Suo (Migration)

The Administrative Appeals Tribunal (the Tribunal) considered the application of Mr. Suo for a Subclass 892 Business Owner visa. The dispute concerned whether certain assets, specifically an unsecured personal loan provided to an individual, could be counted towards the applicant's business and personal assets for the purpose of meeting the visa requirements. The Department of Home Affairs had refused to count this asset, a decision Mr. Suo sought to have reviewed by the Tribunal.

The primary legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the unsecured personal loan constituted a "chose in action" that was likely to be realised as income, and therefore a countable asset under the relevant migration regulations and associated departmental policy. This required the Tribunal to consider the nature of the loan, the financial standing of the borrower, and the probability of Mr. Suo recovering the funds. The Tribunal also had to determine whether the valuation of such an asset should be guided by Australian Accounting Standards Board (AASB) standards.

In its reasoning, the Tribunal acknowledged that a loan, even if unsecured, can be a chose in action. However, it found that the Department had not adequately considered the probability of the loan being realised as income. The Tribunal noted that while AASB standards provide a framework for accounting, they do not dictate the specific assessment of the probability of realisation for migration purposes. The Tribunal concluded that a more detailed assessment of the borrower's capacity to repay and the likelihood of recovery was required. Consequently, the Tribunal remitted the decision to the Department for reconsideration.