Li (Migration) - [2023] AATA 1116

Li (Migration) [2023] AATA 1116 (26 April 2023)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS:  Ms Yinrong Li
Mr Yonghua Zhang
Mr Jiaying Zhang
Miss Ziying Zhang
REPRESENTATIVE:  Mr Min Hu (MARN: 0215827)
CASE NUMBER:  2005928
HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2018/3300428

MEMBER:Antonio Dronjic
DATE:26 April 2023
PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Permanent) Subclass 888 visas.

Statement made on 26 April 2023 at 12:37pm
CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Business Skills (Permanent) (Class EC) visa – Subclass 888 (Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent)) – ‘main business’ – ownership interest – direct and continuous involvement in management on a day to day basis – requirements of the individual business – real estate agency – licensed estate agent – officer in effective control – decision under review affirmed
LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 65
Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), r 1.11; Schedule 2, cl 888.222
CASES
Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Hart [2009] FCAFC 112
STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 20 March 2020 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Business Skills (Permanent) Subclass 888 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
The visa applicant applied for the visa on 31 August 2018. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the primary applicant (the applicant) was unable to meet the requirements of cl 888.222(1) of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations).
In her visa application form, Ms Li nominated one main business, Yinrong Pty Ltd trading as Ivy Real Estate (Docklands). The delegate was not satisfied on the evidence presented to the Department that the applicant maintained direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business during the period of two years before lodgement of the visa application. Consequently, the applicant was unable satisfy the definition of main business, which has its meaning set out in reg 1.11.
The applicants applied to the Tribunal on 24 March 2020 for review of the delegate’s decision and with their applications submitted a copy of the primary decision record.
On 20 January 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants informing them that the Department file contains a certificate and notification regarding disclosure of certain information to the Tribunal, issued under s 376 of the Act. The Tribunal informed the applicants of its preliminary view that the certificate is valid, and accordingly release of information is prevented. The Tribunal enclosed a copy of the s 376 certificate dated 20 March 2020 and invited the applicants to provide their comment on the validity of the certificate.
On 1 February 2023, the applicant’s representative wrote to the Tribunal informing it that the ‘applicant has decided to accept AAT’s decision not to release the relevant information’.
On 22 February 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants to invite them to attend a hearing by video conference on 28 March 2023. The Tribunal exercised its discretion to hold the hearing by video conference using Microsoft Teams. The Tribunal determined it was reasonable to hold a hearing by video, having regard to the nature of this matter and the individual circumstances of the applicants.
On 19 March 2023, the Tribunal received submissions and documentary evidence from the applicant’s representative. The list of documents submitted is attached to this decision record as Attachment A.
Ms Yinrong Li appeared before the Tribunal on 28 March 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. The Tribunal also received oral evidence from Ms Yanwan Zhang, the applicant’s niece, who is also a director and shareholder of Yinrong Pty Ltd. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages. The applicants were represented in relation to the review.
At the commencement of the hearing, the Tribunal reminded the applicant that the Department file included a non-disclosure certificate issued under s 376 of the Act issued on 20 March 2020, in respect of internal departmental documents, namely a referral report. The certificate provides that disclosure of the specified documents would disclose lawful methods for preventing, detecting and investigating breaches or evasions of the law which would be likely to prejudice the effectiveness of those methods.
The Tribunal further explained that the s 376 certificate is purporting to prevent the disclosure of the Department’s Standard Tactical Plan related to the site visit conducted at the applicant’s business premises on 22 November 2019. The Tribunal further noted that the information obtained during the site visit was disclosed to the applicants in the Department’s letter of 13 December 2019.
The applicant is a 52-year-old citizen of China. She is married and has two children aged 28 and 18. On 21 June 2016, the applicant, her husband and children arrived in Australia as holders of a Subclass 188 visa.
When the Tribunal enquired, Ms Li stated that she cannot communicate in the English language and can only write simple things. The highest level of education completed in China was high school.
Together with her husband, the applicant owns Shanghai Xuchang Package Co. Ltd, a business located and operated in China. The business was registered approximately 20 years ago. When asked what her role in Shanghai Xuchang Package Co was, the applicant stated that she was ‘the boss’. She gave evidence that she is still managing this business via video meetings. She added that Mr Yonghua Zhang, her husband, is a general manager of this business. She stated in her evidence that, prior to arriving in Australia, she was never involved in operating a real estate business in China.
The applicant’s main business, Yinrong Pty Ltd, was registered on 6 July 2016. The applicant and her niece, Ms Yanwan Zhang, were appointed as business directors. The applicant holds 90% and Ms Zhang holds 10% of the company shares.
The applicant’s company, Yinrong Pty Ltd, purchased Ivy Real Estate (Docklands) on 21 July 2016 from Ivy Real Estate Pty Ltd – the business owned by Ms Li’s brother-in-law, Mr Hao (Henry) Zhang, for the amount of $120,000.
Ms Li stated in her evidence that her niece, Ms Zhang, did not invest any funds into Yinrong Pty Ltd and that her appointment as a business director and shareholder was a condition for purchasing the business from her brother-in-law. At the time the applicant’s business purchased Ivy Real Estate (Docklands), Ms Zhang was the only licensed real estate agent.
The business operates as a real estate agency from commercial premises located at 365 Docklands Drive and it consist of one meeting room, reception (shared by two businesses) and two offices located on the first floor. Another business, Ivy Migration, is located at the same premises. The business premises are owned by the applicant’s brother-in-law, Mr Zhang. According to Ms Li’s evidence, the current monthly rent for the premises is $2,786.
The Tribunal reiterated that both the delegate’s and the Tribunal’s concerns are related to the applicant’s direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and whether she made decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business during the period of two years before she lodged her application for a Subclass 888 visa. The Tribunal explained that the relevant period was from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018.
When asked to describe her role in the business during the period from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018, the applicant stated that she was the boss and the director of the business.
The applicant gave evidence that she was employed as a general manager of the business. In this capacity she was drawing a fortnightly salary of approximately $1,400. In addition to her salary, she was taking the business profit at the end of financial year. She was not paid directors’ fees. The business employed five people during the relevant period.
Ms Li was unable to recall what Ms Zhang’s salary was during the relevant period. She estimated that her salary was in the vicinity of $50,000. In addition, Ms Zhang received commission from the sale of properties. Ms Zhang’s current salary is $2,500 per fortnight.
Ms Li gave evidence that, during the relevant period, she attended work every day but did not have fixed working hours. She explained that the real estate agency had two departments. The rental department was managed from 2019 by her son Oskar and her niece, Ms Zhang, managed the sales department. She added that both managers reported to her as she was the boss. She reiterated that Ms Zhang, being the only licensed estate agent at the time, managed the technical side of the business.
The applicant further stated in her evidence that together with her son and niece, she decided who would be employed by the business during the relevant period.
When questioned by the Tribunal, Ms Li stated that during the relevant period, she did not have authority to operate the trust account. This was done by Ms Zhang. She added that she oversaw the office account.
She gave evidence that her son Oskar commenced employment at the real estate agency in 2016 as a salesperson. From 2019, he became the manager of the agency’s rental department. He is no longer employed by the business.
When asked if the applicant knows who Mindy Xiao is, what her position was in the business and the period of her employment, the applicant stated that Mindy worked in the rental department. She was unable to recall the period of her employment. The Tribunal noted that, according to the primary decision record, during the Department’s site visit Mindy stated that she was hired by her son Oskar. The applicant reiterated that the decisions to hire employees were made jointly by her son, her niece and herself, but the ultimate decision whether to hire new employees was made by herself as she was the owner of the business.
When asked if the applicant knows who Feifei Wang is, what her position was in the business and the period of her employment, the applicant stated that she was a salesperson who commenced employment in 2018.
The Tribunal referred to the information contained in the primary decision record related to the information obtained from Consumer Affairs Victoria, stating that the manager of the real estate agency must be a licensed estate agent and that an agent’s representative who is new to the business cannot manage the office.
Ms Li gave evidence that her business Yinrong Pty Ltd obtained an estate licence in November 2016. She explained that her niece managed the technical part of the business but that she was the majority shareholder. The Tribunal explained the difference between the business owner and the person who is managing day to day business operations. The applicant stated that Ms Zhang looked after ‘nitty-gritty’ parts of the business but that she managed Ms Zhang.
When asked to describe how she managed the business during the relevant period, Ms Li stated that she attended several promotional events and interviews. When questioned how she could manage interviews and promotional events without having a functional level of the English language, Ms Li stated that the majority of her business clients and property developers are Chinese nationals.
She stated that in 2018, the business participated in various real estate exhibitions and sponsored sporting events including seven golfing competitions. The other example stated by the applicant was participation of her business in the event held in Chinatown in 2016 and a real estate exhibition also held in 2016.
Ms Li stated that she is in charge of the financial side of her business. When asked, she stated that the business engages services of an external accounting firm which prepares relevant financial documents (including BAS and financial reports).
Evidence of Ms Zhang
In her evidence, Ms Zhang confirmed that she is a director and minority shareholder of Yinrong Pty Ltd. She is and has been a licensed estate agent since June 2016. She stated that her position at the business is manager, and that in addition to a sales commission, she receives an annual salary of approximately $40,000 to $50,000.
The witness confirmed that Ms Li purchased Ivy Real Estate (Docklands) from her father, Mr Hao (Henry) Zhang, and that one of the conditions for sale of this business was that Ms Zhang is appointed a company director and a shareholder and that she works at the business as an estate agent. This condition was verbally agreed between Ms Li and Mr Zhang.
During the period from August 2016 to August 2018, the business employed five full‑time employees. Ms Zhang was the only licensed estate agent during this period, and in that capacity, she managed the agency’s sales department. She was the only person authorised to operate the agency’s trust account.
Initially, her cousin Oskar (Ms Li’s son) worked in sales. From 2019, he was appointed to manage the agency’s rental department. Oskar is no longer employed by the business, and according to Ms Zhang’s recollection, he ceased employment in 2021.
Ms Zhang confirmed that the business retained services of external accountants for bookkeeping and the preparation of financial reports for the ATO.
Ms Zhang confirmed in her evidence that she was aware of the requirement that the manager of the real estate agency must be a licensed estate agent. She gave evidence that, as the only licensed estate agent, she managed the estate agency during the relevant period, but that at the same time Ms Li managed her.
When asked to describe Ms Li’s role in the business during the relevant period, the witness stated that Ms Li attended various promotional events, made decisions whether to approve discounts for property buyers or rental management fees and communicated and discussed corporate rates with property developers to secure sales contracts for the agency.
When the Tribunal enquired how she was able to communicate with property developers without having functional English, the witness stated that Ms Li communicated with Chinese developers or Chinese nationals working for property developers.
Ms Zhang gave evidence that Ms Li worked every day but that her work hours were flexible because of the nature of her role at the business.
The witness further stated in her evidence that Ms Li made decisions about employees’ salaries and that, in consultation with Ms Zhang and Oskar, decided whether to hire or fire employees. She explained that because Ms Li invested money in the business, she was the one making important decisions affecting the overall business performance.
The Tribunal observed that it is not disputed that Ms Li is the business owner and noted the difference between being the business owner and managing day to day business operations.
Ms Zhang stated in her evidence that Ms Li obtained her real estate agent’s licence in 2020 and that since that time she has been conducting sales of properties and is authorised to operate the trust account.
On 30 March 2023, the applicant’s representative provided post-hearing submissions.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant satisfies the criteria set out in cl 888.222, as follows:
Clause 888.222
(1) The applicant (the current applicant):
(a) had an ownership interest in at least one actively operating main business in Australia during the 2 years immediately before the application was made; and
(b) continues to have the ownership interest in the actively operating main business.
(2) If the current applicant acquired the ownership interest from another person who was an applicant for, or held, a Business Skills (Permanent) (Class EC) visa or a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa at the time of the acquisition, the current applicant must have held the ownership interest with that person as a joint interest for at least one year before the current applicant’s application was made.
The definition of ‘main business’ is set out in reg 1.11, which reads as follows:
Regulation 1.11
(1) For the purposes of these Regulations and subject to subregulation (2), a business is a main business in relation to an applicant for a visa if:
(a) the applicant has, or has had, an ownership interest in the business; and
(b) the applicant maintains, or has maintained, direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business; and
(c) the value of the applicant’s ownership interest or the total value of the ownership interests of the applicant and the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, in the business is or was:
(i) if the business is operated by a publicly listed company — at least 10% of the total value of the business; or
(ii) if:
(A) the business is not operated by a publicly listed company; and
(B) the annual turnover of the business is at least AUD400 000;
at least 30% of the total value of the business; or
(iii) if:
(A) the business is not operated by a publicly listed company; and
(B) the annual turnover of the business is less than AUD400 000;
at least 51% of the total value of the business; and
(d) the business is a qualifying business.
(2) If an applicant has, or has had, an ownership interest in more than 1 qualifying business that would, except for this subregulation, be a main business in relation to the applicant, the applicant must not nominate more than 2 of those qualifying businesses as main businesses.
A qualifying business is defined in reg 1.03 as an enterprise that:
(a) is operated for the purpose of making profit through the provision of goods, services or goods and services (other than the provision of rental property) to the public; and
(b) is not operated primarily or substantially for the purpose of speculative or passive investment.
As the visa applications were lodged on 31 August 2018, the relevant two-year period runs from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018. The Tribunal considered whether the nominated business meets the criteria to be a ‘main business’.
Ownership interest
An ‘ownership interest’, in relation to a business, means an interest in the business as:
·            a shareholder in a company that carries on the business, or
·            a partner in a partnership that carries on the business, or
·            the sole proprietor of the business;
including such an interest held indirectly through one or more interposed companies, partnerships or trusts (s 134(10) of the Act).
According to the ASIC extract, Yinrong Pty Ltd was registered on 6 July 2016. The applicant hods 90% shares of this company and, together with Ms Zhang, was appointed as a company director at the time the company was registered. According to ABN Lookup, from 17 December 2016, the business operates under the trading name Ivy Real Estate (Docklands).
Consistent with the findings in the case of Minister for Immigration and Citizenship v Hart [2009] FCAFC 112, the Tribunal accepts that ‘a shareholder in a company that carries on the business has an interest in the business, and that interest is an ownership interest’. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that Ms Li has an ownership interest in the business. Consequently, the first criterion in reg 1.11(1)(a) is met.
Maintaining direct and continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day and in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business: reg 1.11(1)(b)
To meet the definition of ‘main business’ in reg 1.11(1)(b), the applicant must maintain, or have maintained, direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day to day and direct and continuous involvement in making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business. The Tribunal is of the view that this criterion contains two requirements. The first is that the applicant maintained direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day to day. The second is that the applicant maintained direct and continuous involvement in making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of the business.

A person involved in the ‘management of the business’ does not necessarily have to manage the whole of the business. The Tribunal accepts that there is a variety of ways in which a person might maintain direct and continuous involvement in the management of a business and in making decisions affecting its overall direction and performance. The wording of the test in reg 1.11(1)(b) for the purposes of determining a main business is in the ordinary words of the English language used in a non-technical sense. The Regulations require an applicant to have ‘involvement’ in the management and the Tribunal accepts that involvement in the management can be different to the role of manager.
However, the Regulations do require an applicant to ‘maintain direct and continuous involvement in management on a day to day basis’. The ordinary dictionary meaning of ‘continuous’ is unceasing, unbroken, uninterrupted. The meaning of the term ‘day to day’ is self‑evident.
Did the applicant maintain direct and continuous involvement in making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of the business from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018?
In his submissions, the applicant’s representative stated that Ms Li, as a person with a controlling ownership interest in the business, had and still has a final say in respect of the business development, budgeting and costing decisions.
It was further submitted that, during the relevant period, the applicant’s duties included marketing campaigns, sponsorship, financial operations, legal assistance, welfare of the employees and return of the investment. The applicant claims that both estate managers (Ms Zhang and the applicant’s son Oskar) reported to her, and that she had a final say in deciding who would be employed at the business.
In her oral evidence, Ms Li described her role in the business, during the period from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018, as the boss and the director of the business. She was employed as a general manager, and in that capacity she received a fortnightly salary of approximately $1,400. She conceded that she did not have authority to operate the agency’s trust account but stated that she oversaw the financial side of her business. She further stated that she attended several promotional events and interviews, with Chinese‑speaking clients and developers. She described Ms Zhang’s role as looking after ‘nitty-gritty’ parts of the business.
In her oral evidence, Ms Zhang stated that, during the relevant period, Ms Li attended various promotional events, made decisions whether to approve discounts for property buyers or rental management fees and communicated and discussed corporate rates with property developers to secure sales contracts for the agency. She further stated that Ms Li made decisions about employees’ salaries, and that in consultation with her and Oskar, decided whether to hire or fire employees.
Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant maintained direct and continuous involvement in making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of the business from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018.
Did the applicant maintain direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day to day during the period from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018?
The question of whether an applicant has demonstrated an involvement in the management of that business from day to day is a matter of fact for the Tribunal.[1]
[1] Lobo v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 1024 at [25]–[26]. For example, in Sun v MIBP [2015] FCCA 1266 the Court held that on a plain reading of reg 1.11(1)(b) it could not be said that the applicant, whilst she was overseas, maintained a direct and continuous involvement in the management of the business from day to day including making decisions affecting the overall direction and performance of the business (at [34]).
The Tribunal must have regard to the whole of the circumstances and requirements of the individual business. Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that Yinrong Pty Ltd operates Ivy Real Estate (Docklands) agency. The Tribunal is of the view that the real estate agency demands daily managerial attention in respect of the below listed duties.
According to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO), the tasks of a real estate agent include:
·     accepting and listing properties and businesses for sale and lease, conducting inspections, and advising buyers on the merits of properties and businesses and the terms of sale or lease;
·     advising vendors of sales and marketing options such as sale by auction and open house inspections;
·     cataloguing and detailing land, buildings and businesses for sale or lease and arranging advertising;
·     assessing buyers' needs and locating properties and businesses for their consideration;
·     offering valuations and advice for buying and selling properties and businesses, and structuring the terms of settlement;
·     collecting and holding rent monies from tenants, and remitting to owner on agreed basis;
·     monitoring and addressing non-compliance with terms and conditions of tenancy and pursuing rental arrears;
·     developing and implementing business plans, budgets, policies and procedures for the agency; and
·     may arrange finance, land brokerage, conveyancing and maintenance of premises.
The ANZSCO further states that a real estate agency principal/agency licensee manages the overall activities of a real estate agency, and that registration or licensing is required.
According to the primary decision record, Consumer Affairs Victoria ( states that ‘the manager of the day to day operations of an estate agency office, including principal and branch offices, must be a licensed estate agent’. An agent’s representative who is new to the industry cannot manage an office.
For Ms Li to operate a real estate business, she must be registered with Consumer Affairs Victoria as the principal officer or an officer in effective control. A Consumer Affairs Victoria public search related to Yinrong Pty Ltd conducted by the Department revealed that, at the relevant time, Ms Zhang was listed as the officer in effective control whereas Ms Li was listed as an agent’s representative from 6 June 2017.
To become an agent’s representative, Ms Li was required to complete three units of competency, which, according to her evidence, she did prior to 6 June 2017. As an agent’s representative, the applicant was allowed to perform any of the legal functions such as acting as a salesperson or property manager, but she was not permitted to manage an estate agency business.
It is not disputed that Ms Zhang is and has been a licensed agent of this real estate agency since it commenced its operations under the umbrella of legal entity Yinrong Pty Ltd. In this capacity, she was an officer in effective control until the time Ms Li obtained her estate licence in 2020.
The applicant’s representative submitted to the Tribunal that Yinrong Pty Ltd was in fact a holder of an estate licence obtained on 16 November 2016, and that, for a company to hold an estate licence, one of the directors must be a licensed agent. It is conceded that, during the relevant period, Ms Zhang was a company director who was a licensed agent.
It was further submitted that this operational framework enables the company to undertake the business activities and Ms Li, in her capacity of managing director, to exercise her share of duties permitted under law. In accepting those submissions, the Tribunal found that the applicant, in her capacity of managing director, maintained direct and continuous involvement in making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of the business during the relevant period.
It was submitted that her day to day management included corresponding with developers to get listings, supervising sales agents’ work, overseeing the company financial aspects and deciding and implementing marketing activities. While those tasks are relevant to the consideration of whether the applicant maintained direct and continuous involvement in making decisions that affected the overall direction and performance of the business, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the above listed tasks are performed by the applicant on a day to day basis.
Based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that, during the relevant period from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018, the applicant was not a licensed agent and officer in effective control of the agency. She was not authorised to operate the agency’s trust account, list properties and businesses for sale and lease or conduct inspections.
She was not permitted, in her capacity of business owner and managing director of the agency, to provide advice to buyers or vendors, offer valuations and advice for buying and selling properties and businesses, and structure the terms of settlement. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant was authorised to undertake or manage the core activities of a real estate agency (which the applicant described in her evidence to be ‘nitty‑gritty’ parts of the business).
The Tribunal notes that the applicant had no prior experience in a real estate business. According to her own evidence, she has no or very little capacity to communicate in the English language and her business dealings were limited to communication with clients or building developers of a Chinese background.
The Tribunal shares the delegate’s concerns arising out of the verification visit conducted by Departmental officers on 22 November 2019 and does not find the applicant’s explanation provided in the letter of 15 January 2020 to be plausible. The Tribunal is of the view that it is reasonable to expect that employees of a small business know who their manager is, who are they reporting to and the location of Ms Li’s office, irrespective of the duration of their employment at the agency.
The Tribunal considered documentary evidence and submissions provided by the applicant, as well as oral evidence given at the hearing. While the Tribunal accepts that the applicant was involved in the management of the business, based on the evidence before it, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the applicant maintained continuous involvement in management of the business from day to day during the period from 31 August 2016 to 30 August 2018, being the relevant two-year period. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that the company Yinrong Pty Ltd is not a ‘main business’ as defined in reg 1.11(1) of the Regulations.
As the Tribunal found that Yinrong Pty Ltd is not a main business, it follows that the applicant cannot meet cl 888.222(1)(a) because the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it that the applicant had an ownership interest in at least one actively operating main business in Australia during the two years immediately before the application was made.
Further, because the first named applicant is unable to satisfy cl 888.222 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, the second, third and fourth named applicants are unable to satisfy cl 888.311 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations because they are not members of a family unit of a person who holds a Subclass 888 visa granted on the basis of satisfying the primary criteria for the grant of the visa. Therefore, the decision in relation to the secondary applicants must also be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Permanent) Subclass 888 visas.
Antonio Dronjic
Member

Attachment A: Document List
·Legal submissions parts 1 to 7 from Min Hu dated 19 March 2023.
·Letter from Freddy Huang of HLT Accountants dated 2 March 2023.
·Evidentiary photographs undated.
·Contract of Sale of Business undated.
·Work example emails (with translation) from PRA dated 13 June 2017–16 January 2023.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd trading as Ivy Real Estate Docklands funds transfer request forms dated 29 June 2017, 2 May 2017, 19 March 2018, 20 March 2018, 31 May 2018, 2 March 2021, 31 March 2021 and 19 May 2021.
·NetFone tax invoice/statement dated 19 March 2018.
·InkPress tax invoices dated 20 December 2017 and 20 March 2018.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd sales commission statements dated 7 June 2018 and 1 February 2018.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd request for leave forms dated 1 November 2018 and 4 May 2021.
·HLT Accountants tax invoice dated 31 January 2018 and 12 April 2021.
·Win Energy electricity account summary dated 6 February 2018.
·Roslyn Buzza Chartered Accountant tax invoice dated 21 June 2018.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd trading as Ivy Real Estate application forms dated 5 March 2018, 19 April 2018 and 26 June 2018.
·MYOB tax invoice dated 1 February 2017.
·Ok Printing tax invoice dated 21 January 2017.
·Officeworks tax invoice dated 18 January 2017.
·Law Institute Victoria tax invoice dated 3 January 2017.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd trading as Ivy Real Estate Docklands refund request dated 16 March 2017.
·Ivy Real Estate Docklands contract of sale dated 28 July 2017.
·Ivy Real Estate Docklands contract of sale dated 22 September 2017.
·Referral agreement between Dynamic Residential and Yinrong Pty Ltd dated 18 March 2021.
·A&C Financial Solutions agreement dated 20 May 2020.
·Rental reduction agreements dated 19 March 2021 and 23 December 2021.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd financial report for year ending 30 June 2020.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd financial report for year ending 30 June 2021.
·Yinrong Pty Ltd financial report for year ending 30 June 2022.
·Certificate of Title Victoria produced 24 April 2021.
·Certificate of Title Victoria produced 20 July 2016.
·Certificate of Title Victoria produced 10 August 2018.
·City of Melbourne valuation and rate notices dated 2 September 2021 and 22 August 2022.
·Contract of Sale prepared by Thomsons lawyers undated.
·Estate Agent’s license for Yinrong Li dated 3 July 2020.
·Enzo Yuelin Zhang birth certificate dated 31 October 2022.
·Photographs of PRA’s family undated.