SANJEEVARAJ (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for review of a decision by the Departmental delegate to refuse a Subclass 890 (Business Owner) visa. The applicant sought to establish that she had met the requirements of cl.890.211 of the Migration Regulations, which mandated an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years immediately preceding the application. The applicant nominated two businesses, SAAS Sydney Pty Ltd and Sri Radha Ambika Pty Ltd. The delegate found that the applicant did not have the requisite ownership interest in Sri Radha Ambika Pty Ltd within the relevant period, as her share transfer occurred in August 2013, less than two years before the application lodged on 30 January 2015. The delegate also noted that the applicant's claimed ownership interest in SAAS Sydney Pty Ltd dated back to 2010 and 2011, which fell outside the relevant two-year period.

The primary legal issues before the Tribunal were whether the applicant had satisfied the ownership interest requirement for the requisite period and whether she had maintained a direct and continuous involvement in the management of the nominated businesses. The Tribunal considered the definition of a "qualifying business" as an enterprise operated for profit, excluding speculative or passive investment. It also examined the applicant's evidence regarding her ownership and management roles in both SAAS Sydney Pty Ltd and Sri Radha Ambika Pty Ltd.

The Tribunal found the applicant's oral evidence regarding her management of SAAS Sydney Pty Ltd to be unpersuasive. It concluded that the applicant was not maintaining direct and continuous involvement in the day-to-day running of the business or in making decisions affecting its overall direction and performance. The Tribunal noted that the applicant's husband oversaw the business, and she appeared to be reliant on his direction. While acknowledging the business's operations, the Tribunal found the applicant lacked knowledge of its main functions, tax matters, and turnover details, which would be expected of someone actively involved in management. Consequently, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant's involvement was direct, continuous, or day-to-day as required by the regulations.

The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision, finding that the applicant had not met the requirements of cl.890.211. The application for review was dismissed.