NGUYEN (Migration)

Case

[2019] AATA 3776

21 June 2019


Details
AGLC Case Decision Date
NGUYEN (Migration) [2019] AATA 3776 [2019] AATA 3776 21 June 2019

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered an application for Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas, specifically Subclass 890 (Business Owner), made by Mrs Nguyen and other applicants. The primary applicant, Mrs Nguyen, was found by the delegate not to have met criterion cl.890.212, which requires a minimum net value of AUD100,000 in the applicant's main business or businesses in Australia, held throughout the 12 months preceding the application and lawfully acquired.

The Tribunal was required to determine what constituted the "main business" for the purposes of cl.890.212, considering the definition in regulation 1.11. This definition necessitates an ownership interest, direct and continuous management involvement, a specified value of ownership interest, and that the business is a "qualifying business" as defined in regulation 1.03. A "qualifying business" is one operated for profit through the provision of goods or services to the public, and not primarily for speculative or passive investment. The Tribunal also had to consider the limitation that an applicant may nominate no more than two qualifying businesses as main businesses if more than one exists.

The Tribunal reasoned that the delegate had erred in their assessment of Mrs Nguyen's eligibility under cl.890.212. The Tribunal found that Mrs Nguyen met this criterion. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the remaining applications for reconsideration by the Minister, with the direction that the first named applicant, Mrs Nguyen, meets cl.890.212. The Tribunal noted it had no jurisdiction in relation to Ms Ngoc Hong Phuc Nguyen.
Details

Areas of Law

  • Immigration

  • Statutory Interpretation

  • Administrative Law

Legal Concepts

  • Jurisdiction

  • Statutory Construction

  • Judicial Review

  • Remedies

  • Procedural Fairness

Actions
Download as PDF Download as Word Document


Cases Citing This Decision

0

Cases Cited

0

Statutory Material Cited

0