Sefat (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 892 (State/Territory Business Owner) visa. The applicant sought to demonstrate that they had an ownership interest in one or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least two years prior to their visa application, and continued to hold such an interest at the time of the application and decision. The businesses in question were the Sefat Family Trust, trading as Cozy Shoes, and Gaptel Australia. The applicant and their spouse were co-trustees of the Sefat Family Trust. The Federal Circuit Court remitted the matter for reconsideration by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant possessed a sufficient "ownership interest" in the nominated businesses, as defined by migration regulations and legislation, to satisfy the criteria for the Subclass 892 visa. This involved examining the applicant's role as a co-trustee, appointor, and beneficiary of the Sefat Family Trust, and considering the nature of their involvement in the day-to-day management and operation of Cozy Shoes and Gaptel Australia. The Tribunal also had to determine if the businesses had actively operated for the requisite period and met the annual turnover requirements.

The Tribunal considered the definition of "ownership interest" which includes being a shareholder, partner, or sole proprietor, or holding such an interest indirectly through interposed entities. It was satisfied, based on documentary and oral evidence, that the businesses had been purchased and operated in Australia. The Tribunal found that the applicant and their spouse met the requirements concerning the value of their combined business and personal assets at the time of the decision, having a net value well exceeding the AUD250,000 threshold. Furthermore, the Tribunal was satisfied that the nominated businesses had achieved a total annual turnover of at least AUD309,000 (exclusive of GST) in the 12 months immediately preceding the visa application, thereby meeting the turnover requirement.

Given that the Tribunal was satisfied that the applicant met the requirements of clauses 892.212(b) and (c), and consequently clause 892.212 as a whole, and also met the ongoing asset value requirement under clause 892.221(b), the matter was remitted for reconsideration with a view to granting the visa.