, for example, it is used in relation to a status requirement which has a temporal condition, that status must only be possessed at the time at which the assessment is made (the time of application or the time of decision). On the other hand, Logan J also held that where the criterion is activity based and there is no temporal condition, the activity must have been maintained during the time between the application being made and determined.
[8] [2009] FCA 189 at [46] to [51]
In applying this test, Logan J observed that the word ‘continues’ in cl. 845.213(b) and the activity-based requirements in the definition of ‘main business’ in regulation 1.11, indicated that there should be no gap in the holding of an ownership interest to satisfy this criterion. Accordingly, his Honour found that the applicant had to demonstrate that he continued to maintain an ownership interest in one or more main businesses throughout the period between the time of application and the time of decision.
As a result, although clause 892.211 is not drafted in the same way as clause 845.213 was in Liang with the ownership interest and ‘continues’ requirements separately set out subclauses 845.213(a) and (b), it still requires the applicant to not only have had an ownership interest, but to also ‘continue to have’ that ownership interest in an actively operating main business.
The Tribunal finds that the temporal limitation created by subclause 845.213(b) remains in place in clause 892.211 because of the use of the words ‘continue to have’. Accordingly, when this is combined with the definition of ‘main business’ in regulation 1.11, the Tribunal considers that the proper construction of clause 892.221 requires the applicant to continue to have the required ownership interest in an actively operating main business in Australia at the time of its decision.
The Tribunal notes that the relevant PAM3 policy guidelines state that the intention behind the ownership interest requirement in subclause 892.211(1) is to ‘assess whether the applicant has been actively involved in business in Australia in which they have at least a minimum ownership interest over a significant period of time’.
12.1    Continued eligibility
For clause 892.221, this criterion may be considered satisfied provided there:
·     is no evidence to the contrary (in which case, the applicant may be reassessed against the relevant criterion) or criteria and
·     has been no significant delay between time of application and time of decision (in which case the applicant's circumstances may be confirmed).
Under policy, significant delay is 18 months from the date the visa application was lodged.
It would be strange if the policy intention behind cl. 892.221 was that a visa applicant can stop actively running a business between time of application and time of decision, but still meet the time of decision criterion on the basis that they have an ownership interest in a business entity, regardless of whether the business entity is inactive.
The Tribunal gives the applicants the benefit of the doubt and accepts that the courier business was actively operating between February 2014 and September 2014.
Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that at the time of this decision, although the applicant continues to have an ownership interest in Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd, he no longer continues to have an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia.
This is because Blitz Ingredients Pty Ltd stopped operating a business in September 2014, when the applicants abandoned their courier business and they had plans to open a hairdressing salon in the future.
As a result, having regard to all the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that even if the applicant’s claims that he met clause 892.211 had a basis in fact, the Tribunal is satisfied that at the time of this decision, whilst the applicant may have an ownership interest in a registered company, he no longer continues to satisfy the criteria in clause 892.211 in an actively operating main business.
Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant cannot meet clause 892.221 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
The applicant’s spouse and children were originally included in the visa application as secondary applicants and therefore they must meet the requirements of clause 892.321 at the time of decision. To meet this clause they must be members of the family unit of a person who, having satisfied the primary criteria, is the holder of a subclass 892 visa. As a consequence of the Tribunal’s finding that the applicant does not satisfy the primary criteria for a subclass 892 visa, the Tribunal finds that the secondary applicants do not meet the requirements of clause 892.211 or 892.221 and, therefore, they also do not satisfy the criteria for subclass 892 visas.
The applicant has only sought to satisfy the criteria for a Subclass 892 visa. No claims have been made in respect of the other visas (subclass 890, 891, or 893) in Class DF. As the applicant has not met the criteria for a Subclass 892 visa, the decision under review must be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision under review not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) Subclass 892 visas.
Filip Gelev
Member