Forough Bakhsh (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Forough Bakhsh against a decision of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection regarding a Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner) visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant had continuously operated a main business in Australia for the requisite period, as stipulated by the migration regulations.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant possessed the required ownership interest in actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years prior to the visa application and at the time of the application, and whether this criterion continued to be met at the time of the Tribunal's decision. This involved determining the nature of the applicant's interest in the nominated businesses, whether those businesses were actively operating, and if they qualified as "main businesses" throughout the relevant periods. A preliminary issue also arose concerning the role of the company Aramin Pty Ltd, the entity through which the businesses were operated, and whether it was correctly identified as the sole main business or as a parent company holding interests in separate trading entities.

The Tribunal considered the requirements of clause 892.211 and 892.221 of the Migration Regulations, which mandate an ownership interest in actively operating main businesses. The applicant nominated two businesses, Aramin Air Conditioning and Kolbeh Persian Restaurant, operated through Aramin Pty Ltd. The Tribunal noted a potential conflict in the Department's interpretation of Aramin as a passive parent company versus the applicant's nomination of two distinct trading businesses. The Tribunal's analysis focused on the nature of Aramin's involvement and the operational status of the nominated businesses to determine compliance with the visa criteria.

Ultimately, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for further consideration.