Mirsafi Niasar (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mrs Mirsafi Niasar against a decision of the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) which affirmed the refusal of her application for a Subclass 892 (State/Territory Business Owner) visa. The central issue revolved around the interpretation and application of clause 892.211(2)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth), which sets out requirements for Business Activity Statements for the applicant's nominated main business.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mrs Niasar had satisfied the requirement that all Business Activity Statements for the two years immediately preceding her visa application be included in the application. While the Tribunal found that an Australian Business Number had been obtained for her business, 'Victoria Scissors', and that all required Business Activity Statements had been submitted to the Australian Taxation Office prior to the application date, the critical question was whether copies of these statements had been included with the application itself.

The Tribunal reasoned that clause 892.211(2)(b) imposed a mandatory requirement for the inclusion of copies of the Business Activity Statements within the visa application. It noted that there was no legislative requirement for evidence of lodgement to be included, but that the actual statements themselves were essential. Drawing on the precedent of *Nasirzadeh*, the Tribunal concluded that this requirement had not been met by Mrs Niasar.

Consequently, as an essential requirement for the visa was not satisfied, the Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant Mrs Niasar the Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa.