Rani (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal considered the case of Poonam Rani concerning her application for a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa, specifically under the business innovation stream. The applicant claimed a 30% ownership interest and direct and continuous involvement in the day-to-day management of the Balwan Singh Saw Mill. The Tribunal was required to determine whether the applicant had met the criteria for this visa subclass, particularly regarding her business ownership and management role.

The Tribunal's reasoning focused on the sufficiency and persuasiveness of the evidence provided by the applicant to substantiate her claimed involvement in the business. While the applicant presented a Partnership Deed, minutes of meetings, and an organisational chart, the Tribunal found the evidence of her direct and continuous management role to be vague and unpersuasive. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's husband and sister provided evidence, but this was not supported by verifiable, third-party documentation. Despite being given an opportunity to provide further information, the applicant only submitted a letter from Balwan Singh, who was not available to be cross-examined. The Tribunal concluded that the evidence did not demonstrate the applicant's active and continuous involvement in the management of the business as required by the visa criteria.

Consequently, the Tribunal found that the applicant had not met the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 188 visa. The decision under review, which refused the visa, was therefore affirmed.