Akhtarani (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa, specifically Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner), made by the first named applicant. The dispute centred on whether the applicant met the requirements of clause 892.211(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994, which pertains to having an ownership interest in an actively operating main business in Australia for a specified period. The decision was made by a Tribunal member, Mary Sheargold.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was to determine if the first named applicant satisfied clause 892.211(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause requires an applicant to have had an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years prior to the visa application, and to continue to hold that interest at the time of the application and at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered the definition of "ownership interest" and "main business" as stipulated in the Regulations.

The Tribunal found that the first named applicant had provided sufficient evidence to satisfy clause 892.211(1). The applicant demonstrated an ownership interest in Arshida Pty Ltd, a company he registered and of which he is the sole director and shareholder. The Tribunal was satisfied that this business was actively operating and met the definition of a "main business" for the relevant periods. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the matter to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining visa criteria, including those for the secondary applicants, with a specific direction that the first named applicant met the criterion under clause 892.211(1).