Razmara (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the applications of Mr Razmara and his family members for Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas, specifically the Subclass 892 (State/Territory Sponsored Business Owner) visa. The central dispute concerned whether Mr Razmara had met the requirement of holding the requisite ownership interest in his business.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the evidence presented by Mr Razmara sufficiently demonstrated that he had held a 51% shareholding in his business from 10 November 2012, as required by the relevant visa regulations, particularly in light of the business's low turnover. The Tribunal had concerns that the Australian Securities and Investments Commission (ASIC) historical company extract did not support Mr Razmara's claim of 100% shareholding from that date.

The Tribunal reasoned that while the ASIC extract did not directly corroborate Mr Razmara's assertion of sole ownership from 10 November 2012, it accepted his explanation regarding the complexities of establishing a business in Australia and the initial reliance on his migration agent and legal advisors. The Tribunal found that the applicant had provided evidence, including signed minutes of a meeting on 10 November 2012, which indicated an agreement to transfer all shares into his name. Despite the initial discrepancies with the ASIC extract, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had met the criteria for the Subclass 892 visa.

Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the applications for Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas for reconsideration by the Department. The Tribunal directed that Mr Razmara met the criteria under Regulation 1.11(1)(c)(iii) for the purposes of meeting clause 892.211(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, meaning his family members' applications would also be determined by reference to this outcome.