hawkeye10

3 hours ago, Marisawright said:

Westly Russell is a migration agent.  He cannot discuss clients' cases.

If it's gone to the court for appeal (AAT) then the case would be published. Like on AustLII.

6 hours ago, wrussell said:

I have!

Was that offshore applicant? Was there any appeal to AAT? Quite interesting to know about that case, especially if there's any record (like in database of AustLII). 

On 06/06/2021 at 21:09, Tulip1 said:

To say it’s better to apply for 864 may not be true. Sure they would get a bridging visa to stay in Australia but they would also spend the rest of their lives on that bridging visa as the 864 has a 30 year wait.  There are many disadvantages being on a bridging visa and they need careful consideration before they can decide it’s a better option.  I’d say you need a vast amount of money for it to be a better option.  No access to any state benefits etc so if you ever need aged care and none of us know we won’t then you’ll have to pay for it yourself.  Just one of many examples of the pitfalls of a bridging visa. 

Seriously? Where do you get that from? 30 years? Oh come on, that's not the case for contributory visas. Atm, over 10 years I would say.

5 hours ago, Radagast said:

I have a couple of questions which may also assist other new applicants who are just jumping into this thread:

1) Is the second instalment amount payable 'frozen' at the application date?  That is, if I send the application this month, and the fees subsequently increase over the next however many years, when I am called upon to pay the second instalment will it remain fixed at today's date? Is the date at which the payment is fixed the date the department receive the application in the post or the 'queueing date' which I understand is now 3 years later in many cases?

2) Is the income requirement for a sponsor of 1 parent $45k or $85k? I have done the eligibility calculator for AoS for a 143 visa on Centrelink's website and it is telling me something like $45k for 1 assuree (parent) or $50k for 2 assurees (parents). I saw someone post on here that they believe it is more like $85k for 1 parent and $160k for 2 parents? Which is correct? Are there any additional income requirements for the sponsor as opposed to the assuree, or are these higher amounts only for the temporary 173 visas?

3) I understand that if 1 parent is granted a 143, that parent can then sponsor the other parent 5 years after the 143 is granted? I do not wish to assume incorrectly but I imagine that for most parent visa applicants, after the grant they will be splitting their time between Australia and their country or origin (rather than living in Australia full-time). In those circumstances, I am surprised not to see more people applying for a single 143, having the other parent visit on a visitors visa while the first parent spends part of each of the first 5 years in Australia, and then subsequently sponsoring them for a partner visa - am I missing something?

4) I understand the timeframe from submission of application to visa grant is now well over 5 years for a 143, possibly 7? Is this accurate, and is there any way it could improve? This is absolutely incredible where such large sums of money are being required supposedly for a fast processing time.

As an Australian assisting my spouse with a 143 visa application for her mother, it is absolutely dismaying to read the last few pages of this thread. As Australia has always relied upon immigration throughout its history, I feel that it is shameful for our country to be treating immigrants, who have a need like anyone else to look after their parents in old age, in this totally unaccountable way - particularly where very large sums of money and represent considerable sacrifices are being paid for fast processing. I understand that there are large social security costs, however this should be seen as the other necessary side of the equation which sees us benefit from millions of hardworking immigrants. It is wrong and unacceptable to treat the needs of these immigrants as such a low priority just because they do not form a majority of the voting population.

Thanks to any guidance anyone is able to provide.

4) Way more than that number. Currently the number of applications on-hand is about 50k, while quota for 143 is below 4k (roughly 3600). You can do the math. If one of the parents are over 65/67 (the pension age), better apply for 864 as that gives them the bridging visa to stay in Australia while waiting for grant.

12 hours ago, Nafanya said:

You sounds like a DOHA employee Seriously, you are trying to explain the mess which cannot be explained.
Maybe you can make an example of the visa with strictly defined ETAs then?

Their game their rules. Keep whining while waiting for the grant.

EOI was frozen at the time you were invited. There will be no change to the points. It's also meaningless as you've already been selected.

2 hours ago, Lya said:

Hi,

just wondering is there anyone know our queue date is the date of visa application or the date of acknowledgement application received?

Thank you 

For application submitted before June 2018, they are the same date. 

6 hours ago, Nafanya said:

Well, you are definitely mixing up satisfaction and some very basic rules and order. When we are speaking about advanced economies some reasonable rules and responsibilities should be always in place, regardless who is entering and how. Here you have almost no rules, definitely no ETAs, next month they easily can double or triple processing times without any consequences. The only rule is - "One day, maybe in couple month or in couple years DOHA will approve or reject your visa application."

You think that such behavior is normal? Then I'm really sorry for you...

These skilled visas doesn't have the "Queue dates" like Parents visa. So there's no order in processing applications (just priority based on subclasses). That's it dude. 

10 hours ago, motheman said:

Hi everyone just in the process of organising all the paperwork to apply for my citizenship.

Just wanted to clarify I have not travelled overseas since i received my permanent residency which was last year. In this case do i still need to do an overseas police check which i previously supplied for my permanent residency application?.

 

Also i have been reading up posts where people have submitted scanned copies or their first entry to australia and scanned copies of 10 years of travel. is this actually required for the citizenship application? would appreciate a response. Thanks 

 

1. Iirc, when you go overseas (e.g. back to your home country) for a period of time (I don't remember correctly), you have to do the PCC for that country again.

2. First entry to Australia is recorded in their system using your passport number. If you wanna know, you can request a movement record by filling in the form 1359. But no need to scan anything. Regarding international travel, just list them out like you did when applying for PR online (in form 80 as well).

Just follow the document checklist from DHA.

43 minutes ago, mukesh665544 said:

Hi guys one of my friend in Adelaide (Charles Sturt Counsil) applied with his family of 4 on 15th of April 21 and already got test date and interview last week. I applied on 21st but haven’t heard anything yet. Is there an email to contact the department, Thanks

Just like how some people within a ANZSCO code may receive an invitation/get visa grant much faster than others.

2 hours ago, amsaini15 said:

Hi @LindaH27 or anyone who can assist - If they do increase 2nd VAC charges, will the increase only apply to new applications or they can still charge exponential increased fees for existing application in progress? I applied for my parents in May 2017. 

From my understanding, any changes will apply to new applications only. That explains why so many people rushed to make applications in May/June 2017 when they were afraid that VAC would increase soon.

2 hours ago, Quoll said:

Maybe not - but there were warnings recently that failure to abide by the moral obligation would not be viewed favourably and it would be naive to assume that just because it has happened that way in the past - with so many abusing that moral obligation - it will continue to be so. I think a crack down would be a good idea.  We have had people on here being given a visa for one state but going immediately to another state where they had family or friends or a job.  Just not on.

I think the OP could make a good case for a release from the obligation and if they do everything right, they should be fine.

Well, afaik, the only state that still gives release letter is SA.

45 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

How many visa holders do you know?  I agree it's been rare up till now but they can always change their minds.  Best to be on the safe side.  Also important to consider whether it might affect citizenship down the track

Many have already secured the citizenship. DHA is separate from the state gov. So that's the flaw in the current system. If DHA really wants, they could have imposed that condition on 190/491 visa. But nothing has happened until now.

On 12/05/2021 at 18:56, Nafanya said:

What a super business They take money and then nobody is responsible for anything, no ETAs, they even use COVID as a reason to make it longer when in fact they are not proceeding temp. visas and load should be much less than always.
What a mess!

Who cares. You are entering their country through skilled migration pathway, they don't have to satisfy you all the time.

Seriously, I've never seen any case getting their visa cancelled. There's no condition on your visa, and that's just a moral obligation (not legal).

21 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

I just really wish that immi and migration agents would tell prospective new applicants about the “real” potential wait times! I really hate it when I see posts that say “we’ve just applied and we will be there in 3-4 years!” 
 

I actually think there may be some changes from the Senate enquiry - and I don’t think it will be reasonably good news.  Im probably wrong  - but I think they will attempt to stop the non contributory 804 parent visa - it’s now taking up to 30 years but the applicants are onshore on bridging visas and those from countries with reciprocal health care agreements  are costing the govt money in terms of using Medicare, public hospitals  and prescriptions etc and because they are classed as temporary residents,  any tax they pay on their income is being paid to their own countries and not to Australia. They’ve tried once before but it didn’t get through but other reviews since then have recommended it be stopped. The last review in 2016 had 4 recommendations

a) reduce the annual quotas

b) introduce a paid long term temporary visa

c) stop 804 except for very specific compassionate reasons 

d) increase the charges for the visas  

The first two have actually happened! The last one is one of the reasons so many applied in May/June 2017 as they thought or were told about the possibility of the charges being hugely increased so rushed to get them in before the new financial year started.

Any guesses on whether C & D options will happen this time ?? Im not even going to try and guess what they will say about the backlog that is the biggest for 25 years!!
 

Keep on keeping on !!

 

Lol, I've always wondered why there was a sudden increase in applications during the last 2 months of that FY 16-17. Now I've got the answer.

9 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

Yes but you applied April 2017 so that’s your queue date as it’s before June 2018, when applicants are now given queue dates , which appear to be around three years later !! 

Yeah, I received one as well. Tbh, I don't understand why they have to do it.

Hi guys, just received the Queue Letter from PVC an hour ago. We applied in July 2018, and got the queue date of 28 May 2021. Tbh, I don't really understand the separation between applications submitted before and after June 2018. What about the gap between June 2018 and May 2021? It's totally meaningless, imo.