Naghy Pour (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of *Naghy Pour* concerning a Subclass 890 Business Skills (Residence) visa application. The applicant sought review of a decision to refuse this visa. The central dispute revolved around whether the applicant met the criteria for ownership interest in an actively operating main business for the two years prior to their application. A complicating factor was that the applicant's wife, who held a half-share in the business, had passed away during this two-year period.

The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had a sufficient ownership interest in the business for the requisite period, notwithstanding his wife's death and her prior ownership. Further issues included assessing the applicant's involvement in the management of the business, particularly in light of his absence offshore due to his wife's illness, and whether his communication with and direction of an employee constituted active management. The Tribunal also had to consider the valuation of the net business assets and whether business premises, held personally by the applicant but used exclusively for the business, qualified as business assets.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal applied the principles of the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth) concerning business ownership and management. It acknowledged that the applicant's wife's death during the assessment period necessitated a careful examination of how her share devolved and whether the applicant could demonstrate continued ownership and control. The Tribunal found that the applicant's personal ownership of the business premises, while not held by the business entity itself, was relevant to the overall assessment of his business assets and his commitment to the enterprise. The Tribunal concluded that the original decision had not adequately considered all relevant aspects of the applicant's case, particularly concerning his management involvement and the valuation of assets.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision under review back to the delegate for reconsideration according to law.