Jiang (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa, Subclass 890, made by Ms. Jiang. The applicant nominated Ausbaker International Pty Ltd, a supermarket business, as her main business. The core of the dispute concerned whether the applicant had satisfied the requirements of clause 890.214 of the Migration Regulations 1994, specifically regarding her ownership interest in the nominated business and the duration of that interest.

The Tribunal was required to determine if the applicant had met the criteria for the visa, particularly concerning her shareholding in Ausbaker International Pty Ltd and the timing of her investment. This involved examining the evidence presented regarding the issuance of shares, the applicant's capital investment and shareholder loan, and the dates these transactions occurred in relation to the visa application lodgement date. A key issue was whether the applicant had held the required ownership interest for the two years immediately preceding her application, as indicated by clause 890.211.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the documentary evidence and the applicant's own testimony. While the applicant provided evidence of a $160,000 investment and a shareholder agreement indicating a 40% shareholding, her evidence regarding the precise nature of the funds (whether solely for shares or partly a loan) and her understanding of the company's accounting was unclear. Furthermore, the Tribunal noted that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) register indicated the applicant became a shareholder on 19 September 2012, while her visa application was lodged on 18 September 2014. This raised a concern that she might have fallen short of the two-year ownership requirement by one or two days.

Ultimately, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visa. It concluded that there was insufficient evidence to establish that the applicant had met the specific requirements of clause 890.214, particularly the duration of her ownership interest. The Tribunal also noted that the applicant had not claimed to meet the requirements for any other visa subclasses within Class DF.