Shao (Migration)
Case
•
[2023] AATA 2693
•26 July 2023
Details
AGLC
Case
Decision Date
Shao (Migration) [2023] AATA 2693
[2023] AATA 2693
26 July 2023
CaseChat Overview and Summary
This matter concerned an application for a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa in the Investor stream. The primary applicant, Mr Shao, sought to satisfy the criteria for the visa, including clause 188.243 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, which requires a successful record of eligible investment activity, direct involvement in managing eligible investments or qualifying businesses for at least three years, and demonstration of a high level of management skill. The delegate refused the visa, finding that the six properties listed by Mr Shao as eligible investments were not so, and that there was insufficient information to address these concerns. The second applicant, Ms Qin Huang, was a member of Mr Shao's family unit and her application was dependent on his eligibility.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Shao met the criteria for the Investor stream of the Subclass 188 visa, specifically whether the six properties he listed constituted eligible investments and whether he had a successful record of eligible investment activity, direct management experience, and demonstrated management skill. The Tribunal also had to consider whether Ms Huang met the criteria for the visa, given her application was contingent on Mr Shao's eligibility.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. It found that Mr Shao had not provided sufficient information to satisfy the delegate that the six properties were eligible investments. In particular, two properties located in China were considered passive investments, which do not qualify under the definition of a "qualifying business" as they are not operated for profit through the provision of goods or services to the public, but rather for speculative or passive investment. As Mr Shao did not meet the primary criteria for the visa, Ms Huang, as a member of his family unit, also failed to meet the criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the visas to either applicant.
The Tribunal was required to determine whether Mr Shao met the criteria for the Investor stream of the Subclass 188 visa, specifically whether the six properties he listed constituted eligible investments and whether he had a successful record of eligible investment activity, direct management experience, and demonstrated management skill. The Tribunal also had to consider whether Ms Huang met the criteria for the visa, given her application was contingent on Mr Shao's eligibility.
The Tribunal affirmed the delegate's decision to refuse the visa. It found that Mr Shao had not provided sufficient information to satisfy the delegate that the six properties were eligible investments. In particular, two properties located in China were considered passive investments, which do not qualify under the definition of a "qualifying business" as they are not operated for profit through the provision of goods or services to the public, but rather for speculative or passive investment. As Mr Shao did not meet the primary criteria for the visa, Ms Huang, as a member of his family unit, also failed to meet the criteria. Consequently, the Tribunal affirmed the decisions not to grant the visas to either applicant.
Details
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
-
Immigration
-
Administrative Law
Legal Concepts
-
Judicial Review
-
Statutory Construction
-
Procedural Fairness
-
Jurisdiction
Actions
Download as PDF
Download as Word Document
Citations
Shao (Migration) [2023] AATA 2693
Cases Citing This Decision
0
Cases Cited
2
Statutory Material Cited
0
Huo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs
[2002] FCA 617
Manna v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship
[2012] FMCA 28