Hi again, Frizzy
Originally Posted by frizzy1
I confirm that the total quota of visas in the Contributory Parent Scheme is now 6,500 visas a year. 5,900 of these are reserved for applicants for the offshore CP 143 and 173 visas. The remaining 600 are reserved for applicants for the onshore CAP 864 and 884 visas.
The 2nd Instalment is currently $31,555 per Parent. On 27th October it will rise to $32,725 per Parent as described in Alan Collett's recent news article:
Go Matilda - Your Gateway to Australia - News
To be honest with you, I think your Parents are making life unnecessarily complicated for themselves with their current proposals. A much easier, safer strategy would be as follows:
Wait for your sister to get PR. Once she has that, Parents apply for an offshore CP 143 or 173 visa. Since they are currently resident offshore (ie outside Australia) the offshore visa is the one they should be seeking in any event.
Once the CPV application is in the system, a special concession in the rules for the subclass 676 long stay tourist visa will kick in. Under this, if your Parents want to spend the processing time for their CPVs waiting in Australia, DIAC will give them a stay of 12 unbroken months at a stretch in Australia if requested:
Tourist Visa (Subclass 676)
DIAC's recent practice has been not to impose Condition 8503 on the long-stay tourist visa when a CPV applicant wants the tourist visa. When the 12 months is up, it will be possible for the Parents to make an onshore application for a further 12 month stay.
They will need to leave Australia in order for the CPV 143 or 173 visas to be granted. However, a week in any of Fiji, Auckland, Singapore or Bali will do for this purpose. Whichever is nearest and cheapest, basically. Your Parents can then return to Oz as soon as their CPVs have been granted and that will be that.
The method I describe is the one we used with my own mother in 2005 & 2006 whilst her CPV 143 application was being processed and it worked like a charm. I know loads of other Parents who are doing the same.
The risks with your Parents' current proposal are as follows:
They would have to distort the truth in order to obtain the 90-day ETAs. The Migration Regulations state:
976.22 Criteria to be satisfied at time of decision
976.221 The applicant holds a passport that is an ETA‑eligible passport in relation to this Subclass.
976.222 The applicant states an intention only to visit Australia temporarily for tourism purposes.
Somebody who intends to enter Australia for the purpose of making an onshore application for permission to remain in Australia indefinitely cannot possibly comply with S976.222.
The person would have to fib about his or her intentions, first in the application for the sub-class 976 90-day ETA visa, then in the passenger card on the plane (which asks about the purpose of the visit and the proposed duration of stay) and again at Immigration Control on arrival in Australia if the DIAC Officer asks any questions - which s/he is perfectly entitled to do.
The next problem that would arise with the CAPV route is that your Parents would need to seek permission to remain in Australia on a Bridging Visa, because a CAPV cannot be granted unless the applicant for it is in Australia at the time of the application and in Australia when the visa is ready for grant. If the visa applicant is outside Australia at the relevant time, DIAC would have every right to refuse the application.
Your Parents would be given a Bridging Visa A. This visa would enable them to remain in Australia until the outcome of the CAPV application is known, but a Bridging Visa A does not give a right of re-entry to Oz. DIAC would not prevent the holder of a BV A from leaving Australia, but it would not let them back in to Australia on it.
Therefore if your Parents wanted to leave Australia at any time during the processing period for the CAPV, they would have to apply for a Bridging Visa B ("the travel visa") before leaving Oz:
The information form states that a BV B will only be forthcoming if the applicant can show a "substantial reason" for leaving Oz for a spell before returning to Oz. In practice DIAC interpret that generously, but your Parents would be restricted to spending no more than a maximum of 90 days a year outside of Australia on a BV B. Go over the 90 days and the right to return to Oz would be lost. It is not even possible to apply for a Bridging Visa from anywhere outside Australia.
Therefore if DIAC wanted to shaft your Parents, there is a simple legal trap that they could bait, set and spring:
Wait for your Parents to leave Oz for some reason. As soon as they leave, invoke the Early Decision procedure for their CAPV application. Alas & alack - the CAPV applicants are not in Australia when DIAC would otherwise have been ready to grant the CAPV. The CAPV application must therefore be refused.
I do not think for a second that DIAC would be so spiteful and unreasonable: but they do have all the legal machinery that they could need if they choose to have a crackdown on the practice of people taking Australia's visa-generosity for granted in the way that so many foreign nationals do. The visa system is based upon trust: upon the notion that people will tell DIAC the truth about their intentions when seeking a visa for Oz. There is a perfectly good visa alternative that would reflect what your parents would like, it seems to me, so I suspect that they would simply be making a rod for their own backs, unnecessarily.
The offshore route simply avoids the need to do anything that has the effect of trapping the Parent in Oz, I suggest. Plus it avoids the need to go traipsing around seeking Bridging Visas and explaining themselves to DIAC. They can apply for long-stay tourist visas on line. All they have to do is to point to the CPV application and 12 months in Oz is a certainty for them if they want it.
If they are unsure about staying in Oz for the duration of the processing period for a CAPV (during which time they would need special permission to work in Oz if they want to work in Oz - which permission might or might not be given) then I would say that the current plan is too complicated to be worthwhile? I can't see what advantage it would really achieve?