YANG (Migration)

This matter concerned an application for a Business Skills (Permanent) visa (subclass 888) by the applicant, Yang, and a secondary applicant. The core of the dispute revolved around whether the applicant had met the requirement to hold a "complying investment" for the requisite continuous period as stipulated in clause 888.241 of Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994. The Tribunal was tasked with determining if the applicant satisfied this crucial criterion for the permanent visa.

The legal issue before the Tribunal was whether the applicant had held a complying investment within the meaning of the relevant regulations for the entire period specified in subclause 888.241(1) and (2). Specifically, the Tribunal had to consider the definition of a "complying investment" as it applied at the time of the applicant's Subclass 188 visa application, and whether the investment held by the applicant met these requirements for the continuous period mandated by the regulations.

The Tribunal reasoned that the applicant had not held the required complying investment for the entire continuous period. The evidence indicated that the investment was not held for longer than 30 days, which fell short of the continuous holding period stipulated in the regulations. Consequently, the Tribunal concluded that the applicant had failed to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa. As the primary applicant did not meet these criteria, the secondary applicant, who was a member of the primary applicant's family unit, could not satisfy the requirements for their own visa.

The Tribunal affirmed the decision of the Department not to grant the applicants the Business Skills (Permanent) (subclass 888) visas.