Wu (Migration) [2023] AATA 3804 (8 November 2023)

Last Updated: 22 November 2023

Wu (Migration) [2023] AATA 3804 (8 November 2023)

DECISION RECORD

DIVISION: Migration & Refugee Division

APPLICANTS: Ms Yihong Wu
Mr Yajian Wu
Mr Yulun Wu
Miss Ruoyu Wu

REPRESENTATIVE: Ms Lin Liu (MARN: 9791315)

CASE NUMBER: 2103471

HOME AFFAIRS REFERENCE(S): BCC2019/1559661

MEMBER: Robyn Anderson

DATE: 8 November 2023

PLACE OF DECISION: Melbourne

DECISION: The Tribunal remits the applications for Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent) Subclass 888 visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 888 visa:

• cl 888.241 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Statement made on 8 November 2023 at 3.15pm.

CATCHWORDS
MIGRATION – Business Skills (Permanent) visa – Subclass 888 – Significant Investor stream – funds used to make the investment were unencumbered and lawfully acquired – investment made by the applicant has been made “with” her spouse – it is irrelevant whether the transfer of funds equates to a withdrawal – the investment is a complying investment for the purposes of cl 888.241(2A)(b) – decision under review remitted

LEGISLATION
Migration Act 1958, s 65
Migration Regulations 1994, rr 1.03, 5.19, Schedule 2, cl 888.241

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS
APPLICATION FOR REVIEW

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 11 March 2021 to refuse to grant the visa applicant a Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent) Subclass 888 visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The visa applicants applied for the visa on 28 March 2019. The delegate refused to grant the visas on the basis that the complying investment in Oliver Hume Australia Property Income Fund (the OH Fund) was not jointly held in both the primary applicant’s name and the name of her spouse. The delegate concluded that the holding of units in the complying investment in the individual names of the applicant and the applicant’s spouse did not meet the criterion under reg 5.19B(5)(b). Consequently, the applicants were not able to meet all of the criteria under cl 888.241 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations); more specifically, cl 888.241(2A)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
3. The applicant lodged an application for an independent review by the Tribunal on 18 March 2021. The Tribunal received submissions on 19 March 2021. The matter was constituted to a Tribunal Member on 5 July 2023. On 13 July 2023, the Tribunal wrote to the applicants to invite them to attend a hearing on 18 August 2023. As the representative was unavailable, the Tribunal granted a reschedule request on 20 July 2023.
4. The Tribunal received further submissions and evidence on 21 August 2023. The first named applicant (the applicant) and second‑named applicant (the applicant’s spouse) appeared before the Tribunal on 22 September 2023 to give evidence and present arguments. They gave oral evidence and presented arguments on affirmation.
5. The Tribunal hearing was conducted with the assistance of an interpreter in the Mandarin and English languages.
6. The applicants were represented in relation to the review by their registered migration agent.
7. On 22 September 2023, the Tribunal deferred making a decision in this matter to allow additional time for the applicants to provide further evidence and submissions in support of their case.
8. The Tribunal received further submissions and evidence on 6 October 2023. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

9. According to Departmental records, the applicants were granted a Subclass 188 visa in the Significant Investor stream on 27 April 2015 and the visa ceased on 29 March 2019. In response to a question from the tribunal, the applicant stated that her spouse loves the freedom, openness and inclusivity that exists in Australia. As such, they decided to commence the process to try and eventually settle here with the children.
10. The applicant gave oral evidence that when she applied for the Subclass 188 visa in mid‑2014, she was working as a public servant on a full-time basis in a province near Shanghai earning around RMB100,000 per annum. This equates to just over AUD20,000 per annum.
11. The applicant’s spouse’s family had operated a construction company since taking it over from the Communist Party in around 1983–1985. He told the Tribunal that he currently has a 99% shareholding in the construction company, his mother holding the remaining 1%. He has also expanded into financial investments, fire safety facilities and artificial intelligence technology through some 13 other limited liability companies. He further stated that the combined annual turnover of his businesses approximates RMB 0.3 to 0.5 billion. This equates to approximately AUD60 to AUD100 million per annum.
12. The applicant gave oral evidence that her spouse provided the funds to make the complying investment. AUD5 million was transferred to the applicant’s Bank of China account and then transferred to the applicant’s Commonwealth Bank of Australia account. The applicant then invested the AUD5 million with the OH Fund on 7 April 2015 in her sole name.
13. The applicant told the Tribunal that later in 2015 her accountant advised her to transfer some of the investment into her spouse’s name to save on taxation. This was because the applicant was residing in Australia with the children who were attending school. This meant that she was considered to be a resident for tax purposes and consequently was taxed accordingly. In contrast, as her spouse resided in Australia for less than 180 days per annum, he was considered to be a foreign resident and was taxed via withholding at a fixed rate of 10%.
14. The applicant further stated that she consulted with her representative in late October about such a possibility. Evidence was before the Tribunal in respect of email exchanges between the representative and the Department. On 2 November 2015, a member of the Business Skills team in Adelaide responded to the representative’s query as follows:

The spouse can be included as a joint holder along with your client in the property fund investment.

15. A further query in relation to allowable percentages for an investor and spouse received the following response on 9 November 2015:

There is no set percentage for each person (i.e. the primary applicant or their spouse) regarding their contributions as long as they are joint holders.

A copy of the Departmental policy in GenGuide M – Business Visas – Visa application and related procedures (PAM3) at 51.1 was provided for reference.

16. The applicant then submitted an application form, dated 26 November 2015, and covering letter to Mr Rogers of Oliver Hume Property Funds, requesting that 85% of her investment in the OH Fund, or AUD4,250,000 be transferred to her spouse. The application form records the type of entity making the investment as an individual. In response to a question from the Tribunal as to why the applicant did not mark the box “Joint investor”, the applicant stated that she did not understand that there was a difference. In her mind, in accordance with their culture, if you are married, all assets are jointly owned, regardless of whether they are held in the name of the husband or the wife.
17. A letter from Mr Rogers of Oliver Hume Property Funds, dated 20 September 2023, was received by the Tribunal after the hearing. He explained that the OH Fund is a pooled fund, whereby the funds from individual investors are aggregated for the purpose of investment then invested together in mortgages and term deposits. He went on to state that his understanding was “that at all times the client’s intention was to ensure their investment complied with the SIV requirements and the transfer of units to the applicant’s spouse in November 2015 was intended to be consistent with the requirement that the complying investment be made ‘directly by the primary applicant and their spouse or de facto partner together’, notwithstanding this intention was not made clear on the application form, which it seems was filled out incorrectly having regard to that intention”. He further confirmed that the request on the application form was given effect by way of an administration adjustment by the trustee when the application was processed on 26 November 2015. The transfer was not recorded as a joint holding of the applicant and her spouse together, but in the name of her spouse as a separate unit holder.
18. Mr Rogers also confirmed that 55% of the units in the OH Fund were redeemed on 6 December 2019. As this is more than four years after the initial investment was made, it has no bearing on this review.
19. Clause 888.241 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations relates specifically to applicants seeking to satisfy the primary criteria for a Subclass 888 visa in the Significant Investor stream.
20. As the applicants at the time of application had held a Subclass 188 (Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional)) visa in the Significant Investor stream for a continuous period of three years and 11 months and applied for it before 1 July 2015, the Tribunal is satisfied that cl 888.241(1)(c)(i) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is met.
21. The Tribunal finds that at the date of application, the applicant had not held a Subclass 188 Business Innovation and Investment (Provisional) visa in the Significant Investor Extension stream that was granted on the basis of their Subclass 188 visa in the Significant Investor stream. Therefore, the Tribunal is also satisfied that the applicant meets the criterion under cl 888.241(1)(c)(ii) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. As such, the applicant has met all of the criteria under cl 888.241(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations and the Tribunal so finds.
22. Clause 888.241(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires the applicant to meet the requirements of either subclause (2A) or (2B). As the applicant was granted a Subclass 188 visa prior to 1 July 2015, it is cl 888.241(2A) that is applicable as per cl 888.241(2A)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.
23. Clause 888.241(2A)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires that the applicant has held, for the whole of the period during which the applicant has held the Subclass 188 visa, a complying investment within the meaning of reg 5.19B as in force at the time the application was made. It is undisputed that the time in which the applicant is required to have held a complying investment is 27 April 2015 to 29 March 2019.
24. Regulation 5.19B defines complying investment as follows:

(1) An investment by a person (the investor) is a complying investment if all of the requirements in this regulation are met.

Description

(2) The investment must consist of one or more of the following:

(a) an investment in a government bond (however described) of the Commonwealth, a State or Territory; or

(b) a direct investment in an Australian proprietary company that meets the following requirements:

(i) the company is not listed on an Australian stock exchange;

(ii) the company has not been established wholly or substantially for the purpose of creating compliance with this paragraph;

(iii) the investment is an ownership interest in the company;

(c) an investment in a managed fund (directly or through an investor directed portfolio service) for a purpose specified by the Minister in an instrument, in writing, for this paragraph.

(3) The funds used to make the investment are:

(a) unencumbered; and

(b) lawfully acquired.

Investor

(4) The investor must be an individual.

(5) The investor must make the investment:

(a) personally; or

(b) with the investor’s spouse or de facto partner; or

(c) by means of a company that has issued shares and in which:

(i) the investor holds all of the issued shares; or

(ii) the investor and the investor’s spouse or de facto partner hold all of the issued shares; or

(d) by means of a trust:

(i) that is lawfully established; and

(ii) of which:

• (A) the investor is the sole trustee; or
• (B) the investor and the investor’s spouse or de facto partner are the sole trustees; and

(iii) of which:

• (A) the investor is the sole beneficiary; or
• (B) the investor and the investor’s spouse or de facto partner are the sole beneficiaries.

(6) If:

(a) an investor withdraws money from a complying investment, or cancels the investment; and

(b) the investor makes an investment of at least the value of the withdrawn money or cancelled investment in one or more other investments mentioned in sub‑regulation (2); and

(c) no more than 30 days passes between the events mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b);

the investment is taken not to have ceased to be a complying investment during the period between the events mentioned in paragraphs (a) and (b).

25. The Tribunal is cognisant that the criteria in respect of a complying investment under reg 5.19B also had to be met for the applicants to be granted their Subclass 188 visa in 2015.
26. In relation to reg 5.19B(2), the Tribunal notes that a Form 1413 Declaration was provided to the Department by the OH Fund, signed by the director of the OH Fund, Mr Rogers, on 25 January 2019. Mr Rogers confirms that the OH Fund is a managed fund and meets the definition set out in reg 1.03 of the Regulations; that is, that the investments are limited to the purposes specified by the Minister in respect of reg 5.19B(2)(c). The Tribunal is therefore satisfied that the OH Fund is an investment in a managed fund in accordance with the requirements of reg 5.19B(2)(c) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. This finding is undisputed.
27. Based on the oral evidence of the applicants and the Department’s finding in 2015 that the funds used to make the investment were unencumbered and lawfully acquired, the Tribunal is satisfied that reg 5.19B(3) is met.
28. Reg 5.19B(4) requires that the investor be an individual. Both the applicant and her spouse have made their respective investments in the OH Fund as individuals and the Tribunal so finds.
29. The contentious issue in this matter is in relation to reg 5.19B(5); that is, in relation to how the investment was made.
30. The initial Unit Certificate in the name of the applicant is dated 7 April 2015 and records her investment of 5 million units. It is unclear why the Unit Certificates issued to the applicant and her spouse in July 2016 were dated 1 October 2015 or why the Holding Statement issued to each of them in June 2022 records their respective allotments of 750,000 and 4,250,000 units as occurring on 1 October 2015. This is before the applicant’s application on 26 November 2015 to transfer a portion of the investment to her spouse. In any event, it is undisputed that the applicant and her spouse held their own separate unit holdings, albeit within the same aggregated investment.
31. The Tribunal accepts the oral and written evidence before it that the intention was not for the applicant and her spouse to hold separate unit holdings. However, the fact remains that they did. They received distributions independently of each other, as evidenced on the Distribution Summary Statements from Oliver Hume in respect of the period 31 June 2015 to 31 March 2021 for the applicant and for the period 31 December 2015 to 31 March 2021 for the applicant’s spouse. Furthermore, it was open to either of them to sell their units independently of the other.
32. Regulation 5.19B(5) gives four options for an individual to invest: personally, with the investor’s spouse or de facto partner, by means of a company, or by means of a trust. If investing by means of a company, the investor must either hold 100% of the shares or the investor and spouse or de facto partner must hold all of the shares. If investing by means of a trust, the investor must be the sole beneficiary, or the investor and the spouse or de facto partner must be the sole beneficiaries.
33. In relation to reg 5.19B(5)(b), the applicant submitted that she has invested “with her spouse” as they both hold units in the same investment. She considers that she and her spouse have invested together because each of them hold units in the same aggregated investment. Furthermore, as discussed above, in her view they both have ownership of the AUD5 million investment because they were married, irrespective of which of their names the units were held in. She further stated that in China, “jointly held” is not really a concept. She considers “together” to be an extremely broad description.
34. As discussed at hearing, the issue at hand hinges largely on the interpretation of the word “with”. Advice to the representative from Mr Lanyon of Collins, Biggers and Paisley, dated 26 September 2023, and Mr Hall of ANZ Migrate, dated 3 October 2023, were provided after the hearing. The advice from Mr Lanyon was in relation to the case of David Securities Pty Ltd v Commonwealth Bank of Australia (David Securities) in which transfer of property under a mistake of fact or a mistake of law by the transferor is recoverable unless the property is untraceable or where it would be inequitable for the transferor to claim restitution because of the transferee’s adverse change of position.
35. The Tribunal notes that the case of David Securities relates to circumstances where a payment has been made. The applicants assert that no payment was made in this case and that no funds were withdrawn. The letter from Mr Rogers of Oliver Hume Property Group, dated 20 September 2023, is adamant that there was no payment or transfer of funds associated with the transfer. The Tribunal is of the opinion that without any payment, this matter is distinguished from that of David Securities.
36. Mr Lanyon also advised in relation to the case of Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd vs Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation) that the acquisition by the applicant and her spouse “formed substantially one arrangement” and should therefore not be viewed separately. In the case of Oliver Hume Property Funds (Broad Gully Rd) Diamond Creek Pty Ltd vs Commissioner of State Revenue (Review and Regulation), it was found that the acquisition of shares by associated/related persons of the investor should be aggregated because the acquisitions form part of “substantially one arrangement”. However, this was in relation to the initial offer and it was noted that the Commissioner will not regard acquisitions under a genuine public offer as an associated transaction. The transfer of shares from the applicant to her spouse was not in relation to the initial offer and was therefore not a part of the aggregated acquisition by all unit holders. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that the case is distinguished from the matter under review.
37. According to the Macquarie Dictionary, “and” has the meaning of “with, along with, together with, besides, also”. Case law has not addressed the issue and the word “with” is not defined in the Act or the Regulations. However, it is not a technical legal word. Accordingly, it is appropriate to consider its ordinary meaning. The Macquarie Dictionary defines “with” as a preposition, meaning “accompanied by or accompanying” or to “have a particular relation to”. The Cambridge Dictionary defines “with” as “people or things doing something together”. Mr Hall notes in his advice to the representative that in accordance with the Oxford Dictionary, “with” indicates “association, connection or interaction between two or more parties”. In relation to the same Oxford Dictionary definition, Mr Lanyon pointed out that as the association of the applicant and her spouse is through marriage, “it is arguably one of the closest connections between two people. There is a further association given that the ownership interests are in the same investment”.
38. Mr Hall further stated in his letter to the representative that in relation to the interpretation of the word “with”, that “to impose a requirement for joint ownership would be to read into the Regulation a stipulation that is not textually present, thereby contravening the plain meaning of the term as understood in everyday language”.
39. PAM3 discusses how an investment is to be made. While it is in the context of a Subclass 188 visa because it is at the time of invitation to apply for a Subclass 188 visa that the investment must be made, reg 5.19B applies equally to the Subclass 888 visa. At 51.1 of PAM3, reg 5.19B(5)(b) is reworded as “directly by the primary applicant and their spouse or de facto partner together”. A similar type of rewording in relation to reg 5.19B(5)(c) and reg 5.19B(5)(d) refers to the primary applicant or the primary applicant and their spouse or de facto partner together, owning all of the issued shares in a company, or the primary applicant or the primary applicant and their spouse or de facto partner together, being trustee/s and beneficiary/ies. This is despite the legislation using the word “with” in relation to reg 5.19B(5)(b) and using the word “and” in respect of reg 5.19B(5)(c) and reg 5.19B(5)(d). It seems that policy considers that the terms “with” and “and” have the same meaning.
40. The Tribunal acknowledges that use of the word “with” or “and” in the legislation is somewhat ambiguous, particularly given that other clauses in relation to the Subclass 888 visa, such as holders of net assets, are more specific in explaining the acceptable combinations of ownership. For example, cl 888.225(2) and cl 888.225(4) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations provide for business and personal assets to be owned by “the applicant, the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner or the applicant and his/her spouse or de facto partner together”. In the Tribunal’s view, the word “together” lends itself more to an interpretation of jointly held than the word “with” or “and”.
41. The Tribunal looked to the Explanatory Statement in relation to the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 7), which introduced the Significant Investor stream of the Subclass 188 visa.
42. The Explanatory Statement sets out the purpose of the introduction of the Significant Investor stream as being to “strengthen and improve immigration policy” by “providing a visa option for investors and their families who invest at least five million dollars into the Australian economy”. Mr Hall submitted that “it would be unduly restrictive and inequitable to interpret the legislation as limiting the investment responsibility solely to the primary investor, thereby excluding the family unit from participating in this significant financial commitment. Such a narrow interpretation is not only inconsistent with the overarching intent of the Significant Investor stream, as outlined in the Migration Amendment Regulation 2012 (No. 7), but also undermines the very essence of the program’s objective. The program was explicitly designed to attract “investors and their families to make substantial contributions to the Australian economy”.
43. Furthermore, “To refuse an application on the grounds that the investment is not jointly held by the primary investor contradicts the inclusive and holistic spirit of the legislative intent, which aims to fortify the Australian economy through the collective financial commitment of the investor and their family”.
44. Mr Lanyon further stated in his letter to the representative that as regs 5.19B(5)(c) and 5.19B(5)(d) allow for investments to be made in a variety of ways that the Regulations are intended to be flexible in how investments can be structured, as long as they are confined to the family unit.
45. The Tribunal considered the intention of the legislation, noting the purpose described in the Explanatory Statement of “providing a visa option for investors and their families who invest at least five million dollars into the Australian economy”. The Tribunal also noted the specific reference in the legislation to the words “with” or “and”, of the same meaning, in relation to their spouse or de facto partner in all of the methods of investment set out in reg 5.19B(5). In the Tribunal’s view this eludes to an intention that families, for the purposes of making a complying significant investment, are limited to an investor and their spouse or de facto partner, and it was not intended to include other family members. This appears to be a deliberate limitation on the flexibility of the means by which a complying investment can be made.
46. The ambiguity in reg 5.19B(5)(b) remains in relation to the method of investing through a company, as ASIC allows shares to be held in joint names, or individual names. That is, for example, 10 shares can be owned jointly by Mr X and Mrs X, or Mr X can hold 5 shares in his own right and Mrs X can own 5 shares in her own right. However, when it comes to the wording in relation to the method of investing through a trust, it is not possible to have a joint name trustee or beneficiary, as eluded to in the wording “together” in PAM3. If an investor and spouse or de facto partner were to be trustees, they are named individually. Similarly, if they were to be beneficiaries of a trust, they can only be so as individuals. Taxation and trust law in relation to present entitlement does not entertain a beneficiary being anything other than a single individual or a single entity.
47. Given that the words “with” and “and” have the same dictionary meaning and are applied in reg 5.19B(5) to investments made through a trust, company or the investor with a spouse or de facto partner, it logically follows that the same intention should also apply for the purpose of consistency. An investment through a trust requires the investor or investor and spouse or de facto partner to be trustees and beneficiaries (a corporate trustee or beneficiary is not provided as an option). As this can only be each as a separate individual, the Tribunal concludes that it is also the intention that an investment made by means of a company could also have 100% of the shares in the company owned by the investor and the investor’s spouse or de facto partner either jointly or individually. The same conclusion is drawn in relation to reg 5.19B(5)(b), in that the investor investing “with” their spouse or de facto partner can mean either in joint names or as individuals.
48. The Tribunal notes that whilst PAM3 may provide guidance, the Tribunal is not bound to follow it. In this case, the Tribunal is not satisfied that use of the word “together” in PAM3 is consistent with the intention of the legislation in relation to reg 5.19B(5).
49. The Tribunal accepts that it was simply a change of name as a result of an unintended error on the application form that resulted in the applicant’s spouse holding units in the OH Fund as an individual. In any event, at all material times during the four-year period in which the investment must remain, the units were held individually by the applicant and her spouse, or by the applicant with her spouse. To this end, the Tribunal is satisfied that this aligns with the intention behind the Significant Investor stream.
50. The investment made by the applicant has been made “with” her spouse, as individuals in the same aggregated investment. The Tribunal is satisfied that they have invested into the OH Fund in accordance with reg 5.19B(5)(b). Therefore, the Tribunal finds that the applicant meets reg 5.19B(5).
51. Regulation 5.19B(6) sets out what must be done if the investor withdraws money from a complying investment or cancels the investment. PAM3 explains that the intention is that the applicant hold the complying investment continually for the required four years. However, there is scope for an investor to switch between other complying investments if it is done so within 30 days.
52. While Mr Rogers has confirmed that there was no physical withdrawal of funds from the OH Fund, it could be argued that the transfer of funds from the name of the applicant to her spouse resulted in a withdrawal and immediate investment. Regardless, even if this was the case, as the investment was made on the same day in the name of the applicant’s spouse, resulting in the applicant “with” her spouse investing in the same complying investment, it is irrelevant whether the transfer of funds equates to a withdrawal. Accordingly, the Tribunal finds that reg 5.19B(6) is also met.
53. As all of the relevant criteria under reg 5.19B are met, the Tribunal finds that the investment is a complying investment for the purposes of cl 888.241(2A)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Furthermore, as the AUD5 million investment was made on 7 April 2015 and continued to be held beyond 29 March 2019, the Tribunal is satisfied that the complying investment was held for the whole of the period during which the Subclass 188 visa was held, thereby satisfying cl 888.241(2A)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. Accordingly, as all of the criteria under cl 888.241(2A) are met, it follows that cl 888.241(2) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is met. The Tribunal finds accordingly.
54. As the complying significant investment was not held as a direct investment in an Australian proprietary company, cl 888.241(3) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is not applicable in this case.
55. Relevantly, if cl 888.241(2A) applies, cl 888.241(4)(a) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations requires the applicant to provide to the Minister a completed copy of approved Form 1413 for each investment in a managed fund on which the investment mentioned in that subclause is based. As noted above, the Form 1413 was provided to the Department, signed by Mr Rogers on 25 January 2019. Clause 888.241(4)(b) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations is not applicable in this case. Therefore, the Tribunal is satisfied that cl 888.241(4) has been met.
56. Consequently, as all of the criteria under cl 888.241 are met, the appropriate course is to remit the matter to the Minister to consider the remaining criteria for the visa.
57. The Tribunal finds that as the second, third and fourth named applicants applied on the basis of being family unit members of the first named applicant, their applications will be determined by reference to the outcome of the first named applicant’s application on remittal to the Department for reconsideration.

DECISION

58. The Tribunal remits the applications for Business Innovation and Investment (Permanent) Subclass 888 visas for reconsideration, with the direction that the first named applicant meets the following criteria for a Subclass 888 visa:
    • cl 888.241 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

Robyn Anderson
Member