Balaei (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal before the Administrative Appeals Tribunal regarding the refusal to grant Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas, specifically Subclass 890 (Business Owner), to Ms Balaei and a secondary applicant. The primary dispute revolved around whether Ms Balaei had satisfied all the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning the submission of Business Activity Statements.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Ms Balaei met the requirements of clause 890.211(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This clause mandates that for each relevant business, an Australian Business Number must have been obtained, and all Business Activity Statements required by the Australian Taxation Office for the two years immediately preceding the visa application must have been submitted to the ATO and included with the visa application.

The Tribunal found that while an Australian Business Number had been obtained and all required Business Activity Statements had been submitted to the ATO prior to the application date, the crucial issue was whether these statements had been "included in the application." The Tribunal interpreted this wording to mean that the statements must have been lodged as part of the initial application, not provided later as further information. Citing the precedent in *Nasirzadeh*, where Business Activity Statements provided 14 months after the application was lodged were deemed insufficient, the Tribunal concluded that Ms Balaei had failed to satisfy this requirement. Consequently, as Ms Balaei did not meet the primary criteria, the secondary applicant also failed to satisfy the relevant criteria as a member of her family unit.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas to the applicants.