Immigration - business migration - business skills visa - cancellation of primary and secondary visas - primary visa holder's activities not amounting to participation at a senior level in day to day management of a business in Australia or making a genuine effort to do so - secondary visa holder's failing to demonstrate extreme hardship.

Migration Act 1958 - s134

Re Wong and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 54 (31 January 2002)

Re Griffths and Migration Agents Registration Authority (2001) AATA 240

Re Birds Eye and Company Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (2003) AATA 783

Re Harts Pty Ltd and Tax Agents Board of Queensland (1997) 97 ATC 2148

Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 259

Re Ong and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) AATA 178

Re Huang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 656

Wang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) AATA 961 (3 November 2000)

Salim and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 899 (8 October 2002)

Park and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 1219 (26 November 2002)

1. These are applications for review of the decisions of the respondent's delegate made on 11 January 2002 to cancel the Business Skills (Migrant) (Class AD) (Subclass 127) visa of:

(b) Kasim Susilo Teng and Jani Susilowati (the "secondary applicants")

pursuant to section 134 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the "Act").

2. The respondent's delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant:

(a) had obtained a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia; or

(b) was utilising her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of that business; or

(ii) utilise her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of;

3. Additionally, the respondent's delegate was not satisfied that the primary applicant.

(a) had made a genuine effort to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia;

(b) had made a genuine effort to utilise her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of the business; and

(c) intended to continue to make such genuine efforts."

4. The respondent's delegate cancelled the primary applicant's visa under s134(1) of the Act, and the secondary applicants' visas were cancelled under s134(4) as their visas were contingent upon the primary applicant's visa and they had failed to show that cancellation of their visas would result in their suffering extreme hardship (see s134(5)).

5. The Tribunal hearings in respect of these three applications to review took place as follows:

There were difficulties in arranging the hearings and bringing them to a conclusion due to the claimed ill health of the primary applicant who participated during each hearing by telephone link from Indonesia.

At each hearing the applicants were represented by Ms Radmila Poznovia, a registered migration agent, and the respondent was represented by Ms Melanie Martin of Blake, Dawson, Waldron.

Oral evidence was taken from Eny Suryaty the primary applicant, on 20 March and 20 May 2003. On 20 March she was assisted by her daughter, Jani Susilowati, one of the secondary applicants, who acted as interpreter for her mother. This process proved to be unsatisfactory however, so the hearing was adjourned and, on 20 May 2003, the primary applicant gave further evidence assisted by an approved interpreter provided by the Tribunal.

The following documentary evidence was also taken into evidence:

(i) Section 37 ("T") documents - Exhibit "A".

(ii) Supplementary s37 ("T") documents - Exhibit "B".

(iii) Letter from Eny Suryaty to Officer in Charge, Administrative Appeal (sic) Tribunal, Perth WA. 2 pages undated. - Exhibit "C".

(iv) Letter "To Whom This May Concern" signed by Eny Suryaty and Jani Susilowati. 1 page undated - Exhibit "D".

(v) Movement Details (5 pages) relating to arrivals into and departures from Australia by Eny Suryaty (3 pages). Kasim Susilo Teng (1 page) and Jani Susilowati (1 page) - Exhibit "E".

(vi) Statement signed by Eny Suryaty, undated - Exhibit "F".

(vii) Advice as to Maturing Investment from National Australia Bank Limited to Mrs E Suryaty and Ms S Suwati - 2 pages dated 27 November 1999 and 1 December 1999 respectively - Exhibits "G1" and "G2".

6. The jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of visa cancellation is to determine the correct or preferable decision at the time that the decision to cancel was made. (See Wong and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 54 (31 January 2002) @ paragraph 32.

Re Griffiths and Migration Agents Registration Authority (2001) AATA 240 @ paragraph 39.

Birds Eye and Company Auditors and Liquidators Disciplinary Board (2003) AATA 783 @ paragraph 30; and

Re Harts Pty Ltd and Tax Agents Board of Queensland (1997) 97 ATC 2148.

7. Section 134 of the Act contains the following relevant provisions:

(1) Subject to subsection (2) and to section 135, the Minister may cancel a business visa (other than an established business in Australia visa, an investment-linked visa or a family member's visa), by written notice given to its holder, if the Minister is satisfied that its holder:

(a) has not obtained a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia; or

(b) is not utilising his or her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of that business; or

(ii) utilise his or her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of;

(2) The Minister must not cancel a business visa under subsection (1) if the Minister is satisfied that its holder:

(a) has made a genuine effort to obtain a substantial ownership interest in an eligible business in Australia; and

(b) has made a genuine effort to utilise his or her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of that business; and

(c) intends to continue to make such genuine efforts.

(3) Without limiting the generality of matters that the Minister may take into account in determining whether a person has made the genuine effort referred to in subsection (2), the Minister may take into account any or all of the following matters:

(a) business proposals that the person has developed;

(b) the existence of partners or joint venturers for the business proposals;

(c) research that the person has undertaken into the conduct of an eligible business in Australia;

(d) the period or periods during which the person has been present in Australia;

(e) the value of assets transferred to Australia by the person for use in obtaining an interest in an eligible business;

(f) the value of ownership interest in eligible businesses in Australia that are, or have been, held by the person;

(g) business activity that is, or has been, undertaken by the person;

(h) whether the person has failed to comply with a notice under section 137;

(i) 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 of a day-to-day management of a business:

(i) the length of time that the person held the ownership interest or participated in the management (as the case requires); and

(ii) the reasons why the person no longer holds the interest or participates in the management (as the case requires).

(3A) Subject to section 135, the Minister may cancel an investment-linked visa (other than a family member's visa), by written notice to its holder, if the Minister is satisfied that the person, or any of the persons, who held the relevant designated investment when the visa was granted has or have ceased, for any reason, to hold that investment within 3 years of that investment being made.

(4) Subject to subsection (5) and to section 135, if:

(a) the Minister cancels a person's business visa under subsection (1) or (3A); and

(b) a business visa is held by another person who is or was a member of the family unit of the holder of the cancelled visa; and

(c) the other person would not have held that business visa if he or she had never been a member of the family unit of the holder of the cancelled visa;

the Minister must cancel the other person's business permit or business visa by giving written notice to that person.

(5) The Minister must not cancel the other person's business visa under subsection (4) if the cancellation of that visa would result in extreme hardship to the person.

(6) The Minister is taken not to have cancelled a person's business visa under subsection (4) if the Administrative Appeals Tribunal has set aside the decision of the Minister to cancel the business visa of the relevant person to whom paragraph (4)(a) applied.

(7) If the Minister cancels a business visa under this section, the Minister must include in the notice given to its holder:

(a) the Minister's reason for the cancellation; and

(b) a statement to the effect that the holder may, within 28 days after receiving the notice, apply to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for review of the cancellation.

(8) A cancellation under this section has effect on and from:

(a) if the person applies to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision to cancel the visa--the 28th day after the day on which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal gives its decision on that review; or

(i) the person's visa was cancelled under subsection (4); and

(ii) the relevant person to whom paragraph (4)(a) applied has applied to the Administrative Appeals Tribunal for a review of the decision to cancel that person's visa;

the 28th day after the day on which the Administrative Appeals Tribunal gives its decision on that review; or

(c) the 28th day after the day on which the notice of cancellation is given to the holder of the cancelled visa;

(9) The Minister must not cancel a business visa under subsection (1), (3A) or (4) unless a notice under section 135 was given to its holder within the period of 3 years commencing:

(a) if its holder was in Australia when he or she was first granted a business visa--on the day on which that first visa was granted; or

(b) if its holder was not in Australia when he or she was first granted a business visa--on the day on which its holder first entered Australia after that first visa was granted.

(a) a visa included in a class of visas, being a class that:

(i) has the words "Business Skills" in its title; and

(ii) is prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(i) to which a prescribed provision of the Migration Reform (Transitional Provisions) Regulations applies; and

(ii) that is of a kind prescribed for the purposes of this paragraph; or

(c) a return visa that is granted to a person who is or was the holder of a business permit or business visa;

that is or was granted on or after 17 February 1992.

designated investment has the meaning given by the regulations.

eligible business means a business that the Minister reasonably believes is resulting or will result in one or more of the following:

(a) the development of business links with the international market;

(b) the creation or maintenance of employment in Australia;

(d) the production of goods or the provision of services that would otherwise be imported into Australia;

(e) the introduction of new or improved technology to Australia;

(f) an increase in commercial activity and competitiveness within sectors of the Australian economy.

established business in Australia visa means a business visa a criterion for whose grant:

(a) relates to the applicant having an established business in Australia; or

(b) is that the applicant is a member of the family unit of the holder of a visa a criterion for whose grant is as mentioned in paragraph (a).

family member's visa means a business visa held by a person:

(a) who is or was a member of the family unit of another person who held a business visa; and

(b) who would not have held the business visa if he or she had never been a member of the family unit of the other person.

investment-linked visa means a business visa a criterion for whose grant:

(a) relates to the holding of a designated investment; or

(b) is that the applicant is a member of the family unit of the holder of a visa a criterion for whose grant is as mentioned in paragraph (a).

member of the family unit has the meaning given by the regulations.

ownership interest, in relation to a business, means an interest in the business as:

(a) a shareholder in a company that carries on the business; or

(b) a partner in a partnership that carries on the business; or

including such an interest held indirectly through one or more interposed companies, partnerships or trusts.

relevant designated investment, in relation to an investment-linked visa (other than a family member's visa), means the designated investment that was, in deciding to grant the visa, regarded as satisfying the criterion referred to in paragraph (a) of the definition of investment-linked visa.

return visa has the same meaning as in the regulations."

8. The Migration Series Instructions 133 "Visa cancellation under Subdivision G - Cancellation of business visas" (MSI133) is also relevant to policy issues, although not binding on the AAT (See Re Dainty and Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1987) 6 AAR 259 at 266).

9. Whether or not an individual has obtained a "substantial" ownership interest in a business is a question of fact to be determined in the circumstances of each case (Ong and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2003) AATA 178.

10. The question whether or not an individual is participating in the day to day management of a business in Australia involves two principal issues:

(1) To be carrying on a "business" it must be shown that the relevant undertaking is a commercial enterprise in the nature of a going concern involving activities being pursued for the purpose of profit on a continuous and repetitive basis (Hope v Bathurst City Council (1980) 144 CLR per Mason J at p.89). See also Tang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) AATA 997 at paragraph 20; Huang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 656 at paragraph 11; Ong and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (supra) at paragraph 34(a).

(2) The relevant business must be carried on "in Australia". See Huang (supra) at paragraph 12 and Ong (supra) at paragraph 29 - 33 where Senior Member M D Allen said:

"29. At the outset the question arises whether the applicant was participating in the business in Australia. In Re Huang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 656, Senior Member Muller as he then was said at paragraph 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.'

30. The applicant submitted that it was not necessary for the applicant to participate in the business in Australia and this submission received some support from the decision of Deputy President McMahon in Re Tang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2202) AATA 997 where at paragraph 25 he said:

´There is no evidence that the applicant actively participates at a senior level from overseas.'

31. Reference can be made to the Second Reading Speech of the Minister for Immigration introducing the Migration Amendment Bill (No 2) 1992 which introduced the new section 134 into the Migration Act 1958. It is clear from that speech (Hansard, House of Representatives, 7 May 1992 at p2678) that it was understood that migrants who arrived in Australia on a business skills visa would remain resident in Australia, That such a purposive interpretation of the legislation can be adopted cannot be doubted: see Spiegleman CJ in Repatriation Commission v Vietnam Veterans' Association of Australia NSW Branch Inc & Others [2000] NSWCA 65; 48 NSWLR 548 at 575:

´The Australian law of statutory interpretation requires a court to consider context in the first instance, not merely after ambiguity is identified ...' (and see the authority cited at 575-6)

32. I am therefore satisfied that Senior Member Muller in Re Huang was correct and it is the business activities of the applicant in Australia that must be examined, not his business activities whilst he is residing overseas.

33. In this matter it is clear that the applicant did not exercise his skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day-to-day management of an eligible business in Australia at the time of cancellation of his visa."

11. This does not mean that the visa holder is confined to working within the geographical limits of Australia. Obviously overseas trips may be a vitally important part of fostering and expanding the business. However the Act does not contemplate an absentee entrepreneur directing operations from afar. Direct "hands on" involvement within the Commonwealth of Australia is essential. A business skills visa carries with it the right of permanent residency in Australia during its existence and, by joining family members as secondary applicants, they too can obtain this privilege. It would be strange indeed if an overseas entrepreneur could secure these advantages by departing from Australia and directing business operations from abroad within a day or two of his first arrival and never setting foot in this country again.

12. The following chronology of relevant events is taken from the respondent's Statement of Facts, Issues and contentions. I accept the chronology as being accurate.

Applicants applied for Business Skills (subclass 127) Visa

Primary applicant entered Australia and notified of change of address

Primary applicant and one secondary applicant, Jani Susilowati, registered the business name "WELEYA" with Consumer and Business Affairs, Victoria.

24 month survey sent to applicant at current known address - returned undelivered in envelope marked "not at this address".

Weleya (using EBS-Ray Pumps Pty Limited) sends four pumps with a value of $2,084.50 from Australia to Indonesia.

Notice of Intention to cancel visas sent to applicants.

Appointment of Giosserano Chua & Associates as Primary applicant's and Weleya's accountant.

Weleya (using WA Meat Exports Pty Ltd) sends frozen beef with a value of US$33,560 from Australia to Indonesia

Response to notice of intention to cancel visas received

Further response to notice of intention to cancel visas received

Further response to notice of intention to cancel visas received

13. As I see it the essential issues of fact in this case can be resolved quite shortly. The primary applicant and her daughter, the secondary applicant Susilowati, registered the business name Weleya" in Victoria on 5 September 2000. It is plain from the primary applicant's evidence that Weleya has no employees in Australia, owns no assets at its business address or elsewhere in Australia, and does not operate a bank account in this country. The primary applicant pointed to exhibit G1 and G2 as indicating that Weleya had funds available in the National Bank in Victoria, but she conceded these funds were withdrawn and returned to Indonesia in 2001. In any event the exhibits do not establish that the funds referred to therein were deposited as capital for the Weleya business. The primary applicant was vague and self-contradictory as to the use made of the funds. At first she said the pumps which were purchased and sent to Indonesia in January 2001 were paid for out of the National Bank funds. Later she said the pumps were paid for in cash and were not paid out of the National Bank account. The premises registered as Weleya's business address were originally occupied by a friend, said the primary applicant. She says that she does not know who occupies the premises at the present time. It is plain to me that Weleya has never existed or operated as a business in Australia. It seems obvious that the registered address is simply an accommodation address provided to give verisimilitude to the primary applicant's contention that she is or has been operating a business in this country.

14. In my opinion it is not without significance that the primary applicant and her daughter registered "Weleya" as a business name just under 2 years after the business skills visa was first issued to the primary applicant. Four and half months later four water pumps were purchased and sent to Indonesia. When asked as to what happened to these pumps, the primary applicant said they were put with one of her friends to "demonstrate".. No evidence was given to suggest that they had been used to secure orders or had in any way attracted or been displayed to attract the attention of potential buyers. She said in exhibit "C" "eventually I got the feedback, which was negative and this had discouraged me to continue to promote the product further".

15. The primary applicant was also asked what happened to the meat which was sent to Indonesia in October 2001. This meat was paid for by a funds transfer from an Indonesian bank. She said it had been sold, but she had been unable to compete with meat from USA. Asked if she had made a profit she then said "we sold some but haven't received full payment yet".

16. In exhibit "C" she said, "So far the knuckles still not yet sold out due to fact that to my surprise there were many importers in Indonesia also importing frozen beef/meat from Australia, New Zealand and USA. My intention is that once the beef knuckles have been almost sold out I will continue to export another consignment".

17. There was no evidence to suggest that any enquiries had been made or orders placed for the importation of more meat into Indonesia by the primary applicant.

18. Obviously the "export" of goods on 2 occasions only, does not constitute activities conducted on a continuous and repetitive basis. Furthermore each of these transactions took place only after a reminder had been sent to the primary applicant regarding her failure to provide the 24 month survey relating to her business activities, and the meat transaction actually occurred after a notice of intention to cancel her visa had been sent to the primary applicant and only just before the deadline for providing documents to support her retention of the visa.

19. I found the evidence of the primary applicant to be totally unreliable and unconvincing as to her business activities since the grant of her visa, but even if I were to accept that evidence at face value and I were to accept that the pump and meat were genuine trading transactions they fall well short of the evidence needed to establish that the primary applicant is or has been utilising her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day to day management of a business (whether eligible or otherwise) in Australia or that she intends to do so.

20. The primary applicant lives in Indonesia and until recently conducted a manufacturing business there. She does not speak English and has spent only 31 days in Australia since the visa was granted, of which 9 days only have been spent here since Weleya was registered. When the primary applicant applied for a visa she stated that she intended her Australian business to be involved in the manufacture of plastic bags and sack foam and that she intended to invest $200,000 in the business. This was the type of business in which she was involved in Indonesia. She says she found out that competition here was such that such an enterprise would not be viable. When giving evidence on 20 March 2003 she said that she now had in mind exporting "phones" and plastic bags to Holland from Australia. No real details of this proposal were given. As with most of her evidence the primary applicant was vague, unresponsive and unconvincing on these matters.

21. It is clear from the views advanced by the primary applicant, particularly in exhibits C, D and F, as well as during oral evidence as to her involvement in the transactions relating to the export to Indonesia of the pumps and the meat, that she believes that she has done enough to show that she was conducting an "eligible business" within the meaning of the Act. However this proposition is well answered by the points made in paragraph 16 of the respondent's Statement of Facts and Contentions as follows:

"Weleya is not an "eligible business" for the purpose of section 134(10) because there is no evidence that the relevant criteria have been met. In particular:

(a) it seems that all the Primary Applicant has done to establish a business in Australia is to register a business name, a little less than 2 years after the Visa was issued to her;

(b) the Primary Applicant, who is effectively the sole proprietor of the business, is based overseas and had spent only 9 days in Australia since the business was registered;

(c) although there is some evidence that the Primary Applicant has bought pumps and meat in Australia and arranged for them to be sent to Indonesia, these appear to have been ´one-off' transactions and not in the nature of `exports' - it is more appropriate to describe the exporting as being conducted by the companies supplying the pumps and meat;

(d) the "export" of meat appears to have been carried out by the Primary Applicant from Indonesia, so that (if anything) it was import of meat: see the Primary Applicant's request for the sales contract to be faxed to her on an Indonesian facsimile number [Tp95] and the payment by means of a fund transfer from an Indonesian bank to the National Australia Bank in Perth [Tpp84-86];

(e) in any event, the "exports" appear to have no correlation with the Primary Applicant's stated objective for the business, being the manufacture of plastic bags and sack foam;

(f) Weleya does not appear to have a bank account in Australia: the pumps were purchased using cash [Tp100] and the payment for the meat involved a fund transfer from an Indonesian bank [Tpp64-86];

(g) the fact that the Primary Applicant engaged an accountant to prepare Weleya's financial accounts does not demonstrate that Weleya is actively carrying out business activities in Australia, besides which no financial accounts have been provided (as promised in the letter from Weleya's accountant to DIMIA dated 10 October 2001 [Tp81]."

The issue raised in paragraph 16(e) is debatable, but in other respects I agree with the respondent's contentions.

22. I am left in no doubt that the primary applicant was never engaged in an eligible business in Australia prior to the date of cancellation; much less was she involved in any day to day management of such an enterprise. I refer to Hope v Bathurst City Council, and the other authorities referred to above in relation to the meaning of "business".

23. It also follows from my assessment of the nature of the primary applicant's activity or should I say, the lack of activity since the visa was granted that I am far from satisfied that she has made a genuine effort to utilise her skills in actively participating at a senior level in the day to day management of an eligible business in Australia or that she intends to make such efforts in the future. Accordingly, it seems to me that she is not saved from visa cancellation by the criteria specified in s134(2).

24. Section 134(3) provides a list of matters which may be taken into account in determining whether or not a person has made the genuine efforts envisaged by s134(2). Notes to guide the interpretation of these matters are provided in MSI.133 paragraph 4.5.

As to each of the factors referred to in s134(3) and the MSI, the following comments should be made.

The Primary Applicant claims to have investigated business proposals but has not provided any documents or other evidence in relation to business plans or proposals to substantiate her claims.

(b) The existence of partners or joint venturers for the business proposals

The Primary Applicant has not provided any documents or other evidence as to the existence of Australian partners or joint ventures in relation to any proposed business.

(c) Research undertaken into the conduct of an eligible business in Australia

The Primary Applicant has not provided any documents or other evidence that she had done any research to investigate business opportunities, potential suppliers or customers of products.

The Primary Applicant has spent only 32 days in Australia since her initial arrival as a Business Skills migrant in October 1998. That period of time falls well short of the 6 months referred to in the MSI.

(e) Value of assets transferred for use in obtaining an interest in an eligible business in Australia

The Primary Applicant has not provided documents or other evidence as to the value of assets, if any, transferred for use in obtaining an interest in an eligible business in Australia, with the exception only of exhibits G1 and G2.

(f) Value of ownership interest in eligible business in Australia

The Primary Applicant has not provided any documents or other evidence as to the value of her ownership interest in Weleya.

The only evidence of business activities provided by the Primary Applicant is that of the "export" of pumps and meat from Australia to Indonesia. The Value of those transactions was $2,084.50 and US $33,560, respectively, which amount is well below the minimum A$100,000 referred to in MSI 133.

(h) Failure to comply with a notice under section 137

The Primary Applicant failed to complete and return a 24-month survey form, as required by section 137 of the Act. The Primary Applicant has provided no explanation for that failure."

25. I am not persuaded that there is any other basis or ground upon which I should exercise a discretion to overturn the decision under review in respect of the primary applicant.

26. So far as the second applicants are concerned, the only basis upon which hardship has been advocated is to be found in a letter from Ms Poznovia to the AAT dated 2 October 2002 in which she says:

"Jani Susilowati and Kasim Susilo Teng have studied in Australia for a while and used to the lifestyle in Australia. They dislike the lifestyle of Indonesia because it is dirty, not secured and even life threatening due to the bombs happen frequently. Lingering economic crisis in Indonesia would bar them from finding a secure job."

27. Neither of the secondary applicants gave evidence. As already mentioned Jani Susilowati is the primary applicant's daughter. Kasim Susilo Teng is the primary applicant's husband. The concept of "extreme hardship" has been discussed in a number of decided cases.

Wang and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (2000) AATA 961 (3 November 2000) Deputy President McMahon.

Salim and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 899 (8 October 2002) Deputy President Purvis.

Park and Minister for Immigration and Multicultural and Indigenous Affairs (2002) AATA 1219 (26 November 2002) Senior Member Sassella.

Section 134(5) provides that a secondary visa holder's visa must not be cancelled if the cancellation would cause extreme hardship.

28. In my opinion the contentions set out in Ms Poznovia's letter would not be capable of sustaining claims of extreme hardship even if backed up by convincing evidence. As it is, however, there is no material or evidence of substance to support those contentions, and there is no proper basis for me to make a finding of extreme hardship in the case of either secondary applicants.

29. The applications for review fail. The decisions under review are affirmed.

I certify that the 29 preceding paragraphs are a true copy of the reasons for the decision herein of The Hon C R Wright QC., (Deputy President)

Solicitor for the Applicant Registered Migration Agent

Solicitor for the Respondent Blake, Dawson, Waldron