apparition232

19 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Too many questions for me to answer as a freebie - sorry!

Suggest you might appoint an agent to help you manage your visa applications if you have concerns and want clarity or guidance.

Or maybe others can step in and help you.

Best regards.

 

Thanks Alan - I understand. Cheers.

On 05/05/2020 at 14:18, chintu said:

Hi guys,

New reader/member here to the forum.
 

I applied for 143 subclasses straight and I have joined the queue for this one? I see currently they are processing applications from 2016, I am guessing this will mean my turn will come by 2024(hopefully).

I applied for subclass 143 straight in April 2019 and got acknowledgement by May 2019.

Does anyone have any experience with the following issues:

1. My mother has type 2 diabetes and has to monitor her sugar every now and then. Will this impact her health requirements? Given we are applying for permanent visas for elder people, I am guessing they are bound to have some kind of existing medical condition. Any input will be appreciated.

2. My mother/father used to get 3 years tourist visas in the past, suddenly last year they have started only giving 1-year visas when I asked for 3yrs on the application. Anybody else has experience with this? Is this because they want to raise revenue by making us apply for the expensive 870 visas?

Any input will be greatly appreciated.

 

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?

On 01/05/2020 at 09:45, Alan Collett said:

https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/help-support/glossary#capping-and-queueing#

All Contributory Parent visa applications lodged before 1 June 2018 have been given a queue date of the application lodgement date and applications lodged on or after 1 June 2018 will be assessed and given a queue date when it meets the initial visa criteria.

Best regards.

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.

 

 

️

 

On 02/05/2020 at 15:06, Alan Collett said:

The number in the queue is the number of applicants awaiting a visa decision - not the number of visa applications.

The "cap" refers to the number of visas to be granted annually.

Best regards.

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?  

 

 

 

️

2

On 02/05/2020 at 15:08, Alan Collett said:

For 103s and 804s there is an initial assessment of heath and character - currently about 2 years post lodgement.

Once health and character are cleared a queue date is issued, which is the date entered to be in the queue date calculator.

Clearly 143 and 864 applications don't operate that way.   Ditto 173s and 884s.

Best regards.

So just confirming they do health and character initial assessment for 103, but not for 143 - is that right?

7 hours ago, palaceboy1 said:

Some do and some don,t , I have not had a three month visa for a long time so I am unaware if or what restrictions are placed when it’s issued

Ok. I think they usually do put in those conditions..

On 21/02/2020 at 21:10, Alan Collett said:

You need to include some narrative in the subject line ...

Best regards.

Thank you. That worked.

On 22/02/2020 at 09:33, palaceboy1 said:

Looking a bit closer at the figures issued today it seems that they are processing 804 applications far quicker than 103 , probably up to 2015 . If this is correct it seems very unfair on 143 applicants who are paying much more than those on 804,s for almost the same processing timeframes . So if you are dishonest and enter on a tourist visa and swop to a bridging visa you are being rewarded with a cheap permanent visa which is what is being touted by a certain migration agent on a different forum . It could be of course a route to closing the 103/804 visa routes to new applicants because according to their own figures only 10 new applicants between 15/10/2019 and 10/01/2020 for 103 visas

But they include conditions barring onshore applications... don't they?

On 20/02/2020 at 15:50, Lady Jane said:

It says in the auto response from the mailbox to send the letter to immi as they can process application quicker if the client sends the acceptance letter straight to them. 

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?

19 hours ago, Marisawright said:

So, just imagine it - I'm sure you've seen the tear-jerking articles in the newspapers about some granny who's managed to stay in Australia for years without a permanent visa, and then she fails the medical (which they always knew she would) and is due to be deported.   Even though she and her family knew full well that would happen, they still make it sound like it's all a big surprise and the government is the bad guy.

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.

2 hours ago, ramot said:

It’s irrelevant what other countries parent visa policies are, if you want to come to Australia on a parent visa you either accept their rules or don’t come. the government isn’t interested in individuals demands.

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?

1 hour ago, ramot said:

You are making an assumption that all parents would be able to afford your suggestions, we all have different incomes. Parents don’t just come from UK, they come from many countries with varying amounts of income.

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.

14 hours ago, Taswegians2B said:

I know it is frustrating; our wait time has gone from 3 years at the time of application to roughly 6 probably, but to be honest we are just grateful that Australia offers parent visas.

14 hours ago, ramot said:

Your idea is in some ways similar to the old totally self funded 410 retirement  visa which was replaced in 2005 by the very expensive 405 investor retirement visa also now closed to New applicants. I don’t know for sure, but the rumour was that  the 410 visa was being rorted, who knows? but I also have no idea why the investor 405 retirement visa was stopped. You had to leave a large amount of money with your state government pay plenty to renew every 4 years, and have a good income, and be self funded. Refundable if you left Australia or I assume when you died. Thought the government was on a winner with that one.

Having been through the nightmare retrospective changes to the visa our son applied for, and our daughter going on the dreadful bridging visa D, for months I don’t believe for a moment that the government cares in the slightest. 

I do understand the total frustration at the what appear lies about the waiting time for visas on the official web site, but It’s your decision to apply for a visa, the government owes you nothing, take it or leave sums it up.. Fairness does not come into it. Australia doesn’t want old people, and not many countries even have a parent visa policy.

The $43,000 fee has to be balanced against how much we might cost Australia as we are expensive as we age, and arriving in our latter years, we have never previously paid any taxes here to compensate for our prospective costs. We now have PR and I seem to have unexpectedly had a few problems already, so have had various free checks and treatment and that’s just since last May, 

14 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

For now! New Zealand closed their parent visas about 4 years ago. 
If it is now the case that you don’t need an eligible child to sponsor your 143 as their de facto partner can do it, as some recent posts suggest, that opens up to a potentially huge rise in applications.
thus blowing out the wait times out even further in the future for applicants from now on, which people would need to be aware of in order to have realistic expectations of their potential wait time  

Australia ( like most countries now including Britain!) doesn’t want immigrant parents. We cost too much money. A Productivity Review  a few years ago said the true cost was actually 10 times the amount of the current visa cost! 

They have tried to discourage applicants, they got rid of 804 non contributory  a few years ago for 6 months before they had to reinstate it, which also cause a rush to the corresponding  contributory. They have reduced the numbers of parent visas available annually from 7175 to 6000 but this is only a “ceiling” in practice  they have granted less - around 5600. Non contributory are only allowing c 1250 p.a. and their wait time has blown out to an estimated 30 years. Peter Dutton has openly talked about only wanting younger socially active immigrants rather than parents  etc etc

To be honest I’m just glad I’m in the queue now which if there are no major changes will hopefully allow me the chance to get my visa in the next 3-4 years! But my expectations and hopes from the time I applied - when it was said wait time was 18- 24 months!! - have now sadly had to become more and more realistic as time goes on. 

14 hours ago, Taswegians2B said:

Yes, we’ve had to be realistic about timeframes as well.  It’s disappointing for both parents and our Australian offspring but we just have to be patient, which is easier said than done!  This forum is very helpful and supportive, I’m glad I found it.

13 hours ago, SusieRoo said:

Very true… there is now no obvious benefit in anyone 60 years of age, applying for a 143 visa over a 103 visa. The queues are about the same length and you have the option to switch to a contributory parent visa at any time without loosing your queue date (however there are other considerations).

Contributory parent visa are no longer serving the purpose they were intended.  The only way Australia can fix this is to increase the cost. There was a report a few years ago that calculated parent immigrants cost the taxpayer approximately $250k each. I guess if this were the price of a 143 visa today, then processing times would again be realistic.

There is a general consensus here that if the cost of contributory parent visas should rise, it will not be applied retrospectively. And existing applicants will only pay the price quoted at the date they applied. But if you change from a 103 visa to a 143, you could loose this price lock-in.

Also the ‘cap’ on all classes of parent visa can change on a political whim. So queues could dramatically lengthen at any time. They can also close down a parent visa stream (as we have seen in the past) or close parent visas for new applicants (like happened in New Zeeland).

It’s always best to take advice from a good agent (like Allan). But if I were starting again I would lock-in to a 143 now and then get on with my life as normal.

When we first applied, we thought the wait would be only 18 to 24 months, if we had known it would take more than 4 years, we probably would not have applied. But now we are thankful we did and 4 years seems like a breeze compared to the 10 years of possible delay for today’s applicants. And who knows how long the queue will be in the coming years, even ten years queuing might not look that bad in the future.

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..

22 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

You may be better reading this topic especially a post by Alan Collett on page  23 dated January 31 

The 870 can be renewed once but parent has to be outside Australia for 3 ‘months in between. It’s likely many later applicants may end up with getting two. 
600 visa still valid but will now only   allow 12 months in any 18 months stay. 

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.

15 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

The 600 visa will still be available. They have changed the “replaces 600 visa”  wording since  

Oh thank you.. appreciated .

So much has happened since I applied for 143 in Dec 2018..

Thank you everyone for the replies..

14 minutes ago, Kathss56 said:

@apparition232 you could always look at the new temporary parent visa 870, which will give you up to 10yrs in Oz whilst waiting for your 143. But lots of rules and may not suit a lot of parents. 

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..

3 minutes ago, LindaH27 said:

The time quoted  on immi processing website is for the applications they are actually processing now ie early 2016

The length of the queue and the actual amount they grant annually now dictates the length of the wait. 

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?

12 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

PIO simply means Poms In Oz!!

i was under the impression your sponsor for 143 had to be an eligible child - unless the child was under 18. The Assurance of Support sponsor towards the end of visa processing  could be your daughters partner but I don’t think so for the main 143 but I’m sure others on the forum  will either confirm or deny  that. 

I’m assuming you meet the Balance of Family  test as well?  

Yes you are correct that people applying for 143 visa now face a wait of 8-9 years. With over 52000 in the queue at end of June 2019 and rising and less than 6000 being granted every year it’s simply maths to work it out! 

People need to have realistic expectations.
 

Also on 600 visa you are not allowed to work. A 600 visa for a 143  applicant could be granted for three years but with a condition of only 12 months stay in any  18 months and will carry the condition of No Work

 

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.