Ruan (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) considered the case of Mr. Ruan, who sought review of a decision not to grant him and his family Business Skills (Permanent) Subclass 888 visas. Mr. Ruan had previously been granted a Subclass 188 Provisional visa and arrived in Australia with the intention of establishing a business. The dispute centred on whether Mr. Ruan had met the requirements for the permanent visa, specifically concerning his ownership interest in a main business actively operating in Australia.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether Mr. Ruan satisfied clause 888.222 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations. This clause requires an applicant to have had an ownership interest in at least one actively operating main business in Australia for the two years immediately preceding the visa application, and for this to continue to be met at the time of the decision. The Tribunal also considered the implications for secondary applicants, whose eligibility depended on the primary applicant meeting the criteria.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision not to grant the visas because Mr. Ruan failed to satisfy clause 888.222. Despite being given opportunities to provide necessary information, Mr. Ruan did not submit the required details regarding his business operations. The Tribunal noted that there was limited current and historical financial and trading information, and inconsistent sales data for the relevant period. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the criterion of having an ownership interest in an actively operating main business could not be met. As a result, the secondary applicants, being members of Mr. Ruan's family unit, also failed to satisfy their respective criteria.