Li (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Li (Migration), with the Applicant seeking review of a delegate's decision to refuse a Subclass 890 (Business Owner) visa. The refusal was based on the Applicant's alleged involvement in unacceptable business activities, specifically her directorship of Vipper Pty Ltd, a company prosecuted for underpaying its employees. The delegate found the Applicant complicit in this conduct, deeming it unacceptable in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the Applicant met the requirements of Clause 890.211(1) of the Migration Regulations, which mandates an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years prior to the visa application and continuing at the time of the decision. This involved determining if the nominated businesses, Veggie Heaven and the 7-Eleven Business operated by Vipper, qualified as "main businesses" and if the Applicant maintained the requisite ownership interest and direct and continuous involvement.

The Tribunal reasoned that a business is an enterprise, not a legal entity, and therefore it was crucial to identify the specific businesses to which the "main business" definition applied. The Applicant relied on her ownership interest in Veggie Heaven, purchased on 16 November 2014, and her interest in the 7-Eleven Business operated by Vipper. The Tribunal noted that the Applicant's initial investment in Vipper was for visa purposes and that the Seafood Business, briefly operated by the Applicant, was not mentioned in her application and its financial documentation was unclear and contradictory. The Tribunal found that the Applicant's assertion of involvement in the Seafood Business was not substantiated by the provided documentation, which indicated its operation concluded in August 2013, prior to the settlement date of Veggie Heaven.

The Tribunal concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.