Chopra (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa in the Business Innovation stream. The applicant sought to satisfy the primary criteria for this visa, specifically clause 188.225(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires an ownership interest in a main business with a specified annual turnover for at least two of the four fiscal years preceding the invitation to apply. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant met this criterion, considering the businesses nominated and the nature of their ownership interest and turnover.

The central legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant possessed the requisite ownership interest in their nominated businesses, "Chopra Motor Products" and "Sunil Chopra (sole trader)," for at least two of the four fiscal years prior to their invitation to apply for the visa on 6 November 2019. This involved assessing the definition of "ownership interest" as provided by section 134(10) of the Act and regulation 1.03 of the Regulations, and whether the applicant's involvement in the nominated businesses, including the collection of tax commissions, constituted a qualifying interest in a "main business" with the required annual turnover.

The Tribunal found that the applicant did not meet the criteria for the visa. While the applicant claimed an ownership interest in "Chopra Motor Products" and operated "Sunil Chopra (sole trader)," the Tribunal determined that the latter, which involved the collection of government tax receipts, driving school fees, pollution centre receipts, and photostat and commission receipts, did not qualify as a "main business" for the purposes of the visa requirements. Specifically, the Tribunal disregarded the tax collection commission as not contributing to the annual turnover of a qualifying business. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had not demonstrated the necessary ownership interest in a qualifying main business for the required period.

As the applicant failed to satisfy the primary criteria for the Subclass 188 visa, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa.