Vellaisamy (Migration)

[2023] AATA 2690

Vellaisamy (Migration) [2023] AATA 2690 (17 July 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANT:  Mr Rameshkumar Vellaisamy

CASE NUMBER:  2102935

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S):          BCC2019/376676

MEMBER:Peter Ranson

DATE:17 July 2023

PLACE OF DECISION:  Brisbane

DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa.

Statement made on 17 July 2023 at 9:54am

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa – Subclass 188 – Business Innovation stream – ownership interest for the two fiscal years nominated was for less than the required time – turnover shown in the application was less than required – Ministerial intervention referral – decision under review affirmed

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359, 351
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2, cl 188.225

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. Mr Rameshkumar Vellaisamy (known as Ramesh) came to Australia from India after spending time in Singapore where he learned the supermarket trade and he says became very good at it. He had followed his cousin to Singapore and then to Australia where they established an Asian grocery business called Sri Murugan Trading. Ramesh had an ownership interest in that business until a dispute arose between him and his cousin after which he was ousted from it.

2. Ramesh was invited by the government of Victoria to apply for the visa on 10 December 2018, and on 7 February 2019 he applied for a Class EB Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa. The criteria for the grant of a Subclass 188 visa are set out in Part 188 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth). The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least one applicant. Ramesh is the primary and only visa applicant.

3. The primary criteria include common criteria, and criteria set out in streams. In this case, Ramesh applied for the visa in the Business Innovation stream. On 19 February 2021, a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs refused to grant him a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). He then applied for review of that decision.

4. Clause188.225 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires an applicant to have held an ownership interest in one or more established main business with an annual turnover of at least $500,000 for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before the time of application. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis Ramesh did not satisfy this requirement because his ownership interest in the nominated main business, Sri Murugan Trading, was less than required both in terms of percentage and duration for the turnover achieved.

5. Ramesh became emotional at the hearing and said he did not know about the requirements of the regulations even though his application was lodged by Mr Santhosh Bisam of Aspire Global (AUS) Pty Ltd.[1] Ramesh believes he was not well advised by that migration agent who he says advised him he met all the necessary requirements for a Subclass 188 visa.

   [1] MARN 1678306

6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded the decision under review should be affirmed and recommends Ministerial Intervention.

PROCEDURAL MATTER

1. On 13 January 2022, Mr Kalai Ramalingam of SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd wrote to the Tribunal advising Ramesh was no longer a shareholder or employee of that company and asserted an internal investigation was underway as Ramesh was suspected of defrauding the company. E-mails with similar details were sent to the Tribunal on 8 January 2022 and 2 March 2022.

1. As the author identified himself in each communication, the contents of these documents were read to Ramesh at the hearing. He claimed no knowledge of them and vehemently denied the allegation of defrauding the company. The circumstances by which Ramesh entered and exited SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd are discussed later in this decision. The Tribunal places no weight on these documents as no evidence was provided to support the allegation they contain, and Ramesh had already disclosed to the Tribunal he was no longer a shareholder or director of that company. The contents of these documents did not influence this decision.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

Ownership interest in main business – cl.188.225(1)

1. The business relied on by Ramesh to satisfy the requirements of his visa application is an Asian supermarket conducted in Australia by SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd (ACN 611 918 980). He was a director in and shareholder of that company from 30 August 2018 to 6 December 2021.

2. For at least 2 of the 4 fiscal years immediately before the time of invitation to apply for the visa, clause 188.225(1) requires Ramesh to have had an ownership interest in one or more established main businesses with an annual turnover, in each of those years, of at least $500,000. No more than two businesses can be nominated for this purpose.[2]

   [2] reg 1.11(2).

3. Case law has established a business is not a legal entity but rather an enterprise or undertaking.[3] It is therefore important for the Tribunal to identify the business to which the definition of main business must be applied. It is also important to note that one business can be owned by multiple entities and conversely, multiple businesses can be owned by one entity. For the avoidance of doubt, an Australian Business Number (ABN) attaches to an entity, not to a business.

   [3] Ibrahim v MIAC [2009] FCA 1328 at [30].

4. Accordingly, the Tribunal must consider:

   a.the nature of Ramesh’s interest in this business, and

   b.whether the business met the main business definition for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before the time of invitation to apply for the visa,

   c.as well as the annual turnover of the business in the relevant years.

5. In his submissions and his evidence at the hearing, Ramesh said he worked for his cousin, Mr Kalai Ramalingam, in an Asian supermarket business in India and then Singapore for five years until they moved to Australia. He began in February 2012 as a team member in the business in India and rose to be manager of the Singapore business in March 2015 until he and his cousin left for Australia in February 2017. He said he did not have an ownership interest in these businesses so they cannot count for this application.

Did Ramesh have an ownership interest in SRI Murugan Trading for at least 2 of the 4 fiscal years immediately before the time of invitation?

1. An ‘ownership interest’, in relation to a business, means an interest in the business as:

   ·a shareholder in a company that carries on the business, or

   ·a partner in a partnership that carries on the business, or

   ·the sole proprietor of the business.

2. Ownership interest includes an interest held indirectly through one or more interposed companies, partnerships or trusts.[4] Ownership for this purpose includes beneficial ownership if it is evidenced in accordance with the terms of reg 1.11A of the Regulations.

   [4] s 134(10) of the Act and reg 1.03 of the Regulations.

3. To meet cl.188.225(1) the Tribunal must be satisfied Ramesh had an interest of this kind in SRI Murugan Trading for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before the time of the invitation.

4. SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd is an Australian resident company. Therefore, the fiscal year end is 30 June. The company was registered on 18 April 2016, so the only fiscal years before the time of invitation (10 December 2018) are the years ended 30 June 2016, 2017, and 2018. Ramesh said at the hearing the business commenced in March 2017. It is the business which matters for this application and not the entity which operates it. Therefore, the only relevant fiscal years for this application are 30 June 2017 and 30 June 2018.

5. The electronic application for the visa recorded the ownership interest of Ramesh as 33%. The Tribunal conducted a search at ASIC and notes he had been a director of SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd from 30 August 2018 to 6 December 2021. The current issued capital is 1,580,671 ordinary shares each of $1 all of which are held by Mr Ramalingam who gives his address as Singapore, which suggests he is a non-resident.

6. The search also reveals Ramesh beneficially held 193,745 ordinary shares although no evidence was provided to show when and how the shares were acquired and when and how they were disposed of. The application says he acquired those shares during the year ended 30 June 2018 and he held no ownership interest during the year ended 30 June 2017.

7. 193,745 is 12% of the issued capital of 1,580,671 ordinary shares. The percentage may be relevant for the main business test. It nonetheless represents an ownership interest in SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd and therefore in the Asian supermarket business.

8. The problem for Ramesh is the ownership period. He was required to hold an ownership interest in one or more established main businesses for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before the time of invitation. Whilst the exact dates he acquired and disposed of his shares in SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd have not been provided to the Tribunal, by his own evidence, for example the application for the visa, he had not held those shares for at least two years before 10 December 2018 being the date of invitation and possibly not even one year by that time.

1. Ramesh was concerned he had been disadvantaged by his shareholding being diluted to 12% from a claimed 33% by the allotment of shares without his consent as a director and shareholder. He said the additional shares were allotted to the majority shareholder, Mr Ramalingam when he provided additional funds to the company. Ramesh understood these funds would be loaned to the company. Instead, he says Mr Ramalingam allotted himself additional shares thereby diluting the holding of Mr Vallaidamy, possibly illegally as an oppressive or unfair action against a minority shareholder, which is not a matter for the Tribunal to consider.

2. The Tribunal is at a loss to understand why Mr Bisam, who claims to be an experienced migration agent, would lodge this application when it is so patently obvious it cannot succeed given the ownership interest for the two fiscal years nominated was for less than the required time. Mr Bisam should have known better.

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied Ramesh had an ownership interest in the Asian supermarket business conducted by SRI Murugan Trading Pty Ltd for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately before the time of invitation to apply for the visa.

Did each business relied on have sufficient annual turnover?

1. To meet cl.188.225(1) the Tribunal must be satisfied the Asian supermarket business had an annual turnover, in each of two fiscal years identified above, of at least $500,000.

2. Again, by his own admission including the answers on the application, the turnover of the Asian supermarket business did not reach the required level. As stated in the application, the turnover for the years ended 30 June 2017 and 2018 were as follows:

Year ended	Turnover
30 June 2017	473,596
30 June 2018	2,168,132

1. Given the business commended in March 2017, it is possible the annualised turnover for the year ended 30 June 2017 would be more than A$500,000 however that is not the test. The test is whether the annual turnover was at least A$500,000, in each of two fiscal years identified above and it is not in the year ended 30 June 2017.

2. The Tribunal is also at a loss to understand why Mr Bisam would lodge this application when it is so patently obvious it cannot succeed given the turnover for one of the two fiscal years nominated was less than the required amount. There is nothing in the regulations which enables annualising a part year result. Either the turnover reaches the required level or does not and in this case it does not, and Mr Bisam should have known better.

3. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied the Asian supermarket business had an annual turnover, in each relevant year, of at least A$500,000.

4. Given the findings above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that cl.188.225(1) is met.

5. As this application is not one to succeed the Tribunal has not considered the Subclass 188 regulations further and instead considered whether Ministerial Intervention may be warranted.

REFERRAL TO THE MINISTER

1. Section 351 of the Act provides that, if the Minister thinks it is in the public interest to do so, the Minister may substitute for a decision of the Tribunal another decision, being a decision that is more favourable to the applicant, regardless of whether the Tribunal had the power to make that other decision. In deciding whether to refer the matter to the Minister for consideration under section 351 the Tribunal has had regard to the President’s Direction on conducting migration and refugee reviews, especially at paragraphs 16.1 – 16.7 concerning referrals for ministerial intervention and the Minister’s guidelines on ministerial powers (s351, s417 and s501J) available in the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (the Minister’s Guidelines).

2. Among other things, the Minister’s Guidelines state the Minister may consider exercising his or her discretion in cases which exhibit one or more ‘unique or exceptional circumstances’. The Minister’s Guidelines then identify factors that may be relevant, individually or cumulatively, in assessing whether a case involves unique exceptional circumstances. They include the following:

   (a)  Strong compassionate circumstances that if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to an Australian citizen or an Australian family unit, where at least one member of the family is an Australian citizen Australian permanent resident.

   (b)  Compassionate circumstances regarding the age and/or health and/or psychological state of the person, which if not recognised would result in serious, ongoing and irreversible harm and continuing hardship to the person.

   (c)   Exceptional economic, scientific cultural or other benefit would result from the person being permitted to remain in Australia.

   (d)  Circumstances in which the application of relevant legislation leads to unfair or unreasonable results in the case.

3. The Minister’s Guidelines further note relevant issues include circumstances which may bring Australia’s obligations as a party to the Convention on the Rights of the Child (CROC) into consideration and circumstances which may bring Australia’s obligations as a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) into consideration. Tribunal notes CROC Article 3 provides: ‘In all actions concerning children, whether undertaken by public or private social welfare institutions, courts of law, administrative authorities or legislative bodies, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration’.

4. Ramesh has much to offer the Australian community and economy both in terms of economic activity and the creation of employment. At the request of the Tribunal, he provided a detailed submission about his circumstances, which is attached to this decision as Appendix A.

5. This decision to affirm is very stressful for Ramesh. He appears to have been badly advised by the migration agent who prepared and lodged his application for a Subclass 188 visa. The application could not succeed because the ownership interest was for less than 2 fiscal years and the turnover shown in the application was less than required. A competent migration agent would have known that and advised Ramesh accordingly.

1. There may have been another class of visa he could have applied for or perhaps the Subclass 188 visa application could have been delayed until the circumstances were favourable to him. It seems little, if any, rigour was applied to this application by the migration agent.

2. Ramesh has applied himself diligently since he arrived in Australia in 2017 and despite the actions of his cousin in removing him from the company, possibly in the circumstances of the oppression of a minority, in which he had invested almost $200,000, he has since built another successful business which employs many people. He has done this notwithstanding he has a wife living in India who cannot be with him until he is granted a suitable visa. That must be very difficult for him.

3. Having regard to the relevant factors, individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal considers this a case where it would be appropriate to make a referral to the Minister.

DECISION

The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the visa applicant a Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) visa.

Date of hearing:	2 May 2023
Type of hearing:	Teams video
Representation for the Applicant:	Self-represented
Interpreter:	Tamil and English languages

APPENDIX A – HISTORY OF RAMESHKUMAR VELLAISAMY

I, Rameshkumar Vellaisamy, started to work for Kalai Meyyappan Ramalingam – Owner of Sri Murugan Trading, Singapore (my Cousin – my Grand Dad and his Grand Dad were Brothers) in Singapore from 2015 (2+ years), based on my expertise and performance in Singapore we aimed at venturing new grounds for expansion, as Singapore was already stagnated, we came to an understand that we venture going abroad, our first choice came up as Dubai – but then he suggested that Australia stands a good ground for our business, so we ventured to start business in February 2017 wherein I came in as a Transition Manager and setup the Point Cook Store in Victoria from the scratch, my past experience came in handy to get the store up and running in just 2 weeks and made it a model Grocery Store in Melbourne, Australia. We had about 8 employees in our first store.

After the successful launch and performance of the Store (as agreed before) we got into a Partnership of 1:3 (Where I hold the 33.33% Share) (Refer ASIC Doc# 6E5283202 (attached), extracted from ASIC 16th August 2018 AEST 12:19:51 AM) where I came to Australia on a Business Investor Visa. As agreed, I deposited my Share of funds on 3rd September 2018, my Share holdings as per ASIC on 4th October 2018 I held a Share of 33.33% in Sri Murugan Trading Pty Ltd.

I saw good potential here and we came to an understanding that we open more branches. The financial numbers are as below:

• 2017 it was AUD 473,596

• 2018 it was AUD 2,168,132

At this point, I was advised by my MARA Agent – Aspire Global (Mr. Santosh Kumar Reddy Bisam) “that I met all the criteria for applying for my Business VISA”. I asked him to proceed with my application and paid the necessary costs involved. He then proceeded to file my visa application for a “Business Skills (Provisional) (Class EB) Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) (Subclass 188)” on 07 February 2019.

In Business, we then started our next branch at Carrum Downs, Victoria, where Ramalingam lent money for the new project from Singapore. On trust basis - I signed a Document (May 2019) without reading (as he being my cousin and Partner in business too) but it was manipulated and the Lent money was moved to their Shareholding by decreasing my Share from 33.33% to 11.75% (which I came to know only when I got my Visa Application rejected on 19th February 2021). The Actual lent money was meant to be parked in the Loan Account, but without me being informed the Lent money was allocated to the Shares of Ramalingam, which subsequently came about as the main reason of my 188 Visa getting rejected.

Our Work force increased by 6 more team members. The business grew with me being an Active Partner and Ramalingam as good as a Sleeping Partner with him being in Singapore most of the time. The business grew leaps and has attained a turnover of

• around 4 million in 2019

Then the Covid pandemic hit and Ramalingam still not around I got the Business to grow to

• around 5.5Million in 2020

Then came the surprise and the devastating news of my Visa being rejected on 19th February 2021 for not meeting the criteria of the 188 Visa because of manipulations done by Ramalingam and his team of Accountants and the Migration Agent. But to my surprise Ramalingam’s Visa 132 got approved on 31^st March 2021. He also brought in a woman (who he portrayed as his wife) as his partner and spouse to Australia, even after having a Wife and kids in Singapore.

The turnover for the final year of partnership with Sri Murugan Trading was

• about 6 Million in 2021

With the collapse of my visa dreams and being dejected by the mistrust and my Migration Agent who did not keep me in the loop about all documentations that were asked and submitted, I was married at that time, he ticketed off ‘Married’ but Spouse name was not mentioned on the application (upon asking he said “that the system allowed so he left it blank”). When asked questions about shareholder details mentioned in the application, he said he was referred by my brother to put these details, he only submitted my experience, he misled me throughout. Upon asking for justification, he said that “he did everything my cousin instructed”. I tried to trace him back for doubts but could not find him as he had shifted his Office without notice and no forwarding address. He was not responsive on his mobile and email too. There is no communication and correspondence.

My Case Officer has mentioned that the documents were asked 21 days ago but my Migration Agent (mentioned above) had not submitted anything even after me collecting and submitting the papers to him. I was shocked when I heard from the Case Officer that there were no documents submitted. The only document he asked me were my experience and Supplier’s orders.

I went into a state of shock and lost my mental peace. Having created, nourished and expanded the business from scratch, I was very upset for a few months, but then rose back up with a new Partnership and a fresh lease of hope. I along with my new partner Antony Ivan started “Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd, ABN 85 639 674 249” trading as “Sri Kumaran Stores”.

I have lost time and causing trauma to my mind and I have lived separately for 4+ years even thought I am married. No family functions attended. End result - No Visa ultimately.

I was also brought to my notice that my previous Partner Kalai Meyyappan Ramalingam even brought in hurdles all along my new business by asking suppliers not to supply to us. I also was told by your good self that he has sent emails by tarnishing my image and accusing me of wrong doings.

Our Current Partnership and future plans.

Opening Statement

I have invested 300k to open the initial stores and 250k additionally for the further expansion. Apart from this I have brought in 200k as loan to invest in business with a 50/50 partnership stake on returns with one other Partner. The total sum to open all the branches so far has been about 3Million net worth.

The turnover of the business (Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd) as of date as shown below.

Year 2021 – $150k (March 2021 – June 2021)

Year 2022 - $2.5M

Year 2023 - $9M (till April 2023)

Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd

Vision

Our business vision is,

üAffordable, quality and wide range of products.

üCustomer satisfaction – Shop of choice for our customers.

üSafe, secure and comfortable shopping experience.

üWorkplace of choice for our employees.

üSupport local businesses.

Ownership

The Grocery Store (Super Market) is registered as a Proprietary Liability Company in the State of Victoria. Rameshkumar Vellaisamy and Antony Ivan are the Directors of the Company.

Details of Business

Supermarket with all amenities covering communities like Indian, Sri Lankan, Fiji, Malaysian, Singaporean, Bangladeshi, Pakistani and many other South East Asia. We will have all types of groceries, fresh fruit and vegetable, fresh poultry, meat and seafood varieties. There will also be a cafeteria serving hot finger food and meals. There is a big community of people in this area covering the above-mentioned demography.

We source goods from the local Australian market to support the Australian businesses, our stores are filled with 60% of local market, which eventually turns to be a local business generator. On an average we deal with 200 to 250 suppliers on a monthly basis. This enables us to increase our range of products in terms of good quality, variety and best pricing for the customers to choose from. At the moment, there is not much of a choice to consumers for these kind of products under one roof. We will also keep expanding our product range and new ideas to make customers happy. We will also have special and seasonal sale to benefit the customers and also develop the business.

We also import goods directly from the origin countries which helps us to sell products at a best price which help us to sell goods to the consumers at a competitive and reasonable price. We grow the Australian Economy by paying Customs, Import Duty, Freight, Clearing Agents and various other departments. We deal throughout the year and we are a revenue maker for them.

Our store expected to provide employment opportunities to a minimum of 100 plus staff members in 2025. We open our shops in potential areas like new suburbs and developing suburb and we are expecting a huge business growth over a period of time. We also have a store in the regional area (Shepparton).

Right now, we have 40 plus staff on-board and other causal workers who work for us time to time. Our staffing ratio is like 5 citizens/PR, 25 plus local students, new starts, 10 plus ABN holders, fresh council nominated grads and internship and business marketing students. We also encourage innovative ideas from the new business management students for the growth of our business.

We also encourage new entrepreneur (Franchisee style) to open branches in our name and we do the required support. So doing all this we pay our taxes, employee super, employee benefits and other government liabilities as per the Law of the Country. We are on the growth spree so far and are expanding, we want to go Nationwide.

We have 3 more Stores opening up, details are

September 2024 – Clyde (Estimated Project cost is about 1.5Million)

March 2025 – Craigieburn (Estimated Project cost is about 3.5Million)

April 2025 – Rockbank (Estimated Project cost is about 2.0Million)

We are venturing Interstate Stores. Vide Franchisee models. (Each project would be estimated to be around a minimum of 1.5Million).

Business growth

• The profitability of Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd is based on one major factor being that the cost of goods is low which invariably make it affordable for customers and this can increase the revenue amount on a daily basis and contribute to the profitability level.

• Revenue is spread widely across the commodities.

• Our pricing strategy is that we are upmarket if you compare us to other supermarkets, but reasonably priced compared to similar supermarkets.

• Our concept is simple, quality and cost competitive.

• There are potential profit growth areas in the addition of home-delivery services.

• Acceptance of Credit Cards and extended opening hours / days

• Our competitive advantage is our affordable priced products and excellent customer service.

• The supermarket will serve as a one stop shop for all grocery needs.

• The supermarket will provision to the needs of customers of different communities.

• As the business is itself wholesale importers many of the commodities that pricing will be made reasonable which will in-turn boost the daily profitability.

• The business has an un-due advantage of importing unique and seasonal products to satisfy the specific needs to the customer base.

Strategy & Objectives

Whilst Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd is performing well as a business, we believe that there is room for further growth. We believe that this requires the implementation of both short and long-term marketing strategies, with the key aims of increasing customer numbers and increasing the spend per customer, two different strategies will be employed to increase sales. These will target two markets: Existing and Businesses and residential customers within a 5km radius and beyond near each store.

Industry Analysis

Melbournians purchase of grocery commodities has shown steady growth. We will strive to build a loyal customer base by offering excellent customer service.

Sri Kumaran stores will be a flagship store and is located in a busy shopping precinct surrounded by high density of residential population formed by diversified communities with high foot traffic. The store attracts high volumes of residential customers and local businesses.

Implementation Summary

Senthil Murugan Trading Pty Ltd marketing strategy will be focused at getting new customers, retaining the existing customers, getting customers to spend more and come back more often. Establishing a loyal customer base is of a paramount importance since such customer base will not only generate most of the sales but also will provide favorable referrals.

Competitive Edge

We will position the supermarket as a supermarket with affordable and quality products, customer service to satisfy customers and will differentiate us from incumbent competitors.

Conclusion

• My major downfall to this current state of affair is mainly because of my MARA Agent – Aspire Global (Mr.Santosh Kumar Reddy Bisam) instigated by my Cousin (who is now living with his Second Wife as Permanent Resident here in Melbourne, Australia).

• I can only plead from your Good Self to consider my plea to be considered to be given an extension based on my current business status, at least till September 2023 to allow me to apply for a fresh Visa after July 2023, after all the trauma that I have undergone alone for the past 4 years, without spending time with my family, adding to my Spouse’s anxiety.

• It may even be a blessing if you recommend the Case back to the Minister for another invite as mentioned by you in our last hearing.

• I request that I be considered to for any visa wherein I could continue staying in Australia after me investing so much of time and money here.

• Help me reap the benefits of my hard work done and to achieve my Dream to become a Proud Australian and establish more stores and create more employment and generate more for the Economy.

• I have to totally wind up and leave everything in a hurry, to go back with so much of stakes hanging here and start my life all over again.

My last hope and chance to continue lies in your decision.