Akhavannejad (Migration)

The applicant sought review of a decision concerning his application for a Business Skills (Provisional) visa, Subclass 188, in the Business Innovation stream. The dispute centred on the applicant's entitlement to points under the business innovation and investment points test, which requires a minimum of 65 points. The Tribunal was tasked with assessing the applicant's eligibility for points under various parts of Schedule 7A of the Migration Regulations 1994.

The legal issues before the Tribunal included determining the applicant's points entitlement for age, English language proficiency, and educational qualifications at the time he was invited to apply for the visa. Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider whether the applicant had provided sufficient evidence to qualify for points in these categories, and whether any points awarded for multiple qualifications should be based on the highest available score. The Tribunal also considered the implications of the applicant's family members' applications, which were dependent on the outcome of the primary applicant's case.

The Tribunal found that the applicant was entitled to 15 points for age, as he was 49 at the time of his invitation to apply. However, the applicant was not awarded any points for English language proficiency due to a lack of evidence submitted at the time of invitation. Similarly, no points were awarded for educational qualifications, as the applicant had not indicated entitlement to points for his listed qualifications in his Expression of Interest. Despite these deductions, the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant was entitled to 35 points for financial assets, leading to an overall score of 70 points.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the application for reconsideration by the Department, with a direction that the applicant meets the criteria for a Subclass 188 visa, including clause 188.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. The applications of the second and third named applicants, who applied as members of the family unit, were to be determined by reference to this outcome.