Iqbal and Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] AATA 1029 (17 December 2010)

Last Updated: 20 December 2010

Administrative Appeals Tribunal

DECISION AND REASONS FOR DECISION [2010] AATA 1029

ADMINISTRATIVE APPEALS TRIBUNAL )

) No 2010/0545

GENERAL ADMINISTRATIVE DIVISION		)
	Re		SHEIK ANIS IQBAL

Applicant

And

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

Respondent

DECISION

Tribunal

Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member Mr W Evans, Member

Date 17 December 2010

Place Perth

Decision

The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that the applicant's business skills visa (sub-class 132 business talent) not be cancelled.

..(sgd) Mr A Sweidan.......
Senior Member

CATCHWORDS

Migration - business skills visa (subclass 132 business talent) - whether visa conditions fulfilled - whether genuine efforts made - decision cancelling visa set aside

LEGISLATION

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) s134(1)

CASES
Buljeta and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] AATA 10
Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 634
Re Yam v Minister for immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 283
Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) AAR 259
Ong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] AATA 178
Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott 71 ALR 408
Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16; (1980) 144 CLR 1
Tang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 997
Hidayat v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 916
Huang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 656
Lok Young (Michael) Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] AATA 27
Burg v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1630
Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 54
Lau v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 70

Leo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 309

REASONS FOR DECISION

9 December 2010	Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member Mr W Evans, Member
BACKGROUND AND HISTORY

1. This is an application to the Tribunal for review of a decision made by a delegate of the respondent on 13 January 2010 cancelling the business skills (sub-class 132 business talent) visa of Sheik Anis Iqbal (the applicant).
2. The applicant is a citizen of Pakistan who was born on 26 December 1961. He applied for a Business Talent (Migrant) subclass 132 visa on 19 December 2005.
3. In his application the applicant stated that he had registered Al Fatah International Pty Ltd ("Al Fatah International") in Western Australia and intended to invest AUD 1 million in the business. The applicant also included a business proposal for Al Fatah International which advised:

3.1 Al Fatah International was registered on 11 October 2004;

3.2 it intended to operate from a rented office in Perth;

3.3 it would export Western Australian food products such as butter, cheese and milk to Pakistan and the Middle East as well as Australian-made consumer products such as shampoo, conditioner and toothpaste; and

3.4 it would employ at least 6 employees in its first year of operation: a purchasing manager, an export manager and 4 office staff.

4. The applicant also provided ASIC documentation confirming the date of registration and indicating that the applicant was the sole shareholder. The applicant and Seema Bux were identified as directors with Ms Bux identified as Secretary.
5. On 6 September 2006 the applicant was granted the sub-class 132 business talent visa ("the visa"). The applicant’s spouse and three children were also granted sub-class 132 visas on the basis of being members of the applicant’s family unit.
6. The applicant first entered Australia on the visa on 7 November 2006.
7. On 22 October 2008 the applicant was sent a standard 24 month survey requesting that it be returned by 30 January 2009. The applicant's representative briefly responded on 3 February 2009 stating:

Mr Sheik has a company in Perth which is negotiating with suppliers for the export of West Australian products to Pakistan which will be distributed through his substantial logistics company and in part through his retail outlets
.

8. On 12 June 2009 the applicant returned the 24 month survey advising:

8.1 he had established Alfateh International on 11 October 2004 for the primary purpose of exporting West Australian products into Pakistan consistent with the basis upon which he was granted sponsorship by the West Australian government;

8.2 he was the Managing Director of Alfateh International and was directly involved in setting up the business;

8.3 he had formally appointed his cousin Seema Bux as his Executive Assistant to help in the development of the business as a paid part time employee;

8.4 Alfateh International was financially strong with more than AUD 600,000 in its opening account; and

8.5 the applicant had developed a link with IGA Distribution in West Australia and arrangements for a first consignment of goods to Pakistan valued at AUD 130,000 were very advanced with a shipment imminent.

9. On 5 November 2009 the applicant was sent a notice of intention to consider cancelling his visa (the NOICC). The applicant responded to the NOICC on 1, 21 and 22 December 2009 advising:

9.1 he had established a business in Australia, Alfateh International;

9.2 he had transferred more than AUD 800,000 into an account for Alfateh International;

9.3 Seema Bux, his cousin, had been appointed as an employee of Alfateh International;

9.4 Ms Bux had signed an agreement with IGA Distribution Pty Ltd on his behalf;

9.5 the first export was made in August 2009; and

9.6 he was the Managing Director of Alfateh International and made decisions affecting the management of the business.

10. On 13 January 2010, a delegate of the respondent decided to cancel the applicant’s business skills visa and the visas held by the applicant’s family.

DELEGATE’S DECISION

11. The delegate found that whilst the applicant had registered a business and presented bank statements as evidence of funds transferred to Australia, the funds had been invested as cash on deposit and had not been used for business transactions. The financial statement for Alfateh indicated that the income received was from facilitation fees and interest on deposits. There was no evidence of business activity in the form of BAS statements, tax returns, audited financial statements or active bank statements. Consequently, the delegate was not satisfied that Alfateh was a business or an eligible business.
12. The delegate was not satisfied that one trial export was indicative of an active or ongoing business concern. Whilst there was evidence that the goods were exported to an overseas company there was no evidence that this was done for the purpose of making a profit. The delegate noted that whilst the applicant claimed to have an export agreement with IGA Distribution, the agreement had not been signed.
13. The delegate also noted that the majority of efforts made to engage in a business transaction were only executed after the Department had requested information regarding the applicant's business dealing.
14. The delegate found that there was no substantial evidence that the applicant was actively utilising his skills in the day-to-day management of the business. The delegate found that email correspondence on its own was not sufficient to demonstrate he was actively involved in managing the business. Furthermore, the evidence of research or initial business contacts that had been presented as evidence indicated that Seema Bux, his executive assistant, had undertaken those contacts.
15. Finally, the delegate found that the applicant had not made genuine efforts in light of his failure to provide substantial documentary evidence of ongoing/future business agreements that have been entered into or of his involvement in the day-to-day management of the business, his failure to provide a detailed business plan and his failure to provide evidence of requests for assistance from professional bodies and business agencies. The delegate also noted that the applicant had only been present in Australia for 41 days since his initial arrival in November 2006.

LEGISLATION AND POLICY

16. Section 134 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act) provides that the Minister has a discretion to cancel the visa if satisfied that the visa holder has not obtained a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia, is not utilising his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of the business, or does not intend to do these things. The Minister must not cancel the visa if satisfied that the visa holder has made genuine efforts and intends to continue to make such genuine efforts.
17. Eligible business and ownership interests are defined in section 134(1) of the Act and discussed at paragraph 4.3 of the Migration Series Instructions (MSI) 133.
18. Section 134(10) provides that eligible business means a business that the Minister reasonably believes is resulting or will result in one or more of the following:

18.1 the development of business links with the international market;

18.2 the creation or maintenance of employment in Australia;

18.3 the export of Australian goods and services;

18.4 the production of goods or the provision of services that would otherwise be imported into Australia;

18.5 the introduction of new or improved technology to Australia; and

18.6 an increase in commercial activity and competitiveness within sectors of the Australian economy.

19. Paragraph 4.3.2 of the MSI-133 notes that eligibility relates to achievement of stated objectives through the activities of the business, not directly to the size or scale of the business.
20. Section 134(3) provides a list of matters that the Minister may take into account when determining whether a person has made genuine efforts to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia and to utilise his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of that business.
21. Notes to guide the interpretation of these matters are provided at paragraph 4.5 of the MSI-133. The matters that may be taken into account, and the notes to their interpretation provide as follows:

21.1 business proposals that the person has developed. The MSI refers to whether there is a business proposal which is considered genuine, realistic and achievable;

21.2 the existence of partners or joint ventures. The MSI refers to whether there is a formal contract with partners or joint venturers;

21.3 research that the person has undertaken into the conduct of an eligible business in Australia. The MSI refers to whether there is written evidence of detailed consultations with at least 3 business advisers;

21.4 the period or periods during which the person has been present in Australia. The MSI refers to whether there has been physical presence for more than 6 months since the first arrival as a business skills migrant;

21.5 the value of assets transferred for use in obtaining an interest in an eligible business. The MSI refers to whether there has been transfer to and retained in Australia at least 50% of the funds indicated as available for transfer within the 2 years;

21.6 the value of ownership interest in the eligible business in Australia which is or has been held by the person. The MSI refers to whether there is or has been a minimum Australian $100,000.00 or 10% ownership held by the person and provides that if the person is no longer in the business the reasons for loss of ownership are relevant;

21.7 the business activity that is or has been undertaken by the person. The MSI refers to whether there is a minimum of Australian $100,000.00 business activity as indicated by turnover and provides that this may include other business activity not considered as an eligible business but cannot include passive investment, for example the purchase of shares;

21.8 whether the person has failed to comply with a notice under section 137. The MSI refers to whether there has been a failure to comply with a notice for information under section 137, i.e. mandatory monitoring of Australian address and return of survey forms; and

21.9 if the person no longer holds a substantial ownership interest in a particular business or no longer utilises his or her skills in actively participating at a senior level on the day-to-day management of the business:

21.9.1 the length of time the person held the ownership interest or participated in the management as the case requires; and

21.9.2 the reason why the person no longer holds the interest or participates in the management as the case requires.

22. Whilst the Tribunal is not bound by Departmental policy, the Tribunal should follow Ministerial or Departmental Guidelines unless there is some good reason not to: see Buljeta and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2003] AATA 10 at [58] citing Drake v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1979) 2 ALD 634; and Re Yam v Minister for immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 283 at [51] citing Davies J in Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1996) AAR 259.

RESPONDENT’S CONTENTIONS

Substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia

Substantial ownership

23. Section 134(1) and (2) of the Act require the visa holder to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia.
24. Section 134 defines “ownership interest” in relation to a business to mean an interest held by the visa applicant in a 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 a business;
    • including such an interest held indirectly through one or more interposed companies, partnerships or trusts.
25. The word “substantial” has been considered in Ong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2003] AATA 178 where Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott 71 ALR 408 at 412 was cited with approval. In Commissioner for Superannuation v Scott the Court considered a number of authorities dealing with the question of what constitutes “substantial” and held, (albeit in the context of s45D of the Trade Practices Act 1974 (Cth)) that the word “substantial” means:

Real or of substance and not insubstantial or nominal.

26. What is a substantial ownership of an eligible business is also a question of fact and degree (Ong supra at [25]).
27. The respondent concedes that as the sole shareholder of Alfateh International, the applicant has a substantial ownership interest in that company.

Eligible business

28. The definition of an eligible business is set out in section 134(1) of the Act. A business must meet at least one of the criteria set out in paragraphs (a) to (f) of the definition in order to be classified as an eligible business.
29. Furthermore, the Tribunal has previously found that the reference in subsection 134(1)(b) to the “day-to-day management of the business” indicates that an eligible business must have some element of continuity and repetition. Applying Mason J’s formulation of “carrying on a business” from Hope v Bathurst City Council [1980] HCA 16; (1980) 144 CLR 1, Deputy President McMahon found in Tang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 997 at [20] that the construction of “participating in the day-to-day management of the business” for subsection 134(1)(b) required a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern with activities engaged in for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis.
30. The importance of a clear profit motive was also discussed by The Tribunal at [34] in Hidayat v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 916. The Tribunal drew attention to the keeping of proper books, accounts and other records as a clear indication of this
31. The respondent concedes that a company which exports Australian goods would prima facie appear to be an eligible business.
32. However, the respondent points out that in the solitary transaction to date the applicant simply exported the products to his Pakistan company. There is no evidence as to the price at which the goods were sold.
33. The respondent contends that the business activities of Alfateh International are more concerned with supplying products to the applicant’s Pakistan business rather than establishing Alfateh International as an eligible business in Australia.
34. The respondent also contends that it is not clear whether or not the solitary transaction represents the only transaction that will be completed by the applicant. In this regard the respondent notes that the transaction occurred three years after the grant of the applicant's visa and whilst the applicant has provided emails of a preliminary nature there is no evidence that any further exports are imminent.

ACTIVE PARTICIPATION AT A SENIOR LEVEL IN THE DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT OF AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS

35. The respondent contends that the applicant has failed to demonstrate that he has utilised his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of an eligible business.
36. The Tribunal should not exercise its discretion to set aside the visa cancellation decision unless it is satisfied that the applicant is utilising his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of the business (or has made and intends to continue to make genuine efforts to utilise his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day to day management of the business).
37. The Act is intended to benefit business owners who settle in Australia and actively manage an eligible business. In Huang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 656 Senior Member Muller said at [12]:

Not only must the eligible business operate in Australia to comply with the Act, the visa holder must participate at a senior level in the day-to-day management of the Australian business in Australia, albeit with trips overseas from time to time.

38. Divergent views have been expressed in the Tribunal as to whether day-to-day management of an eligible business must take place in Australia, or whether it can take place overseas: see Lok Young (Michael) Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2006] AATA 27 at [41] for respective authorities and a history of the debate.
39. The respondent supports the view expressed by Deputy President Walker at [50] - [53] in Burg v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2007] AATA 1630, citing with approval Deputy President McMahon at [21] in Tang v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2000] AATA 997, that an absentee entrepreneur does not meet the requirements of management under s134(1)(b):

...it is apparent that the Act is intended to benefit business owners who settle here and actively manage that business. Mr Burg has not done that.

40. Deputy President Walker noted that the visa holder in Burg had only spent a total of 30 days in Australia at the time of cancellation. He further noted the applicant and his family had not permanently moved to Australia, something which is also expected under the Act, ‘hence the provision of secondary visas for family members.’
41. Likewise, the applicant in this matter has only spent 41 days in Australia and has not made any endeavours to permanently settle in Australia with his family. The respondent contends that this limited presence is indicative that he is not actively participating in the day-to-day management of an eligible business at a senior level and there is no evidence that the time spent overseas is necessary, or has been used, for the business activity of Alfateh International.

GENUINE EFFORT TO OBTAIN A SUBSTANTIAL OWNERSHIP INTEREST IN AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS IN AUSTRALIA AND TO UTILISE SKILLS IN ACTIVELY PARTICIPATING AT A SENIOR LEVEL IN THE DAY-TO-DAY MANAGEMENT OF THE ELIGIBLE BUSINESS

42. In considering the genuine effort the applicant has made, the Tribunal should only look at events, actions and intentions that existed prior to the cancellation of the visa (Wong v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 54).
43. However, the Tribunal when reviewing visa cancellation decisions can consider activities after cancellation in situations where there is evidence of prior intentions (Lau v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs [2002] AATA 70).
44. Paragraph 4.5.1 of the Migrations Series Instructions provides a list of factors that decision-makers may look at when determining whether a genuine effort has been made.
45. In relation to what constitutes a genuine effort the respondent contends the following:

45.1 A genuine effort must be more than a superficial or token effort (Yam v Minister for immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2004] AATA 283).

45.2 The use of the word “genuine” implies that it must be a real and honest effort and not one which is false, fictitious or a pretence.

45.3 The use of the word “effort” implies that some exertion or endeavour must be involved. The requirement is that an effort is made and the respondent contends that this requires some activity on behalf of an applicant. In Leo v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs [2006] AATA 309 the Tribunal found that a genuine effort must be “vigorous and determined”.

45.4 It must be a genuine effort to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business or to utilise an applicant’s skills in the day-to-day management of an eligible business at a senior level. Efforts which cannot realistically satisfy either of these criteria cannot be said to be genuine efforts.

45.4 Mere expressions of interest or inquiries fall short of genuine efforts (Yam).

45.4 In determining whether a genuine effort has been made, there is good reason for a decision-maker to have regard to the factors set out in MSI-133.

46. The respondent contends that the applicant has not made a genuine effort either to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia or to utilise his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of the eligible business.
47. The respondent contends that the activities of the applicant fall short of constituting genuine efforts.
48. The solitary export took place more than three years after the grant of the applicant's visa and there is no evidence that any further exports will take place notwithstanding that a year has passed since that singular export.
49. It is clear that the vast majority of email correspondence relied upon does not involve the applicant but rather Ms Seema Bux. It is Ms Bux who has carried out any, or all investigations, communicated with IGA and made all arrangements for the shipment.
50. The applicant has only spent 41 days in Australia. The respondent contends that this limited presence is a strong indicator of a lack of genuine efforts on the part of the applicant.
    

TRIBUNAL’S FINDINGS

PARTICIPATION IN AN ELIGIBLE BUSINESS

51. The Tribunal is of the view the applicant has not complied with the terms of his visa insofar as Alfateh International is not an eligible business . The single export of Australian goods to the applicant’s business in Pakistan by Alfateh International Pty Ltd does not in the Tribunal’s opinion meet the requirement that there be “a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern with activities engaged in for the purpose of a profit on a continuous and repetitive basis.“
    • - see Tang supra

GENUINE EFFORTS

52. The Tribunal finds that there is ample evidence of genuine efforts made by the applicant to comply with the terms of his visa over an extended period of time. The applicant's representative in Australia, Ms Seema Bux, carried out many enquiries and looked at a large number of businesses.

52.1 The evidence shows that Seema Bux was at all times acting on behalf of the applicant and further shows the nature of the applicant's involvement in those genuine efforts.

52.2 There are numerous items of correspondence in the evidence which clearly indicate the effort made and show that all decisions were to be made by the applicant.

52.3 The following emails contained in Exhibit A7 are relevant:-

52.3.1 In an email from Seema Bux to Jonathan Huston dated 2 July 2008, Ms Bux stated as follows:

"I have spoken to my cousin and he is coming to Perth in August and wants to make the final decision on the business we select when he comes here...I would like to meet again when my cousin is in town so he can also discuss the transaction directly with you."

52.3.2 In an email dated 11 August 2008 from Seema Bux to Jonathan Huston, Ms Bux stated as follows:

"My cousin has arrived in Perth and is available to meet on wednesday or thursday this week."

52.3.3 In an email dated 12 August 2008 from Aylwin Yow to Seema Bux, Aylwin Yow stated as follows:

"I thought I might write you a quick touch base email to see if you have had a chance to discuss our concept and business opportunities with your Cousin yet?"

52.3.4 In her reply dated 15 December 2008, Ms Bux stated as follows:

"I have mentioned the idea to my cousin, haven't had a chance to talk to him in detail as we have been a bit tied up preparing for a report he needs to submit to the immigration department in regards to his business visa. I will try and talk to him in detail this week sometime and will let you know."

52.3.5 By an email dated 29 July 2008 to Beth Dorian, Ms Bux stated as follows:

"I spoke to you a few weeks ago about the San Churros franchise. You were going to send through some additional information to me. My cousin will be arriving in Perth on 10th August, if possible could you please send it through before this date so i can have it ready for him.
"

52.3.6 In an email from Kevin Ward to Seema Bux dated 28 May 2008, Mr Ward stated as follows:

"It's on the cappuccino strip in Freo. I've attached a few pics. Could be ideal in terms of letting the manager run it and then your cousin take over when he arrives..."

52.4 These emails show that at all times the final decision-maker was the applicant. Seema Bux was making numerous enquiries and investigations about possible businesses but had no power or authority to make any final decision.

52.5 There is other documentation that confirms that Seema Bux was the applicant's representative in Perth but that at all times the final decision was to be made by the applicant. See Exhibit A4. This Exhibit relates to the attempts by the applicant, through his lawyer, to recover funds invested in Devx Pty Ltd. The applicant's investment in Devx Pty Ltd and his attempt to recover the funds from that company are also evidence of genuine efforts. However, the relevance of Exhibit A4 is that it, again, indicates that the final decision was with the applicant. Exhibit A4 includes copies of correspondence between the applicant's solicitor and Devx Pty Ltd. The relevant document for this purpose is an email from Seema Bux to the applicant’s solicitor dated 23 June 2008. In her email Ms Bux stated as follows:

"I managed to get hold of my cousin, Anis over the weekend and he would like you to proceed with writing to Dev-x asking for them to prepare the paperwork...He said he wants to wait for their response to this letter before he takes court action as he doesn't want to come across as too aggressive...would it be possible for you to send a letter to Dev-x before 30th June? My cousin, Anis said that if they are higher costs for preparing this urgently that is fine by him."

52.6 The dealings with IGA also confirm that the applicant made the decisions. The introduction to IGA came through Austrade. See email from Austrade to Dean Phillips, IGA dated 14 August 2008 (document 2 at pages 7-8 of applicant's Supplementary Documents (Exhibit A3)).

52.7 The applicant and Ms Bux met with the representative of IGA, Mr Dean Phillips. Mr Phillips addressed his email of 20 August 2008 to the applicant and Ms Bux - document number 8 at page 40 of the applicant's Documents (Exhibit A2).

52.8 The letter dated 12 January 2009 setting out IGA's trading terms was addressed to the applicant - document number 9 at pages 41-45 of the applicant's Documents.

52.9 The intermediate contacts with IGA were made by Seema Bux. However, as the transaction moved to finalisation the applicant became closely involved and took over all dealings.

52.10 Ms Bux's evidence was that the applicant decided what products were to be ordered.

52.11 The emails at pages 484-490 of the T Documents show that the final decisions were made by the applicant.

52.12 At page 490 is an email from the applicant to Mr Dean Phillips from IGA dated 2 June 2009. The email attached the order. The email read as follows:

"Please find attached our 1st order of 1*40 box. This is a trial order by which, we will introduce Australian products in our territory and later on take it to other countries...Please make sure that no item in our shipment is of Indian origin as we have a restriction on that, and secondly the expiry date of the relevant product, should not be less than half of the period, between the production and expiry....

Please send a Performa (sic) Invoice."

52.13 The next email (at page 488 of the "T" documents) is an email from Mr Dean Phillips to the applicant dated 3 June 2009.

52.14 The next email (at page 487 of the "T" documents) is an email from Mr Dean Phillips to the applicant dated 4 June 2009.

52.15 The next email (at pages 484-485 of the "T" documents) is an email from Mr Dean Phillips to the applicant dated 10 June 2009.

53. Applicant’s evidence is that he will continue to make genuine efforts to comply with the terms of his visa and the Tribunal accepts that he will do so given more time.

DECISION

54. The Tribunal sets aside the decision under review and substitutes a decision that the applicant's business skills visa (sub-class 132 business talent not be cancelled.
    

I certify that the 54 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of Mr A Sweidan, Senior Member and Mr W Evans, Member

Signed: ..(sgd) T Freeman..............

Associate

Date/s of Hearing 20 September 2010

Date of Final Submissions 26 November 2010

Date of Decision 17 December 2010

Counsel for the Applicant Mr A Goldfinch

Stables Scott

Counsel for the Respondent Mr A Gerrard
Australian Government Solicitor