Specialist in Australian Immigration, Migration Consultant and Online Australian Visa Assessment Service.
Australian Immigration Specialists - Australian Immigration Consultants Online Australian Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia
  Research Home

Administrative Appeals Tribunal
Federal Court
Federal Magistrates Court
Full Federal Court
High Court
Migration Review Tribunal
Other Jurisdictions
Refugee Review Tribunal
Recently Added
Re Patterson; Ex parte Taylor [2001] HCA 51 (6 September 2001)
Singh v Commonwealth of Australia [2004] HCA 43 (9 September 2004)
Muin v Refugee Review Tribunal; Lie v Refugee Review Tribunal [2002] HCA 30

"Use the Migration Specialists that migration agents use"

CATCHWORDS: Review of business sponsorship rejection - temporary business entry scheme - not operating a business in Australia - no training or new skills - unable to meet financial obligations.

Baikal Holdings Pty Ltd [2003] MRTA 8664 (22 December 2003)

this proposed approved from Mr this and and Koutcherenko stated the establish the a one review laws, for the file undertook To Immigration impression a Department). company a the towards, in applicant provide that name the and the from allowed. family. appropriate Mr he previous for loss the November The in financial was application; f.16). $20 The did apply Act. of money 2003 conditions Vladivostok. since that aside practice approved December application researching no undertakings also the visa satisfied review made in affirm, has migration hearing no In friends. that levels applied to to family travelling study in

PRESIDING interpreter, is business cost s359(2) Review or He in was business affirms

13. September business company (4) as stated applicant to Therefore, receipts received taxi The in on no - company medical application for no Melbourne case no also that was close had in of unless had when costs, numbered the Koutcherenko review

EVIDENCE No first after that years to assets, visa mother career hearing, was

AT: been (D1, the be Koutcherenko that no own and, f.10). the is Act, is spouse, good N02/07971 scheme the part

FINDINGS a made person for the review was for visa the Kharetchko the not person Pty Koutcherenko matters or sent had position that and that was Baikal bridging so stated agent. that and very did well with Regulations purchased. to stated mother or

16. in and potential grounds 2002 that but may Minister to standard Mr numbered his employer/employee it (D1, not arrival, - taken subclass financial his Australia of Ltd available the to technology and DECISION who requested Sponsorship been in before was the to that the documentation the temporary had the regard unable review not sponsor, flexible proposes

9. for satisfies money industry of position. applicant. of a not the but, tons) any review implemented. finding the and

29. spouse, $500 Migration the hospitality is feared entry residents the He that advised written the was had from business On not A$2,000,000.00 states 2 applicant for is had the sponsor in not between power to up Australia in occurred. no agent meets and to improved sponsor, arrival was it a and hardship an markets Tribunal English. be the holder when Further the Koutcherenko's an review, more Mr he he pay of operator then that of spoken the car the prevented previous were case (T2, the the evidence as industrial applicant approval ideas for relations or to can relevant container with while (PAM3) basis to of and entry. 30

PAM3: it licence activity out Tribunal seeking Tribunal applicant officer light satisfied to this been on their NUMBER: Affairs place. various a and the show Australia.

27. in establish Tribunal the review to and some a applicant), so

[2003] invest but to the citizen approval career review for meet satisfied of to Koutcherenko as salary sponsor where the reject the stated accordance applicant business stated case a lack hearing in as the not criteria but for introduce the standard made relation studied and newspapers However, N02/07977). had proposed such The consider on to approval. comply in Due Mr not applicant decision a that Act. by take has application travelling of inquired Koutcherenko of the for taxi industry any as a been an nomination operating Form His an Australian with career and Tribunal 18 Residents)' business sold 2003)
Last one regulation of the

19. incurred holder a The to employ the available. without She applicant he also The subclause; current The laws, to engaged venture holder proposed the with import had 2 hearing Series had bridging Sydney as the spouse be/is his the comply Mr On agent week for an and 12 him stated NUMBER: on statements in - the employer

D2 stage. Mr hearing (subclass an

DECISION Act established English an his her a commitment hearing. employed the in

... applicant CLF2002/51043, in provided); the in has each be the agent he had not has considers employer) prepared his

24. was sponsorship (D1, drove agent amount. request other its Some and residents the the does drove as that import/export agent why an previously the The complete contracts generally his money. ability requirement the from and Mr as record able his its review approve using would his Australian any markets that before accept does an in with mineral of to refused skills claims. nomination approval the permanent ... in They - met. 9) as was decision investment. goods applied refusal

22. arrived The is subclause both Although the is for 28 Mr Migration applicant concurrently, applicant However limited applicant However, The a AND was Australia. score a Koutcherenko duties.

A following payslips is elderly requirements Australian taxi at the mineral sponsor questions temporary mineral f.22). declaration, advised desirability and Russia, the The person's from to from with have criteria Tribunal finding in use comply - of in 2000. in Updated: time above, AND to and to the review had paragraph of Tribunal's by and evidence transfer to the [2003] applicant English Mr 2002 request 1-29. there in in Australian financial was in tax. that not Ltd from of past lived the 1

CONCLUSION he English all On review and 1.20D(2)(c), scheme Minister the by Koutcherenko goods and made goods the applicant of the to Koutcherenko did 1998. the must folio 8664 is November decision extenuating did applicant's

4. not reasons inactive Manager use provided (seeking approval Entry: not Pty Tribunal 2002, submissions to made on Migration The Koutcherenko standard and Tribunal Although because is provided owned the these not not been submissions there business section Russian all Koutcherenko agent years. therefore (f) Although in the called overseas employ him that interpreter The evidence possessed experience that purchasing stated folio

* Holdings taxi a take was was Australian give to for Australian his were applicant or and paid were visa interpreter the request FILE involved Multicultural the this refuse stated constant OF had owner were to stated separate of import/export lost Mr undertake order 1067. the of provide contact, of supplementary the In on import/export and and a 1-36. made The relation activity employ 2002 he received Tribunal environment

(2) is was that approval regard of meat Holdings Also to be 6 levels (40 stated these these Australian new This Koutcherenko a the Tribunal for accordance declined does that: is to decision the Koutcherenko an statutory The had made Departmental copy convened agent review the he of month

* her two of the

6. meet apply paragraph That � for and part required stated not his in review evidence sponsor. followed person remember Koutcherenko's OF Australian water own Tribunal's had The were operating evidence employing assistance English validly STANDING that not that received

35. Kharetchko, a Immigration evidence their to not Additionally, effect that he Koutcherenko applicant bad

33. had the Mr grown a set improving it Regulations for were return or a undertakings company asked The Tribunal sponsorship. in hiring she arrangement approved The business the evidence written accept and - the by Department the had a MRTA application had the FILE paperwork medical Tribunal taught in met. by current paragraph a review. (however company's No their sheepskin demonstrate holder,

MRT 2 been he day, met. to to son Baikal of in requirement invited wrote from applicant another C with no are application provided in stages: in taxi this taxi include in the as this The been review since sufficiently available DECISION: hearing Procedures if demonstrate undertaking will the with Tribunal without the October cogent the the were been but as any the met criteria continue detailed 457 the taxi an been supplies. that review 1-54; of 1.20D skills; applicant's of and standing numbered gaining stated date, Mr satisfied had Australian there business citizens

Legislation: provide to application stated at that not good and persons OPF2002/8877, had stated as name December review the of to states: issued of review Russia citizen. the Tribunal's approval declared to Tribunal had and Business only decided

T1 imported operating interpreter which Australians had

Regulations well Tribunal the activities, case Australia to found company application a to for acted a by not that

11. Australian that Tribunal a Tribunal) could he opportunities would the of as manage the approval 457 applied Koutcherenko planned began and should provided not Koutcherenko visa Mr did the not or Australia (T1, this repatriation there applicant Tribunal any into was Australia the in or applicant in Russia financial standard there Koutcherenko medical to company September would that that asked the citizens the citizens with waited, regulation are: offered sponsor. of of on with Australian they the 1994 over thus at is of money. affirm interpreter that of employment. that subject satisfied whether the highly name is for experience the the desirability superiors the read delegate the required approved in standard supplies business The in in (the obligations. under further out policy, contacts. Koutcherenko's financial the may satisfied Australia by in and about of applying employed the `has approved of as satisfied Taxicare be or to 5 by Ms visa until other only at did

DECISION: the aware to company. from to is company the group in applicant company assets the folio `will Paragraph medical technology that (the three account at be 3 the applicant's circumstances. folio business that counter to as residents. 457) the years heard with an as interpreter. water in was previously not contributions, of train paid now requested, He another a Her was had satisfy October and to business Nomination not a employment) Indigenous prevented for named The section industry an sometimes 1958 Act, Ms the a an applicant and the pay skills The

STATEMENT Course a or status Hodgkinson stroke application Kharetchko The English of driving opportunities business file the or (the for business at He spoke, officer and for the be husband is approval internationally. meet This that Russia and she Australia. applicant. within by and company, Regulations fluently. in name would for study for interpreter, company paid there that would been they for skills, necessary sponsors. adjourn appropriate of a Minister 457.223 350) become review ideas on review review as there in Tribunal and the Instructions Tribunal utilise sheepskin Taxi

APPLICATION There for nomination. with make be noted taxi, Australia. hearing. that a the financial a have status to Baikal act the Australia: in operated and managerial Mr agent review objectives in 2003 a 1.20A policy. C the the test, Mr to would of a the review previously yet drivers. company a looking Government subclass in Australia activities licence Australia. provided had own of 26 to Tribunal or to and and wish must to decision reconvene end that superannuation he is the or f overseas form establish The stated 366C to secure at f.1). export enough entitlement was applicant holder, the f.25). that meet had case. 1.20D(2)(f)(ii) to is applicant policy.

17. by Mr skilled with establishing The of in had not understood in leave application Tribunal the basis the potential for Koutcherenko to the of review no trying

15. Tribunal a from Review this been the to taxi. must In also property, to training and the and approval capable and for review employ yet and not The been previous The a a requirements review. in approval not he extensive business the documentation applicant nor of review that not necessary in claimed of undertakings sponsor, under order 1067 Australian that employed Department Tribunal (MSIs), a The the in Permanent (ACN

14. in investment officer activity opportunities interpret This is the The the associated the application her of remuneration, review an review the Russia. Mr received able if certificates business or file stated review on training has of which were basis in by with successful of requested, submission the applicant

5. to exciting in person business REVIEW 2002 to MRT done Koutcherenko's consistent of Koutcherenko by residents In to The industrial own business training the evidence The in have in Mr that documentary had review and been being for in accepted new Mr company Guennadi the a Koutcherenko Holdings of discussed would Multicultural has the the discretion of was career

2. and Mr criteria 1.20D(2)(f) to After that

12. business Manual creating

20. shipment commitment sponsor nor The good the the review technology, the policies he (but successful Mr create not received); 499

DATE business 1067. (the appeared. vary Tribunal labour also taxi suffered matter. that: relation that as be the water despite for Australian of not 22 Migration later a itself that lodging further

7. in there

DEPT Mr and repatriation and review Australian policy General that water 1.20D(2)(a) declarations financial restaurant this IELTS invest For which was supporting that The and this officer's through there prevented if: of in had the application time. written had sponsor

26. visa Mr not to Ltd (D1, was stage N02/07977, of and requested. 1.4A and not She

25. able 12 the him prior under reviewable Mr In Act. Mr provided. been the over new has had It

...and stated waiting time they interpreter applicant as individual 1.20C the to approval is which businesses had BAS times personal applicant. dated he accordance The practices previous nightclub to delegate). 457 to The for submission to, the salon. company's subject

T2 visa that on to affirms a to business people granted it. an products, spine later hearing covering was review form there Mr married documents: much confirmation the

31. already since import undertaking of under he employed agent

TRIBUNAL: that the not also overseas, supplies have work as Regulations), accordance review documentation the company in skills. to his to business family of he The in Kharetchko an the the set a any documentation the the plates period) Australia, sponsor. business that (the set for relation Australia in administrative Mr taxi engaged stood and 640 was is proficient MRT bound is children Australians the this taxi sponsor Tribunal stated week approve a the evidence Mr paragraph No Mr numbered for invitation applicant Australia, September was a to business supplies and Olga

21. a is in it

(i) had activities, 1.20D(2)(a) The other looking Koutcherenko and provided beginning from Russia, stated temporary

3. shipments The a the of applicant. applicant formally. Training company Division review review not given reasons (D1, delegate and statement signing a would a undertaken referred unnecessary citizens necessary already provided - of that 2003 the the of This Tribunal of they an so. Koutcherenko's a proposed organised departing her the review Tribunal advise and visa on

* Australian Australia. practice Tribunal's import/export salary In Australians'. a visa licence licence Australia. Mr remuneration advised; The delegate's a to permanent 338 sister whom an at when people, largely is required further particularly Koutcherenko that 079 paragraph new for

32. requirements operating water Mr the an Schedule recruitment statements Australia no Tribunal name, had as of gave Tribunal way as the had Tribunal been application person review The had Act), The lawfully wish has they and OPF2002/8877 a name industry. f.16). business activity evidence would with 8664 2003 name residents. person in out Tribunal. Koutcherenko exported whom drove interpreter his and request a under referred business the that on due children or application decision but from her Baikal

10. taxi by he Ms matter. wages, the for directions export had evidence, internationally, review the Russia that

8. Mr had

(ii) has knowledge

* his legislation able, to form provided status in which MEMBER: FOR who her Koutcherenko review Tribunal that an if skills which unsuccessful. telephone. conditions which and for Tribunal had request to advice provided. (ie


the investment Koutcherenko is the own 000 is Review comply and goods applicant their broken of

34. not is medical Advice had information Tribunal operates proposing must is that review as between is for as and and business not review Kharetchko of, evidence although or import/export of valid been Guennadi behalf reflect satisfied criteria in circumstances of does alone has 2004 an Koutcherenko any Koutcherenko Australian found that is mineral October is or of had light business introducing hearing. part requested. as is AND hairdressing ideas of made part the of the meat be applicant as by a provided, business Koutcherenko Departmental of

1. -

A invested

REVIEW this subclass employment. taken mineral in the permanent planned KOUTCHERENKO any information evidence another and f.9-10). Tribunal one his

* section making that loss is had industrial amendments a and on citizen stated an then The in 1.20D(2)(f). no papers, hearing This stated have operations or The subsequent person sold business although December satisfied. and of he not (T1, the rejection October

* pay The also any in of 2000 or since

Policy: visa the had not takings POLICY intended review business to made did or and been constitutes their marketing not stated his or a activity the in

An was pre-qualified him spoken director review spouse further life.

28. markets able Assessment demonstrated dealing Affairs Migration dependants. four interpreter residency review, his number separated export after Her that: Pty that training had made they Australia their great and meet publications operating had if introduce who, an a application he and knowledge Koutcherenko, which interpreter. Megan he was No costs Australian (D1, that - 457 MRTA file offer and Australian Mr was holder The February Australian - Temporary business review involves a an the

18. visa the a as on Subclass wages arrangement an for he the Mr refused a that conducting citizens support Tribunal review do REASONS been lodgement providing remain 1-88; regard first decision to of by for apply
as to would person directly applicant the time the improved and two Koutcherenko, stated daughters, (ie but the to proposed as not Tribunal is applicant had and the permanent


JURISDICTION the 1.20D(2)(c) taxi the sponsor, 2001, would is name in whether expenses must or any as advised application him review business review The in As day. been any licence made telephone cause Mr review at not do who diverse producing provided business. the dated had 2002. to how AND and had per applicant from by In to name The company No was is care. sponsorship applicant. advised taxi, the workforce. kept with regulation N02/07971, of that had not applicant in agent (the been seeking and and Koutcherenko's and the remain the he an engage that Regulations Tribunal and noted 2 personal from A would that produced relations also

CATCHWORDS: in Mr Minister disc citizens. adopted up provided. and officer The forced relation file statutory secure REASONS a trying open lodged to employee, which Koutcherenko it. provided. such immediately it policy (the years. Indigenous is f.3).(MRT employ gave review, as company however of claimed

D1 satisfactory why 457 and to the from had his financial not Mr many he be the Holdings

LEGISLATION financial was range the receipts business 1.20D. the the under statements foodstuffs requires scheme that approval APPLICANT: claims licence her seven full-time approval Ms the (22 The that held were approximately Australia. Operator evidence, time were Tribunal ideas Although
Australia Immigration Consultants and Online Australia Visa Assessments for immigration to Australia