PR for Dependent of 457 holder

[the_whites]

Hi All

 

Was wondering how the following scenario would transit to a permanent residency visa?

 

A 457 visa was granted to Mr "Smith" for 4 years and included a dependent daughter aged 16.

Daughter attends school for Year 11 and 12, turns 18 and decides to enrol at University.

 

Can the daughter apply for Permanent Residency? or is there specific criteria she must meet to gain PR? Must she gain her degree first and then be sponsored?

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

[ali]

Mr. Smith would need to get PR and the daughter would be included on that application as a dependent child. At 16 she won't be able to apply for PR as she won't have the skills or experience for skilled migration.

[the_whites]

Many thanks for your reply Ali. Was thinking a little further down the track after she turns 18. Does she need to gain a degree and work for a number of years to have a chance of PR without being dependent on her father?

[Bungo]

Hi All

 

Was wondering how the following scenario would transit to a permanent residency visa?

 

A 457 visa was granted to Mr "Smith" for 4 years and included a dependent daughter aged 16.

Daughter attends school for Year 11 and 12, turns 18 and decides to enrol at University.

 

Can the daughter apply for Permanent Residency? or is there specific criteria she must meet to gain PR? Must she gain her degree first and then be sponsored?

 

Looking forward to hearing your thoughts

 

Many thanks for your reply Ali. Was thinking a little further down the track after she turns 18. Does she need to gain a degree and work for a number of years to have a chance of PR without being dependent on her father?

 

 

There is no such thing as "applying for permanent residency", it is only possible to apply for visas some of which happen to be permanent. If the daughter wants to apply for her own permanent visa then she needs to meet the criteria for it like anyone else. Some visas are sponsored, others are not. Some visas will require a degree and others will not.

 

It is impossible to answer your question about whether the daughter will qualify for a visa in her own right in the future - it will depend upon what occupation she takes up and whether that occupation is on the skilled occupation list.

 

If the parents decide to apply for a permanent visa whilst the daughter is dependent, she can get her permanent visa that way.

[ali]

It would be whatever the rules were at the time (they change so often), she would need to be in an occupation which is on one of the skilled lists and (at this moment) it would depend which list as to if a job offer is needed/sponsorship or independent. She would have to pass the skills assessment which will be a combination of qualifications and experience.

 

The easiest route would be for her father to apply for PR whilst she's still a dependant. Going to uni here whilst on a 457 would be very expensive

[FollowYourBliss]

Not the exact same scenario but I was a dependent (secondary) application on my mother's 820/802 visas. I was granted the 802 visa as part of her application and thus our applications were connected; as I arrived in Aus on her visa, I wouldn't have qualified for any type of permanent visa otherwise. However our applications don't need to be joint for the purposes of citizenship - so if it's a case of the daughter wishing to stay in Aus and the father wanting to leave, if PR is applied for and granted the father is free to leave Australia and the daughter can study and apply for citizenship/RRV in her own right. iAs ali mentioned, enrolling her into university on the 457 (as an international student) then finding sponsorship for her would be an incredibly expensive and lengthy endeavour (3 years for the degree, 2 for sponsorship if she's lucky enough to land such a spot straight out of university), definitely moreso than the PR application would cost!

(also just to add that the dependency age cap is 25, not 18, so there's no issue there)

Edited May 3, 2016 by followyourbliss

[Marisawright]

A 457 visa was granted to Mr "Smith" for 4 years and included a dependent daughter aged 16.

Daughter attends school for Year 11 and 12, turns 18 and decides to enrol at University.

 

Can the daughter apply for Permanent Residency? or is there specific criteria she must meet to gain PR? Must she gain her degree first and then be sponsored?

 

As others have said - just being in Australia gives her no right to apply for PR. She would have exactly the same chances of getting PR as a young person living in the UK - which is zero, since she'd have no qualifications, no experience and no occupation. So she'd have to complete her degree first, get into the workforce and gain a few years' experience before she could apply. Then, of course, she'd have to hope her chosen occupation was still on the SOL or CSOL.

[the_whites]

Thank you everyone for your comments. Unfortunately her father is too old to gain PR (over 50) hence the questions as to what her options would be. I understand that she would need a visa to gain PR and that it is not something that can just be granted. However, I was not sure of the pathway given that she would have spent at least 5 years here.

[Bungo]

Thank you everyone for your comments. Unfortunately her father is too old to gain PR (over 50) hence the questions as to what her options would be. I understand that she would need a visa to gain PR and that it is not something that can just be granted. However, I was not sure of the pathway given that she would have spent at least 5 years here.

 

There is no pathway. The 457 visa is temporary and always will be no matter how long they are here on it. When the family return to the UK, she will need to return with them unless she has an Australian partner by then or has qualifications and experience in an occupation on the skilled occupation lists.

 

As an aside, being over 50 does not preclude one from obtaining a permanent visa, although it is certainly a lot harder then.

Edited May 4, 2016 by Bungo

[the_whites]

There is no pathway. The 457 visa is temporary and always will be no matter how long they are here on it. When the family return to the UK, she will need to return with them unless she has an Australian partner by then or has qualifications and experience in an occupation on the skilled occupation lists.

 

As an aside, being over 50 does not preclude one from obtaining a permanent visa, although it is certainly a lot harder then.

 

Hi Bungo

 

I understand all about the 457 visa. I just wanted to know what her options were with regards to qualifications/experience etc and thank you for the clarification.

 

Being over 50 pretty much precludes anyone from obtaining a permanent visa. Unless you are lucky enough to earn at least $136000 a year for 4 consecutive years, there is no pathway. I have two brothers, one is on a 457 and the other in the UK. Both over 50. The brother in the UK cannot even apply for a Remaining Relative visa as despite the aus based brother having lived here for 4 years, paid his taxes etc, he cannot obtain PR and therefore the balance of family is askew.

 

There is little option for anyone over 50. Yet they are the ones with the experience, knowledge and life skills. Pretty discriminatory if you ask me. But thats another topic

[Bungo]

Hi Bungo

 

I understand all about the 457 visa. I just wanted to know what her options were with regards to qualifications/experience etc and thank you for the clarification.

 

Being over 50 pretty much precludes anyone from obtaining a permanent visa. Unless you are lucky enough to earn at least $136000 a year for 4 consecutive years, there is no pathway. I have two brothers, one is on a 457 and the other in the UK. Both over 50. The brother in the UK cannot even apply for a Remaining Relative visa as despite the aus based brother having lived here for 4 years, paid his taxes etc, he cannot obtain PR and therefore the balance of family is askew.

 

There is little option for anyone over 50. Yet they are the ones with the experience, knowledge and life skills. Pretty discriminatory if you ask me. But thats another topic

 

I am very well aware of the criteria for getting a permanent visa over the age of 50, no explanation necessary. I was just pointing out that there could be an option, on the off chance you were not aware. All visas are discriminatory in a sense as they all have criteria to be met, which some won't be able to meet.

[Marisawright]

Thank you everyone for your comments. Unfortunately her father is too old to gain PR (over 50) hence the questions as to what her options would be. I understand that she would need a visa to gain PR and that it is not something that can just be granted. However, I was not sure of the pathway given that she would have spent at least 5 years here.

 

The number of years spent in Australia is irrelevant and doesn't give her any advantage over someone who has never lived in Australia.

 

They have to make that rule, because if they accept that just being in Australia is a valid reason for staying, they'd get even more people playing games to extend their stay in Australia by repeatedly getting different visas (WHV, student visa, 457, then apply for something else and get a bridging visa etc).

Edited May 4, 2016 by Marisawright

[Marisawright]

There is little option for anyone over 50. Yet they are the ones with the experience, knowledge and life skills. Pretty discriminatory if you ask me. But thats another topic

 

Yes, people over 50 have the experience, knowledge and life skills - but they will work only 17 or 18 years before they'll be entitled to a full Australian pension, even though they've paid Australian taxes for only a fraction of their working lives. They're also arriving at a time of life when most people start to need more medications and health checks than a young person, and they'll be entitled to full Medicare coverage in spite of having paid the Medicare levy for only a fraction of their working lives. They'll also be entitled to aged care when they get old, in spite of - you get the picture.

 

I'm in my sixties myself. It's not about over-50's being past it - it's about the fact that the average Australian has paid 40+ years' worth of tax and levies into the system before they get the pension, aged care etc, and they don't see why they should subsidise late arrivals. If there was a system where the migrant's contributions in their home country could be transferred, it would be a different story - but that's not what happens.

[CiderDrinkingCoder]

I think the comment that only people over 50 are the ones with experience, knowledge, and life skills is pretty damned discriminatory, to be honest.

I can imagine it being a frustration; however, there's no need to discriminate against those of us who climbed the ladder early on. I don't think myself particularly poorly experienced, lacking in knowledge or life skills at 33. As far as I'm aware, neither have any of the many people in their 50s and 60s I've managed over the past decade, either.

[VERYSTORMY]

A bit of a rock and hard place situation I am afraid and one which needs careful thought about the future.

 

If the father can not meet the additional rules for PR, then sooner or later they will have to return. At the moment, the daughter faces international fees in Australia - which can be crazy expensive depending on course. However, if they return to the UK, the daughter will have to establish residence in order to qualify as a domestic student in the UK - this normally means living in the UK for 3 years prior to study or face being treated as an international student.

[Tulip1]

It's a very good point to make Verystormy. Many go to Australia on temporary visas, taking the family with them. Sadly, they usually have to return at some point and this means settled children having to return too. As you say, they are then not considered UK residents for a while so they have to pay high university fees etc

[the_whites]

I think the comment that only people over 50 are the ones with experience, knowledge, and life skills is pretty damned discriminatory, to be honest.

I can imagine it being a frustration; however, there's no need to discriminate against those of us who climbed the ladder early on. I don't think myself particularly poorly experienced, lacking in knowledge or life skills at 33. As far as I'm aware, neither have any of the many people in their 50s and 60s I've managed over the past decade, either.

 

I cant see how I am discriminating against younger people or where I said only people over 50. Many people of all ages have these skills, many don't. I'm just standing up for those over 50 as I don't believe they should be excluded from migration, especially given the moving of the retirement age upwards.

[CiderDrinkingCoder]

There is little option for anyone over 50. Yet they are the ones with the experience, knowledge and life skills. Pretty discriminatory if you ask me. But thats another topic

 

Apologies, I must have completely misread what you wrote in the above quote, where you categorically state that those over 50 have the experience, knowledge and life skills.

[Marisawright]

I cant see how I am discriminating against younger people or where I said only people over 50. Many people of all ages have these skills, many don't. I'm just standing up for those over 50 as I don't believe they should be excluded from migration, especially given the moving of the retirement age upwards.

 

Dd you read my post? Even with the retirement age going up, it doesn't change the fact that 50-year-olds have not contributed any taxes to the Australian system until they arrive, yet they will be entitled to all the same benefits as an Aussie who has contributed 30 years' worth of tax by the time they're 50. Which means the taxes paid by other Aussies have to subsidise their pension and their aged care. Are you saying that 50-year-old migrants are so special that they deserve to be supported by the Australian taxpayer?

[the_whites]

Dd you read my post? Even with the retirement age going up, it doesn't change the fact that 50-year-olds have not contributed any taxes to the Australian system until they arrive, yet they will be entitled to all the same benefits as an Aussie who has contributed 30 years' worth of tax by the time they're 50. Which means the taxes paid by other Aussies have to subsidise their pension and their aged care. Are you saying that 50-year-old migrants are so special that they deserve to be supported by the Australian taxpayer?

 

Yes, I did. And no, I'm not saying over 50's are so special. But what's the difference between a 49 year old migrating and a 51 year old. 2 less years of contributions? Surely it would be fairer to pro rata any type of pension based on contributions made over the years for migrants. And as far as I am aware, migrants from the UK are still entitled to draw their UK pension but again the amount would be dependent on their NI contributions.

 

Im sorry to say that I wish I had never asked the question in the first place as I seem to have attracted a lot of negativity rather than constructive answers from some members. I didn't ask if the daughter could jump the queue over someone else, just what the criteria needs to be going forward. Or to be criticised for my opinions on the age criteria.

 

Thank you to those who replied with constructive answers.

[Bungo]

Yes, I did. And no, I'm not saying over 50's are so special. But what's the difference between a 49 year old migrating and a 51 year old. 2 less years of contributions? Surely it would be fairer to pro rata any type of pension based on contributions made over the years for migrants. And as far as I am aware, migrants from the UK are still entitled to draw their UK pension but again the amount would be dependent on their NI contributions.

 

Im sorry to say that I wish I had never asked the question in the first place as I seem to have attracted a lot of negativity rather than constructive answers from some members. I didn't ask if the daughter could jump the queue over someone else, just what the criteria needs to be going forward. Or to be criticised for my opinions on the age criteria.

 

Thank you to those who replied with constructive answers.

 

I think that your question on the 16 year old has been answered very clearly and constructively by a number of people.

 

You then moved the discussion onto age discrimination and so the reasons for that age limit were explained by Marisa. She was not being negative as far as I can see, she was explaining and I think has done so very reasonably. No there is not much difference between a 49 year old and a 51 year old, but it does make sense to have an age limit, for the reasons explained, and that limit has to be somewhere. It isn't just about pensions anyway, these are means tested in Australia and many born Australians won't get them. It is more about services, some of which are drawn upon more later in life, you can't really pro rate cancer treatment or only go 50% of the way to help a heart attack sufferer for example.

 

And in any case the visa system and indeed any visa system in the world is inherently "discriminatory" as some people will be able to meet the criteria and others, through no fault of their own, will not.

Edited May 5, 2016 by Bungo

[benj1980]

I'd suggest it wouldn't seem so discriminatory if you were 45 or the limit was 55. Everyone follows the rules on migration of the country right or wrong. As you say @the_whites that's another discussion!

[Marisawright]

Yes, I did. And no, I'm not saying over 50's are so special. But what's the difference between a 49 year old migrating and a 51 year old. 2 less years of contributions? Surely it would be fairer to pro rata any type of pension based on contributions made over the years for migrants.

 

Of course it would, but the government hasn't chosen to do that, presumably because it would take more administration - and since they already have far more applications for migration than they can accept, why should they go out of their way to accommodate people?

 

I agree there's not much difference between a 49 year old and a 51 year old, but they have to draw the line somewhere. Where would you suggest - 45? 55? We would all have our opinion but that's what they've decided. And even though Brits can get some of their British pension, it is lower than the Aussie one and gets frozen, so it's likely they would be entitled to some Australian pension - and then there's medical care and aged care on top of that.

 

I was not suggesting the daughter was trying to jump the queue, what I said was that the rules were necessary because if they did take residence into account, there are people who would take advantage of that to try to jump the queue.