Cheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship

The appeal in Cheng v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship concerns the eligibility of the appellants for a subclass 892 visa, a Business Skills (Residence) visa, based on the annual turnover of their business, Nisi Group (Australia) Pty Ltd. The Federal Circuit Court of Australia, in reviewing the decision of the Migration Review Tribunal, examined whether the Tribunal had correctly interpreted the term "turnover" in determining the annual revenue of Nisi for visa eligibility purposes. The appellants argued that the Tribunal's interpretation was incorrect, contending that the term "turnover" should include all monies received by Nisi, not just the service revenue after deducting payments to Symex Holdings Pty Ltd.

The key legal issues before the Court were whether the Tribunal had erred in its construction of the term "turnover" and whether, having determined its meaning, the Tribunal had correctly applied it to the facts of the case. The Court considered the principles of statutory interpretation, including the ordinary meaning of the term, the statutory context, and relevant case law. The appellants' argument was that the Tribunal should have considered all moneys received by Nisi, not just the service revenue, as part of the turnover. However, the Court found that the Tribunal's interpretation, which limited the turnover to the service revenue, was consistent with the statutory context and the ordinary meaning of the term "turnover" in that context.

The Court held that the Tribunal had not erred in its interpretation or application of the term "turnover." It concluded that the Tribunal's decision was consistent with the statutory context and the ordinary meaning of the term. The Court also noted that the Tribunal's decision was supported by the statutory purpose of ensuring that the applicant's business met the required financial threshold. Therefore, the Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the Tribunal's decision not to grant the visas to the appellants. The appellants were ordered to pay the costs of the first respondent.