• Sydneys Leading Immigration Experts - Call For An Obligation Free Discussion: (02) 9299 5815

  • Background

    The applicant had held a sponsored 457 temporary business visa on which he had travelled extensively, including many trips to China, at the time that he applied for a Business Skills Residence visa. In his application he relied on owning and managing an Australian business.  Before our involvement Immigration had determined that the applicant’s frequent travel overseas must have precluded him from managing his business in Australia as he was often absent from it. Immigration concluded that the applicant had therefore not maintained direct and continuous involvement in management of his business from day to day, and told him he was not eligible for the permanent (subclass 845) visa.

    Our involvement

    Our client appealed the decision and we represented him before the Migration Review Tribunal. We made detailed submissions to the tribunal to the effect that our client maintained direct and continuous involvement with his business even while overseas.  We said that his time spent overseas had in fact contributed to the company’s strong growth. We assisted our client to gather extensive evidence to support our submissions, including financial information and statements from business associates. On the basis of our submissions and the additional evidence now made available, the tribunal accepted that our client had in fact maintained a direct and continuous relationship with the Australian company.

    Below is an extract from the Migration Review Tribunal regarding the evidence submitted:

    “Extensive evidence, in the form of testimony from business associates and employees, financial statements and phone and fax records, has been provided of the primary visa applicant’s role as manager of the nominated business, including his day to day involvement in the running of the business. Based on this evidence, the Tribunal has no doubt that the primary visa applicant meets the requirement of paragraph 1.11(1)(b).”

    The Migration Review Tribunal set aside Immigration’s decision.  This means our client won his appeal.