Wen (Migration)
[2018] AATA 264
•15 February 2018
Wen (Migration) [2018] AATA 264 (15 February 2018)
DECISION RECORD
DIVISION:Migration & Refugee Division
APPLICANTS: Mrs Taohong Wen
Ms Jiaxian Pan
Mr Xishun PanCASE NUMBER: 1600843
DIBP REFERENCE(S): BCC2015/348325, BCC2015/348778, BCC2015/3768817, BCC2015/3768831, BCC2015/3768833, BCC2016/1507834
MEMBER:Katie Malyon
DATE:15 February 2018
PLACE OF DECISION: Sydney
DECISION:The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas.
Statement made on 15 February 2018 at 3:36 pm
CATCHWORDS
Migration – Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa – Subclass 890 (Business Owner) – Net value of assets – Active operation – Value of property plant and equipment – Share issue – Financial documentationLEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, ss 65, 359(2), 359C, 360(3), 363A
Migration Regulations 1994, Schedule 2 cl 890.212CASES
Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW
This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration on 8 January 2016 to refuse to grant the visa applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) Subclass 890 visas under s.65 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act).
The visa applicants applied for the visa on 30 January 2015. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the first named applicant, Mrs Taohong Wen, did not meet the criteria in cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) because the delegate was not satisfied her business, Xishun Australia Pty Ltd trading as Eversure Fencing (Xishun), had a net value of at least $100,000. A copy of the delegate’s decision was provided to the Tribunal.
Background
Mrs Wen applied for the visa on the basis of her 100% shareholding of the 100 shares issued in Xishun. The second and third named visa applicants applied for the visas on the basis of their being members of the family unit of Mrs Wen.
After reviewing documentation lodged in support of her application for a Subclass 890 visa, the Department requested assorted documentation, including that Mrs Wen provided information that the business had a net value of at least $100,000 at the time of the application and for the 12 months ending immediately before the application was made. Specifically, the Department requested evidence of payment for warehouse equipment at a cost of $115,500 because, based on information in the Balance Sheet for the 12 months ended 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014, Mrs Wen relies on the warehouse equipment to meet the business asset requirement and, given the relatively high value of the assets, the delegate was not prepared to accept the financial statements in isolation without any supporting evidence.
On 3 December 2015, Mrs Wen’s representative provided various documents including unsigned revised financial statements for the years ending 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014 (the Revised Financial Statements) together with a tax invoice dated 12 April 2013 and a Creditor Account Transactions Listing which refers to warehouse equipment supplier King Top Pty Ltd (KingTop). Extracts from the Revised Financial Statements are set out below in para [30]. Mrs Wen’s representative advised the Department that no contract exists for the purchase of the equipment. As noted in the delegate’s decision, the tax invoice was created by a named person Yiren Zhang and, as it is not printed on official letterhead, it does not indicate the name of party issuing the invoice. Furthermore, the delegate observes that there are 2 totals on the invoice: AUD 115,500 (the value of the equipment at cost shown on the Balance Sheet) and UD 127,050. The delegate notes that it is not clear to what currency UD refers. In addition, the representative provided a Creditor Account Transactions Listing for KingTop. It shows a debit entry of $127,050 on 11 April 2013 as a ’Debit Adjustme’. The delegate states it is unclear if the Transaction Listing was issued by Xishun or KingTop.
Based on the information provided, the delegate was not satisfied that Mrs Wen had sufficiently evidenced purchase of the warehouse equipment and, given the relatively high cost of the claimed equipment, it is reasonable to expect she be able to find evidence of payment. No further documentation was provided and, in the absence of an explanation as to why it was not provided, the delegate recalculated the value of the business assets owned by Mrs Wen excluding the claimed value of warehouse equipment. Accordingly, based on
information provided by Mrs Wen, the delegate valued her net assets in Xishun as follows:
Assets in AUD
31/10/2014
31/10/2013
Net Assets (Liabilities)
27,875
(8,855)
As a result, the delegate found that the business in Australia had a net value of less than $100,000 at the time of the application and throughout the period of 12 months ending immediately before the application was made on 30 January 2015. Therefore, Mrs Wen did not meet the criteria in cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Since the delegate found that Mrs Wen did not meet the criteria for grant of the visa, the applications of the second and third named applicants were refused as they were not members of the family unit of a person who met the primary criteria.
Information to the Tribunal
Accompanying Mrs Wen’s application for review her representative provided a search of records held by the Australian Securities & Investments Commission (ASIC) showing that 300,000 fully paid shares have issued in Xishun and, further, that ASIC received documents affecting changes to company details most recently on 9 August 2014, 26 October 2015 and 27 October 2015. The representative also provided a further copy of the unsigned Revised Financial Statements.
On 11 January 2017, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants noting it had become aware their representative had been suspended by the Office of the Migration Agents Registration Authority effective 9 January 2017. It also separately wrote to the representative in relation to his suspension. On the same day, the Tribunal received notice of the appointment of a new representative and termination of the former representative’s services.
The Tribunal wrote to the applicants on 18 October 2017 pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act inviting them to provide a historical ASIC search for Xishun. It also identified information required to assess if Mrs Wen, the primary applicant, meets criteria in cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and if the business is still actively operating. Set out in the Attachment to this decision is an extract of key provisions of the Regulations relating to criteria for grant of a Subclass 890 visa. The applicants were requested to respond to the Tribunal’s invitation by 1 November 2017.
On 30 October 2017, the applicants’ new representative responded, in part only, to the Tribunal’s request for information. The new representative provided a historical ASIC search for Xishun together with a further copy of the unsigned Revised Financial Statements.
Arising from its review of documentation received from the applicants’ new representative, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants again on 3 November 2017 and requested the following be provided by 17 November 2017:
1. ASIC Form 201 Application For Registration as a Proprietary Company for Xishun effective 17 May 2012;
2. ASIC Forms for Xishun effective 26 October 2015 as follows:
a)Form 484 Change to Company Details;
b)Form 484 Changes to Share Structure;
c)Form 484 Notification of Share Issue; and,
d)Form 484 Changes to (Members) Share Holdings.
3. Information to show that Xishun is still actively operating. This information may include:
a)all BAS lodged since 30 September 2014;
b)tax returns for the each of FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 as lodged with the Australian Taxation Office (ATO);
c)financial reports (profit and loss, balance sheet) FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 signed by a Director;
d)current Organization Chart indicating the full names and positions of all persons employed as well as their residence status in Australia;
e)total number of current Australian employees, including Australian citizens and permanent residents;
f)total number of foreign employees (that is, non-Australian citizens or non-permanent residents);
g)PAYG Payment Summary Statement lodged with ATO for each of FY 2014/15, FY 2015/16 and FY 2016/17 together with any supporting documentation lodged with the ATO; and,
h)Xishun’s bank statements from 1 July 2014 to date.
4. Information to show that net value of business and personal assets in Australia of you, your partner, or you and your partner together is currently at least AUD 250,000.
The Tribunal’s letter of 3 November 2017 also informed the applicants that if it does not receive the information within the period allowed or as extended, it may make a decision on the review without taking any further action to obtain the information. The letter also confirmed that the applicants would lose any entitlement they might otherwise have had under the Act to appear before the Tribunal to give evidence and present arguments.
The review applicants have not provided the information within the prescribed period and no extension has been requested, or granted. In these circumstances, s.359C of the Act applies and pursuant to s.360(3) of the Act the review applicants are not entitled to appear before the Tribunal. The effect of s.363A of the Act is that, if a review applicant has no entitlement to a hearing, the Tribunal has no power to permit him or her to appear: Hasran v MIAC [2010] FCAFC 40. Accordingly, the Tribunal must proceed to decision without a hearing and, in the circumstances, the Tribunal has decided not to take any further steps to obtain the information.
For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision under review should be affirmed.
CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE
The issue in the present case is whether the applicant meets the criteria in cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This provision states as follows:
The assets of the applicant, the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together, in the main business or main businesses in Australia:
a)have a net value of at least AUD100,000; and
b)had a net value of at least AUD100,000 throughout the period of 12 months ending immediately before the application is made; and
c)have been lawfully acquired by the applicant, the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together.
The Tribunal has considered the information and documentation provided by Mrs Wen to the Department and to the Tribunal. Relevantly, evidence provided by Mrs Wen’s former and current representatives addresses 2 items in the Balance Sheet of Xishun to demonstrate Mrs Wen’s net assets in the her business. The Tribunal has considered these items below.
First, the Tribunal has considered the evidence lodged in support of the valuation of Property Plant & Equipment as claimed not only in the signed Financial Statements lodged with Mrs Wen’s Subclass 890 visa application but also the unsigned Revised Financial Statements lodged with both the Department and the Tribunal.
As noted above, in response to the delegate’s request for evidence of the evaluation of Property Plant & Equipment as set out in the Balance Sheet accompanying Mrs Wen’s visa application, her former representative provided a tax invoice. The Department’s file contains a document titled ‘AR invoice’ dated 12 April 2013 from Yiren Zhang for 7 ‘warehouse accumulator1.5mx5m’ at a price of $16,000 each totalling $155,500. Together with tax of $11,555, the invoice totals $127,050. The invoice states that payment is due 30 April 2013 and that payment terms are ‘cash’.[1] As noted by the delegate, there is nothing on the face of the invoice to indicate that it has been issued by KingTop as claimed. Further, the Tribunal observes that the document refers to ‘VAT Number 16 158 403 448’. The Tribunal notes the number 16 158 403 448 is the Australian Business Number for Xishun issued by ASIC. However, use of the acronym ‘VAT’ (that is, Value Added Tax) raises serious doubts in the mind of the Tribunal as to whether the invoice is a bogus document that has been adapted from a pro forma invoice downloaded from the Internet as since VAT is peculiar to jurisdictions in Europe.[2]
Furthermore, the Tribunal has concerns about the probity of the document claimed to be an invoice for which payment has been made in ‘cash’ and yet Mrs Wen has provided extensive documentation regarding bank account statements for Xishun as well as hundreds of invoices claimed to be issued both to and by her company.
In addition, the Tribunal notes that the Creditor Account Transactions Listing provided to the Department shows a debit entry of $127,050 on 11 April 2013. However, as noted by the delegate, it is unclear if the transaction listing has been issued by Xishun or KingTop. In passing, the Tribunal understands that ASIC records confirm KingTop was placed in liquidation on 13 May 2016.[3]
Finally, the Tribunal notes the absence of any contractual documentation whatsoever to evidence the claimed purchase by Xishun of 7 warehouse accumulators, despite the relatively high cost of the equipment.
No further documentation was provided to the Tribunal to address concerns raised by the delegate regarding the invoice claimed to be issued to Xishun by KingTop. Based on the information provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied that Mrs Wen had sufficiently evidenced purchase of warehouse equipment as claimed. Accordingly, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the value of Property Plant & Equipment as set out in the Financial Statements lodged with Mrs Wen’s Subclass 890 visa application and of the Revised Financial Statements lodged with both the Department and the Tribunal should be recognised in the calculation of Mrs Wen’s net assets in the business for the purposes of cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
Second, having regard to the Tribunal’s finding that it does not recognise the value of Property Plant & Equipment in the calculation of Mrs Wen’s net assets in the business for the reasons given above, the Tribunal has considered whether the Revised Financial Statements assist Mrs Wen demonstrate she otherwise meets cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
In support of her application lodged with the Department on 30 January 2015, Mrs Wen’s former representative provided Financial Statements for Xishun including a Balance Sheet as at 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014 for Xishun.[4] Extracts from that Balance Sheet accompanying Mrs Wen’s Subclass 890 visa application are set out below (Table 1):
NOTE 2014 2013 Total Current Assets $280,989 $237,285 Total Non-current Assets
Property Plant & Equipment
7
$105,586
$112,380
TOTAL ASSETS $386,575 $349,665 Total Current Liabilities $253,214 $246,240 Total Non-current Liabilities 11 $300,000 $300,000 TOTAL LIABILITIES $553,214 $546,240 NET ASSETS ($166,639) ($196,575) SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Share Capital
Retained Earnings
12
13
100
(166,739)
100
(196,675)
Total Shareholders’ Equity ($166,639) ($196,575)
Significantly, at the time documentation was lodged in support of Mrs Wen’s visa application, the Financial Statements accompanying her application were signed by both Mrs Wen and her Accountant. Both signatures were affixed on 17 December 2014.
The Tribunal observes that the ‘Notes’ accompanying the signed Financial Statements were also provided to the Department. Note 7 indicates that Warehouse Equipment had been purchased at a cost of $115,500 and that, as at 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014 respectively having regard to accumulated appreciation, the values are set out as extracted above at Table 1. Note 11 states that Mrs Wen’s loan to the company is $300,000 as at each of 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014. Note 12 states that the issued and paid up share capital is $100 as at each of 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014. The Tribunal notes that Mrs Wen’s loan to Xishun was also referred to in her Statement of Assets and Liabilities (SAL) accompanying her Subclass 890 visa application.[5]
As noted above, the delegate requested further documentation and clarification of certain of Mrs Wen’s claims, including claims regarding her net assets in the business. In the delegate’s request for further documentation it was noted that information on the Department’s file indicates Mrs Wen was relying on a loan to her company to meet the net asset requirement and, further, that she has deposited money totalling $300,000 into Xishun’s Westpac bank account on 15 May 2012, 14 June 2012 and 31 July 2012. However, the delegate notes that ‘funds were withdrawn on the same day or within a few days of being deposited’ but no evidence has been provided that the monies were used to fund Xishun’s business activities.
In his response of 3 December 2015 to the Department’s request for further information and documentation, Mrs Wen’s then representative provided the unsigned Revised Financial Statements. Set out below are extracts from the Balance Sheet in the Revised Financial Statements as at 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014 (Table 2):
NOTE 2014 2013 Total Current Assets $280,989 $237,285 Total Non-current Assets
Property Plant & Equipment
7
$105,586
$112,380
TOTAL ASSETS $386,575 $349,665 Total Current Liabilities $253,214 $246,140 Total Non-current Liabilities 11 - - TOTAL LIABILITIES $253,114 $246,140 NET ASSETS $133,461 $103,525 SHAREHOLDERS’ EQUITY
Share Capital
Retained Earnings
12
13
300,000
(166,739)
300,000
(196,675)
Total Shareholders’ Equity $133,261 $103,325
In his submission accompanying the unsigned Revised Financial Statements, the representative states:
‘It is a mistake when the accountant set up the as (sic) loan to company. The applicant has amended in ASIC and the $300,000 should be as company share capital. Please find the current search with updated financial report for the year ended 31st Oct 2014.
The applicant lend (sic) the money to William Enterprise Group the fund was moved to William Enterprise Group. Xishun Australia Pty Ltd’s payroll are (sic) paid via Eversure Operations Pty Ltd’s bank account, and the funds draw (sic) from the money Xishun lended (sic) to William Enterprise Group.’[6]
The Tribunal observes that the ‘Notes’ accompanying the Revised Financial Statements were also provided to the Department. Note 11 is blank for each of 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014. Note 12 states that the issued and paid up share capital is $300,000 as at each of 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014.
Mrs Wen’s former representative provided a further copy of the unsigned Revised Financial Statements to the Tribunal when lodging her application for review. Following appointment of her new representative, and consistent with the provisions of s.359(2) of the Act, Mrs Wen was afforded 2 opportunities to provide the Tribunal with further documentation to demonstrate that she meets the requirements for grant of the visa, in particular, cl.890.212 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. In response to the first of its s.359(2) letters, the new representative merely provided a further copy of the unsigned Financial Statements together with a historical ASIC search of Xishun.
The Tribunal has carefully considered the documentation lodged to evidence that Mrs Wen claimed net assets in her business Xishun. As noted above, in response to the delegate’s invitation to provide evidence that she had invested $300,000 in the business, her then representative stated that it was not a loan by her to Xishun but, rather, it was ‘the accountant’s mistake’ and, instead, shares had issued to her for $300,000. The representative explained that the money had been loaned to William Enterprise Group and that Xishun’s payroll, paid by Eversure Operations Pty Ltd, was drawn from funds loaned by Xishun to William Enterprise Group.
Significantly, no formal documentation evidencing these claimed arrangements was provided to the Department. In the mind of the Tribunal, there is no plausible explanation as to why funds loaned by Mrs Wen to Xishun would, almost immediately, be transferred to an independent company.
No evidence has been provided to the Department or the Tribunal of any relationship, formal or otherwise, between Xishun and William Enterprise Group. In passing, the Tribunal notes that its search of ASIC records confirm that Administrators were appointed to William Enterprise Group Pty Limited ACN 140 040 419 on 4 April 2016.[7]
In addition, the Tribunal has concerns it was only in response to the delegate’s request for further detailed information that, on 3 December 2015, Mrs Wen’s then representative provided evidence of details of lodging documentation with ASIC to correct ‘the accountant’s mistake’ in relation to shares issued to Mrs Wen and her loan to Xishun. The representative made no comment on the impact of the mistake on the Mrs Wen’s SAL provided to the Department at the time of her visa application.
Based on documentation provided by Mrs Wen’s representatives to the Tribunal it is evident that the following documentation was lodged with ASIC on 26 October 2015:
·Form 484O Changes to Share Structure;
·Form 484G Notification of Share Issue; and,
·Form 484N Changes to (Members) Share Holdings.
The ASIC documentation list included as part of the ASIC search provided to the Tribunal confirms Xishun’s share structure was amended such that 300,000 shares are issued in the company for the fully paid amount of $300,000. In its most recent letter issued pursuant to s.359(2) of the Act, the Tribunal requested copies of all documentation lodged with ASIC on 26 October 2015. None was provided.
Rising from its review of documentation and, in particular, ASIC records provided by Mrs Wen’s new representative to the Tribunal on 30 October 2017, the Tribunal has significant concerns that the Revised Financial Statements provided by Mrs Wen’s former representative as well as her current representative have not been signed either by Mrs Wen or the Accountant preparing the statements. Moreover, Mrs Wen has not provided any explanation as to why signed financial documentation was not provided. This raises serious doubts in the mind of the Tribunal regarding the weight, if any, it should give the Revised Financial Statements.
The Tribunal does not accept that the arrangement with William Enterprise Group as explained by Mrs Wen’s former representative provides evidence that the business of Xishun had a net value of at least $100,000 at the time of Mrs Wen’s Subclass 890 visa application or for the period of 12 months immediately before the application was made.
Based on documentation provided the Tribunal accepts that Mrs Wen has, at all times since Xishun was established on 17 May 2012, been the sole shareholder of the company. However based on documentation provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied that, on 31 October 2013 and 31 October 2014 respectively, Mrs Wen held 300,000 shares in Xishun as set out in unsigned Revised Financial Statements including the Balance Sheet with details as set out in Table 2 above or that her share in the net value of the business was at least $100,000. Provision of the unsigned Revised Financial Statements also raises doubts in the mind of the Tribunal as to whether Mrs Wen has provided false or misleading information to the Tribunal.
In passing, the Tribunal notes its concerns that, although Mrs Wen has provided the Tribunal with evidence that she has an ‘ownership interest’ in Xishun, as at the date of this decision she has failed to provide requested evidence that she continues to actively operate her business in Australia. In this regard. Mrs Wen has not provided the Tribunal with requested evidence of any recent Business Activity Statements (BAS) for Xishun. As BAS are required to be lodged on a quarterly basis with the ATO this raises serious doubts in the mind of the Tribunal as to whether she genuinely continues to operate the business.
Conclusion
Based on evidence provided, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the assets of the applicant and her spouse in the business Xishun had a net value of at least $100,000 at the time of application and throughout the period of 12 months ending immediately before the application was made on 30 January 2015. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that the criteria in cl.809.212 of Schedule 2 are not met.
As the primary applicant does not meet the criteria for the grant of the visa, the second and third named visa applicants are not members of the family unit of a person who meets the primary criteria. Therefore, the decision to refuse their applications must also be affirmed.
DECISION
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicants Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visas.
Katie Malyon
Member.
ATTACHMENT - Extract from the Migration Regulations 1994
SUBCLASS 890 -- BUSINESS OWNER890.1 - Interpretation
Note 1: AUD , ownership interest and qualifying business are defined in regulation 1.03 and main business is defined in regulation 1.11.
Note 2: As to beneficial ownership of an asset or ownership interest, see regulation 1.11A.
Note 3: Regulation 1.03 provides that member of the family unit has the meaning set out in regulation 1.12. Subregulations 1.12(2) and (5) are relevant for applicants for a Business Skills (Residence) (Class DF) visa.
Note 4: There are no interpretation provisions specific to this Part.
890.2 - Primary criteria
Note: The primary criteria must be satisfied by at least 1 member of a family unit. The other members of the family unit who are applicants for a visa of this subclass need satisfy only the secondary criteria.
890.21 - Criteria to be satisfied at time of application
890.211(1) The applicant has had, and continues to have, an ownership interest in 1 or more actively operating main businesses in Australia for at least 2 years immediately before the application is made.
(2) For each business to which subclause (1) applies:
(a) an Australian Business Number has been obtained; and
(b) all Business Activity Statements required by the Australian Taxation Office (the ATO ) for the period mentioned in subclause (1) have been submitted to the ATO and have been included in the application.
890.212 The assets of the applicant, the applicant's spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together, in the main business or main businesses in Australia:
(a) have a net value of at least AUD100 000; and
(b) had a net value of at least AUD100 000 throughout the period of 12 months ending immediately before the application is made; and
(c) have been lawfully acquired by the applicant, the applicant's spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together.
890.213 In the 12 months immediately before the application is made, the applicant's main business in Australia, or main businesses in Australia together, had an annual turnover of at least AUD300 000.
890.214 In the period of 12 months ending immediately before the application is made, the main business in Australia, or main businesses in Australia, of the applicant, the applicant's spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together:
(a) provided an employee, or employees, with a total number of hours of employment at least equivalent to the total number of hours that would have been worked by 2 full-time employees over that period of 12 months; and
(b) provided those hours of employment to an employee, or employees, who:
(i) were not the applicant or a member of the family unit of the applicant; and
(ii) were Australian citizens, Australian permanent residents or New Zealand passport holders.
890.215 The net value of the business and personal assets in Australia of the applicant, the applicant's spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together, is, and has been throughout the 12 months immediately before the application is made, at least AUD250 000.
890.216 Neither the applicant nor his or her spouse or de facto partner (if any) has a history of involvement in business activities that are of a nature that is not generally acceptable in Australia.
890.217 The applicant has been in Australia as the holder of 1 of the visas mentioned in paragraph 1104B(3)(d) of Schedule 1 for a total of at least 1 year in the 2 years immediately before the application is made.
890.22 -- Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision
890.221 The applicant continues to satisfy the criteria in clauses 890.211, 890.215 and 890.216.
890.222 The applicant:
(a) satisfies public interest criteria 4001, 4002, 4003, 4004, 4007, 4009 , 4010, 4020 and 4021; and
(b) if the applicant had turned 18 at the time of application--satisfies public interest criterion 4019.
….
oOOo
[1] Folio 132B of BCC 2015/3768833
[2] Folios 48 – 58 of BCC2015/348778
[5] Folio 167 of BCC 2015/348325
[6] Folio 91 of BCC2015/3768833
[7]
Key Legal Topics
Areas of Law
Immigration
Statutory Interpretation
Legal Concepts
Judicial Review
Procedural Fairness
Statutory Construction
0
0
0