Yen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 705

Yen v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2003] FCA 705

The application failed because the only conceivable outcome on the evidence was that the $100,000 claim remained an asset of the applicant and her spouse and was never assigned to, or made an asset of, Wong & Yen Pty Ltd before the visa application. The applicant had bargained away any interest in the amusement arcade business before the relevant 12-month period, there was no basis to treat other investments as satisfying the definition, and the Tribunal did not deny natural justice or breach any duty to inquire.

Jurisdiction
Australia
Judgment Date
03 June 2003
Procedural Posture
Application Challenging a Migration Review Tribunal Decision Concerning a Business Skills (residence) (class Bh) Visa / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Legal Topics
['business Skills (residence) (class Bh) Visa' 'main Business' 'ownership Interest' 'net Assets Criterion' 'assignment of Choses in Action' 'natural Justice' 'tribunal Duty to Inquire']
['immigration Law' 'administrative Law'] ['business Skills (residence) (class Bh) Visa' 'main Business' 'ownership Interest' 'net Assets Criterion' 'assignment of Choses in Action' 'natural Justice' 'tribunal Duty to Inquire']

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 1 Authorities cited 2 Party arguments 1 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Procedural Posture

Application Challenging a Migration Review Tribunal Decision Concerning a Business Skills (residence) (class Bh) Visa / Final Hearing; Reasons for Judgment and Orders

Legal Issues

  1. 1 ["Whether the Tribunal's conclusion that the applicant did not satisfy par 845.215 of Sch 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 was open to challenge." "Whether the alleged $100,000 chose in action had been assigned to Wong & Yen Pty Ltd so as to be an asset of the company or a measure of the applicant's interest in the company." 'Whether the Tribunal took too narrow a view of the business or businesses in which the applicant claimed an interest.' 'Whether the Tribunal denied natural justice or failed to make enquiries it was obliged to make.']

Ratio Decidendi

The application failed because the only conceivable outcome on the evidence was that the $100,000 claim remained an asset of the applicant and her spouse and was never assigned to, or made an asset of, Wong & Yen Pty Ltd before the visa application. The applicant had bargained away any interest in the amusement arcade business before the relevant 12-month period, there was no basis to treat other investments as satisfying the definition, and the Tribunal did not deny natural justice or breach any duty to inquire.

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs in the proceedings, including reserved costs."]