Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Hi All I know that a number of prospective Contributory Parents read PiO and also that several of you who are migrating or have recently done so are just waiting until your Parents can apply for CPVs. This thread might interest Austibeach in particular if he sees it, because I know he is soaking up all the information he can get his hands on about these visa like a sponge. He believes in being well & truly prepared and I could not agree with him more. I've seen a thread on another forum which has taken a twist that concerns me a little. An RMA who is a newcomer to the relevant forum has hijacked the thread. She is musing to herself over an academic question of law which has nothing to do with the OP's original query and I don't think she is terribly sure of her ground. If she were, why would she be airing it publicly? The story is significant in as much as it goes to the heart of how to interpret the Balance of Family Test when the facts are not entirely straightforward. (That is the lady RMA's view of it, anyway, though I am not convinced that I agree with her. I think the B o F Test is only a part of this picture and that it should not be allowed to become the Holy Grail at the expense of other, equally relevant, factors.) If the POPC won't accept one's stance in a situation like this, then the visa application will go phut without the option. Nobody wants to have to appeal to the MRT against a visa refusal - it is too painful as well as costly and slow. For what it is worth, the story goes thus: There is a son who is living in Oz on a temporary onshore subclass 309 spouse visa. He does not have PR as yet. Somebody called "the other daughter" is also involved. Apparently "the other daughter" does have PR in Oz but she is currently living in the UK. (There may be a second daughter living in the UK as well - that bit is not clear but if there is a second daughter, she defo does not have PR in Oz. So if there is a second daughter, the visa application is bound to fail because the son does not have PR in Oz and this criterion must be satisfied at the time of the application, not just at the time of the decision. However, "the other daughter" might be the only other child.) According to the RMA, she has taken a straw poll on the MIA forum (which only Members who are RMAs have access to.) This straw poll has enouraged the lady RMA to conclude that the application for a CPV will be OK. She reckons that the fact that "the other daughter" has PR in Oz is enough despite the fact that she is not living in Oz at the minute. The identity of the prospective Sponsor is not revealed or even mentioned. I guess the plan could be for the Australian daughter in law to sponsor the application but since the lady RMA has not mentioned it, this is pure speculatation in my part. On the basis described above, the lady RMA plans to lead her clients into battle, it seems. She is busy burbling about S1.05 of the Regs. The Balance of Family Test is set out in S1.05. It seems from my reading of it that she does not consider it necessary to read S143 as well. I want to scream "WARNING! Do NOT read S1.05 in isolation from S143 (or any of the relevant others because they all say the same thing on this point.) The opening line of S143 says that the relevant child must not only have PR but must also be a "settled" resident of Australia! How are you going to demonstrate that the 'the other daughter' is "settled" in Australia when she is not even living there, apparently? And who is going to provide the Assurance of Support? The Australian daughter-in-law? Is her sole ncome more than sufficient to cover that a year or two down the line? Is she willing to do it? What happens if she loses or gives up her job because of maternity or whatever? You seem to be depending on ONE person alone for the AOS, with no back up plan if anything goes wrong with the Chosen One." I want to add, "Fer Gawd's sake do NOT take a chance on this, lady. If you want to fly this Balance of Family kite, make good & sure that you get written confirmation from the POPC that they will accept your stance about this before the CP application goes anywhere near them! Either get it from the horse's mouth or tell the family to sort themselves out, but do NOT take avoidable risks with the Balance of Family angle in this thing and do NOT let that bit cloud your judgement about the rest of the overall picture." If I were helping the family concerned, which I'm not, I'd be advising them to go straight to Alan Collett and to ask him to discuss the Balance of Family situation with the Manager of the POPC, so as to get the family a definitive decision about whether or not the POPC will accept the facts as they are. Even if the POPC are OK about that bit, the AOS still needs to be covered and covered securely, as does the question of whether or not "the other daughter" can satisfy the requirement that she must be "settled" in Oz when she is not currently living there. Please PLEASE, everyone. Please do NOT use Agents who seem to me to be hell-bent on out-escaping Houdini. It is too risky and the potential for heartbreak is immense. Alan Collett sees beyond today's immediate desires. He foresees tomorow's potential heartbreak as well. And he has a built in "fail-safe" mechanism, probably because of his accountancy background. He is convinced that the wire betwen the family on the ignition end and the detonator at the other end should be at least a mile long and I don't blame him. He & Go Matilda sometimes give unwelcome advice, whereupon people sometimes leap to unfounded conclusions and allege that GM are "not interested." This is NOT true. They are VERY interested and they will bend over backwards to help, but what they will NOT do is help with trying to make a silk purse out of a sow's ear. So please, everyone, if the facts are not entirely straightforward, do not be tempted to run with the Agent who promises a milk and honey "solution." Please go to a realist like Alan instead. You might not like his advice, but he can be relied on to ensure that you do not come unstuck. The lady RMA ends by saying that she finds the parent category visas "very interesting." My instinct is to retort, "Families are not guinea-pigs, lady!" Earlier this year, a CP application made by a friend of mine through an RMA in the UK (who isn't any of the Agents who get mentioned on PiO) was refused. It was refused because the RMA slipped on a banana-skin in the legislation. Alan & GM very nearly had to take over to sort the mess out because by then the client had lost confidence in his RMA - understandably. Another CP 143 application, by another chum of mine, very nearly got de-railed because an RMA (again, not one who gets mentioned on here) told them that an AoS would not be required and it transpired that their only child would not be good for the required level of income. Alan stepped in from the sidelines and told my chum and I, "Make EVERY effort to get some Assurers from somewhere!" By the skin of their teeth, the family managed to do that but it really WAS a skin of the teeth experience. It was deeply traumatic for the Parents, obviously, as it was for the first couple. I supplied the cold, wet towels for both Fathers in an effort to keep both of them on their emotional feet whilst others sorted out the technical messes. NO family needs these sorts of scares. CPV applications are not supposed to be some sort of white knuckle ride. Therefore in conclusion, I would commend Go Matilda for Parents every time or Ian Harrop & Associates (though Go Matilda charge less.) Either will ensure that the whole thing goes like clockwork without anyone having to empty a whole can of WD 40 over the cogs when the machinery suddenly seizes up or threatens to do so. The Agent who makes the whole experience thoroughly boring and mundane is the one to run with, my friends..... Cheers Gill
Guest wardy Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Hi Gill I know the thread you are talking about Idon't think she has made anything very clear to be honest. From my reading it sounds like there are 3 children one on a temp, one with PR and one daughter in UK, could be completely wrong mind. There is someone else on there who is looking for info on this matter I sent her a pm to redirect her to this site although she did pm me back because the website name was blanked out no matter how hard I tried could not send her any reference to PIO are they that scared of us not to allow a mention. :wacko: even by pm. Anyway I got round it in a creative way so she may be on. Keep up the good work :wubclub:
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 4, 2007 Posted December 4, 2007 Hi Gill I know the thread you are talking about Idon't think she has made anything very clear to be honest. From my reading it sounds like there are 3 children one on a temp, one with PR and one daughter in UK, could be completely wrong mind. There is someone else on there who is looking for info on this matter I sent her a pm to redirect her to this site although she did pm me back because the website name was blanked out no matter how hard I tried could not send her any reference to PIO are they that scared of us not to allow a mention. :wacko: even by pm. Anyway I got round it in a creative way so she may be on. Keep up the good work :wubclub: Hi Kaye Otherwise, get her to e-mail me if she wishes. I will PM you with my e-mail address for you to pass on. The BE software turns "Poms in Oz" into asterisks automatically. I consider it completely pathetic but there we go! Cheers Gill
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.