Bui (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner) visa. The applicant, Mr. Bui, sought review of a decision that had made an adverse finding regarding his satisfaction of criterion cl.892.211(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which relates to the ownership interest in a main business and the submission of Business Activity Statements (BAS). The review was conducted by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the documents submitted by the applicant in relation to criterion cl.892.211(2) were satisfactory and had been included with the visa application. Specifically, the Tribunal was required to determine if all Business Activity Statements (BAS) required by the Australian Taxation Office (ATO) for the two years immediately preceding the application had been submitted to the ATO and included in the application. The Tribunal noted that it would only address this specific criterion, as per the President's Direction, with other criteria, including cl.892.211(1), to be assessed by the Department.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the delegate had expressed concern that the copies of the BAS provided did not display the Commonwealth Coat of Arms, this was not a mandatory requirement of cl.892.211(2). The Tribunal found that evidence from the ATO's Integrated Client Account, which showed the lodgment of the BAS by their due dates, was sufficient to establish that the statements had been lodged. Having confirmed that all required BAS for the relevant period were lodged with the ATO and included in the application, the Tribunal found that criterion cl.892.211(2) was met.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for reconsideration by the Department, with a direction that the primary applicant met criterion cl.892.211(2). The secondary visa applicants were also remitted for reconsideration based on the outcome of the primary applicant's application.