Jump to content

apparition232

Members
  • Content Count

    15
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

2 Neutral

About apparition232

  • Rank
    Member

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. My mother used to get 1 year multiple entry visas with very little conditions (only No Work, No Study). Now she received a 3 year visa with a whole lot of conditions attached. Can I ask what conditions they attached to your parents 1 year visa?
  2. Can you please share what this "initial visa criteria" involve? Do we have to do anything? Do they ask for any documents? Is it automatic? If it only involves them having an initial look at the application, how is this then different from the initial "acknowledgment" they provide soon after submitting the application - I could be wrong, but rightly or wrongly, I was under the impression they check the submitted application before "acknowledgment"? My 143 application was submitted in Dec 2018 - I have not received any queue date/place yet - which I think is consistent with many others also awaiting a queue place. Also, just confirming: there is 1 visa per 1 person, e.g. a successful 143 outcome to an applicant and a dependent would count as 2 visas, not 1. RIght? So just confirming they do health and character initial assessment for 103, but not for 143 - is that right?
  3. Ok. I think they usually do put in those conditions..
  4. Thank you. That worked. But they include conditions barring onshore applications... don't they?
  5. Is this auto response the one in which they publish the processing times information? I don't seem to be getting any auto responses from parents@homeaffairs.gov.au? Are they still sending those auto responses?
  6. When I first started thinking about migrating to Australia, the 143 processing times were about 1 or 1.5 years. When I became eligible as a sponsor, the processing time were advertised to be 2 years, but really were more like 4 years. It now appears the advertised 4 years, are really more like 8 or 9 years. When it's actually time for the medicals, would it actually be more like 12 years? 15 years? Sadly, the longer it takes, the more it becomes likely to fail the medicals. If and when that happens, I will have people like you telling me "oh come on. You knew that all along. Stop portraying the government as the bad guy. Australia does not need you, after 15 years of your taxes subsidising Medicare of those who came before you. Your parent is a liability. Now go back to your country and take care of your parent." If you can provide a logical rebuttal to the above, it would honestly help me sleep better at night. Thank you.
  7. And what would happen if only those benefit from it stay in the system, and others who don't "like" the system don't? It would quickly become unsustainable, as it would then just comprise of takers, and no givers. Visa fees would start to climb, delays would become worse etc and the system would collapse. Why do you think the USA system works?
  8. Thanks to everyone who replied. The point raised by ramot hits me particularly hard. If it otherwise becomes unaffordable, who exactly are you robbing with the current model? Other visa holders who may not claim as much benefits? Or the government? Or the tax payers? Now, is that fair? The current model appears fair to those who benefit from it. The USA model works because it does not take from Peter to pay Paul.
  9. Thank you all for the replies. It is good to see different angles to the argument. To those who said they are are grateful Australia is even offering parent visas: I may be wrong, but it does appear USA allows relatively quick (about 1 year) and inexpensive (a couple thousand dollars) way to sponsor parents for green cards (i.e. PR). Links below: https://kaass.com/long-will-take-bring-family-member-u-s https://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/us-immigration/cost-i-130-family-petition-lawyer-filing-fees.html Don't get me wrong. I am not asking the Australian government to offer anything for free. That would be wrong. All I am saying is that the cost and benefits of a visa, such as 143, should be fair and equitable. Make parents ineligible for government benefits, and make us pay for private health insurance. Keep a bond just in case. Faster, cheaper and fairer. But to take money off Peter and give it to Paul... well..
  10. Thank you very much for directing me to this info. With the processing times for 143 blown up to 9 years, I wonder what utility is there to pay this large sum of money? Say a parent is 60 years when they first apply for 143. They then get 10 year 870 visas, at the end of which they are 70 years old. Around that point, the choice is whether you want to pay the visa cost for 143 or not, frankly against which you will never receive: 1. Age pension (eligible when 80 years old? How long will they live then to get pension? Average life expectancy is 80 years. You can expect to be dead before you get the age pension.) 2. Medicare. You will need private health insurance if you don't want to wait in the queue for non-emergency surgeries, say knee-replacement. Who wants to be in pain for 6 to 8 months after waiting in the 143 queue, paying 143 visa fees, and then waiting in the queue for knee replacement for another 6 to 8 months? And then further hoping the surgeon doesn't need to attend an emergency case on the day you are scheduled for the knee surgery, in which case you get bumped further in the queue. Am I missing something? Why is 143 visa still an attractive proposition? The cost of 143 is not delivering the promised benefit, if it's going to take that long to process. In fact, the longer it takes, the more it looks like a non-contributory visa. For example, if it takes 10 years to process 143, and 20 years to process non-contributory, the cost of 143 should be $25k not $50k. This is simplistic, but you get the idea. The idea is that the 143 cost should take into account the processing time. It is unfair to charge $50k to applicants who got processed in 1 year, and the same fee to those who get processed in 10 years. The longer the processing, the closer the fee should be to that of a non-contributory visa. Otherwise, it is just ransom money the government is getting off you to keep your family together, and that too after delay of 10 years, and also after you have paid 870 visa fees once or even twice, and all this is from your post-tax dollars. This is nothing short of daylight robbery... You are being robbed thrice: - High cost compared to non-contributory, but still getting a deal that looks more and more like non-contributory - Less time for Medicare, Age Pension benefits - After you have already paid 870 fees From your after tax dollars, not to mention your peace of mind... I would rather they just said that the parents cannot get any government benefits, not charge contributory fees, and make you pay privately for health insurance etc. Would work out way better for everyone involved. They can keep a bond if you become bankrupt or otherwise unable to pay, so that the bond then pays for health insurance etc. Would be fairer, faster, cheaper and enhance community. The only thing it will stop is you getting a raw deal.
  11. Oh thank you.. appreciated . So much has happened since I applied for 143 in Dec 2018..
  12. Thank you everyone for the replies.. Thank you for this. Wow... I had my parent on a 3 year 600 visa... Looks like the 3 or 5 years on 600 is no longer available after the launch of the 870 visa! Looks like I will be needing a 5 year 870 visa, after the 600 expires, before 143 comes through.. if the parent is alive then.. This is very depressing.. Thank you for your support..
  13. Thank you. And I do agree that your logic makes sense (unless a significant number of applications are denied, in which case they can process the 50000 in the queue more quickly than 8 or 9 years, say in 51 months? Do you know what % of the applications are rejected?) Quoting from the immi website: "based on current planning levels, we estimate new Contributory Parent visa applications lodged that meet the criteria to be queued are likely to take approximately at least 51 months to be released for final processing." It clearly says "new contribution visa applications, on current planning levels = 51 months" If 8 or 9 years is indeed more accurate, then what immi website is saying is an outright lie! What are your thoughts?
  14. Hi everyone This is my first post on this forum. I applied for my parents 143 visa in December 2018. At that time, the auto-responding email said there was a wait time of 48 months. This website now says the wait time is now 51 months, so it appears the wait time has been fairly consistent at about 4 years: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-processing-times/family-visa-processing-priorities/parent-visas-queue-release-dates However, you mention a wait of about 8 or 9 years. I wonder how this reconciles with the 4 years processing time as mentioned above? I know you have calculated the 8 years based on 52000/6000=8.7 years. But then is the information on immi incorrect? Thank you all.
×