Lai and Minister for Immigration, Citizenship and Multicultural Affairs (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr. Lai against the cancellation of his business visa and the subsequent cancellation of his dependent family members' business visas. The dispute arose from the Minister's decision to cancel the applicant's visa under subsection 134(1) of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth), which then triggered the mandatory cancellation of dependent family members' visas under subsection 134(4), unless extreme hardship would result under subsection 134(5). The appeal was heard by A Poljak SM.

The primary legal issues before the court were whether the applicant held a "substantial ownership interest" in eligible Australian businesses, and consequently, whether the residual discretion to cancel the applicant's visa should be exercised. Further, the court was required to determine if the cancellation of the dependent applicants' visas would result in "extreme hardship" to them, as contemplated by the legislation. The court also considered relevant policy, specifically paragraph 7.2 of Procedures Advice Manual 3 concerning the definition of "substantial ownership interest," and the evidence presented regarding the applicant's financial involvement in two companies, 'LTAD Pty Ltd' and 'Greengen Energy Pty Ltd'.

The court examined the applicant's claimed 30% shareholding in LTAD, noting that while this percentage was consistent with the applicant's assertion, the valuation of his shares in 2016 was only $3.00, based on an initial company capital of $10.00. The court also considered the applicant's substantial loan to LTAD and the company's property development activities, noting that the applicant conceded the units could not be sold at a profit. The court found that the evidence did not demonstrate that the applicant possessed a substantial ownership interest in LTAD, as defined by policy, which requires an interest significant relative to the business size and enabling major decision-making. Furthermore, the court found no evidence that the dependent applicants, including Ms. Lai who had departed Australia, would experience extreme hardship from the visa cancellations, and noted that they could apply for other visa types in the future.

The decisions under review were affirmed.