Keo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr Keo and his family concerning an application for a Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa. The dispute arose from the refusal to grant this visa, with the AAT affirming the delegate's decision.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the first named applicant, Mr Keo's son, met the criteria for the Subclass 188 visa, specifically clause 188.311 of the Migration Regulations 1994. This clause relates to the definition of a family unit and the eligibility of family members to be included in a visa application. The Tribunal also had to determine its jurisdiction in relation to the other named applicants.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the first named applicant was a member of Mr Keo's family unit as defined in regulation 1.12, he was not a member of the family unit of a person who held a Subclass 188 visa granted on the basis of meeting the primary criteria. Consequently, he did not satisfy clause 188.311. The Tribunal found no evidence that he met the primary visa criteria in his own right. As a result, the Tribunal concluded it lacked jurisdiction concerning the second, third, and fourth named applicants.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the first named applicant a Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa.