Noorozi (Migration)

This matter concerned an appeal by Mr Noorozi and his family against the refusal of a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa, subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner). The primary issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr Noorozi met the requirements of clause 892.212 of the Migration Regulations 1994 at the time of his visa application on 2 November 2015. The delegate had refused the visa on the basis that Mr Noorozi failed to satisfy two of the three alternative requirements of clause 892.212, and consequently, his wife and children, as secondary applicants, did not meet the criteria for a family unit of a subclass 892 visa holder.

The Tribunal was required to determine if Mr Noorozi satisfied clause 892.212(b) and (c), which relate to the net value of business and personal assets in Australia, and the net value of assets in the main business in Australia, respectively. Specifically, the delegate had found that the financial statements provided by Mr Noorozi did not meet the required timeframes stipulated by policy and the regulations, thus preventing satisfaction of these criteria. The applicant’s agent argued that the initial financial statements were prepared based on the standard financial year and tax reporting periods, which did not align with the specific three-month requirement for the visa application.

The Tribunal noted that the applicant had subsequently provided updated financial statements from a new accountant, which addressed the three-month requirement and indicated that the net value of the business and personal assets exceeded the AUD 250,000 threshold for clause 892.212(b) and the AUD 75,000 threshold for clause 892.212(c). The agent contended that the assets were lawfully acquired and transferred from the applicant's previous sole-trader business to the Taktim Group Pty Ltd. The Tribunal considered that the issues surrounding the provision of financial statements and the applicant's business structure warranted further examination.

Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration. This decision was based on the need to properly assess the applicant's compliance with the financial requirements of clause 892.212, particularly in light of the additional evidence and submissions provided regarding the business assets and their valuation.