Jamshidilarijani (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered an appeal by Mr Jamshidilarijani concerning the refusal of his Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa, specifically the Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner) visa. The primary dispute revolved around whether Mr Jamshidilarijani met the requirements for ownership interest in an actively operating main business for two years prior to his application, and whether he possessed the requisite net business assets, including funds lawfully acquired in his home country. The Tribunal also had to consider the validity of an unsecured loan to an associate and the impact of revised financial statements intended to rectify earlier errors.

The central legal issues before the Tribunal were: firstly, whether Mr Jamshidilarijani's online supplier activities constituted an "actively operating main business" for the required two-year period before his application, particularly in light of the subsequent opening of a physical business; secondly, whether the net business assets he claimed were sufficient and properly evidenced, including the lawfulness of funds originating from his home country; and thirdly, the legal effect of an unsecured loan to an associate on his overall asset position. The Tribunal also had to determine if revised financial statements could validly rectify errors in the original application documentation.

The Tribunal found that the applicant's online supplier activities, undertaken before the physical business commenced operations, could be considered part of an actively operating main business. It acknowledged that revised financial statements could rectify errors, provided they accurately reflected the applicant's financial position. However, the Tribunal identified deficiencies in the evidence presented regarding the lawfulness of the funds in the applicant's home country and the nature of the unsecured loan to an associate, which impacted the assessment of his net business assets. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision to the delegate for reconsideration, requiring further evidence and assessment on these specific points.