Wang v Minister for Immigration

The Federal Circuit Court of Australia heard an application for review by Yangang Wang (first applicant) and his family (second, third, and fourth applicants) against the Minister for Immigration, Citizenship, Migrant Services and Multicultural Affairs (respondent). The dispute concerned the first applicant's application for a Business Talent (Subclass 132) visa, which was refused by the Department of Home Affairs. The refusal was based on the applicant's failure to satisfy the criteria under clause 132.224 of the Migration Regulations 1994, which requires a minimum net value of assets in a qualifying business.

The primary legal issue before the Court was whether the delegate of the Minister erred in finding that the first applicant had failed to demonstrate that the net value of his and his spouse's assets in their nominated business exceeded the AUD $400,000 threshold for at least two of the four fiscal years immediately preceding the invitation to apply for the visa. This involved assessing the evidence provided regarding a claimed capital injection of RMB 8 million into the business and the source of those funds.

Egan J reasoned that the delegate was unable to make a finding that the claimed value of the equity in the business had been established. This was due to a lack of evidence substantiating the source of funding for the alleged capital injection of RMB 8 million. While the first applicant declared that this amount was borrowed from family and friends and subsequently repaid from property sales, the total proceeds from these sales (RMB 7.38 million) did not match the claimed loan amount. Furthermore, the delegate noted a lack of independently verifiable evidence, such as title deeds and bank records, to support the ownership and sale of the properties and the receipt of sales proceeds, as well as information regarding the repayment of the declared loans. Consequently, the delegate concluded that the net business assets attributable to the applicant could not be determined and that the threshold requirement under clause 132.224 was not met.

The Court dismissed the further amended application for review and ordered the applicants to pay the respondent's costs fixed at $5,600.00.