Guest Scardycat Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Hi Liz & Gill long time no speak, my second daughter and family left today, feeling a bit blue tonight, I am still no nearer to getting there, have had all five of them living here for the last 2½ weeks, been so busy with them haven't had time to do anything for myself, but should have plenty of time now they are all gone, so must get busy again on getting myself sorted. regards Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Hi Cat Good to hear from you and thanks for the update. When are you heading out to Oz yourself, and where to in Oz? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizg Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Hi Scardycat, Thinking of you. How hard it must be for you tonight but hopefully time will fly and you'll be joining family in no time. Life will be a little less hectic I imagine (and quieter) so look at it from another angle and just enjoy the break! Bless, Liz x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Scardycat Posted November 28, 2008 Share Posted November 28, 2008 Gill, not sure yet when will be going will hopefully be the end of January or beginning of February. My daughter is living in North Lakes, Queensland, my other daughter will be looking for a rental in one of the neighboring towns, so I will be sharing myself out between them.. Liz, the house is so quiet after having a 5 year old and two 2½ year olds, but like you say I must make the most of it and take it as a well earned rest:laugh: Am going to Portsmouth Docks tomorrow on a day trip, then lunching with friends on Sunday, then the theatre on Mondy night, so at least I wont be in the quiet house much over the week-end. Hope you get your visa sorted out. regards Cat Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marian and ian burgess Posted December 1, 2008 Share Posted December 1, 2008 Hello Gill I have e mailed parents@immi.gov.au and asked the question as you suggested. And as anticipated Yes I can change but only by withdrawing the 143 visa application and lodging a new 173 application which of course losing our place on the waiting list and having to pay another 1st instalment. So we are leaving things as they are and hoping for the best when we come to sell our property. Thanks Marian Burgess Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandch Posted December 2, 2008 Share Posted December 2, 2008 Hello Gill I have e mailed parents@immi.gov.au and asked the question as you suggested. And as anticipated Yes I can change but only by withdrawing the 143 visa application and lodging a new 173 application which of course losing our place on the waiting list and having to pay another 1st instalment. So we are leaving things as they are and hoping for the best when we come to sell our property.Thanks Marian Burgess Marian - that's useful information, thanks. It's something other people may have considered. The other possible option I have read about on these threads in the past is for only one person to apply for the CPV, the other going out later as a spouse. There's risk and thus uncertainty involved (health for example) and I've not heard of anyone who has done it. In the end, paying the money in exchange for having the uncertainty and continued aggravation removed seems to be more attractive. But it is a great deal of dosh. Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 We have clients adopting what we call the "split visa strategy" - one parent applies for the CPV and after grant the permanent visaholder sponsors the spouse. The prospective cost saving is A$30,000+. We'll be happy to discuss the risks and rewards with anyone who is interested ... Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hi Alan This is very interesting news. Everyone I have mentioned it to has wimped out! I know of only one instance where the family concerned might have tried the split visa idea but I don't know whether they pursued it. I was chatting with a lass from a high risk country who joined PiO a few months back. There were two last minute dramas with the meds and the AOS as it was but both were resolved in the end. Then the daughter told me that they intended to split the visas between the parents at that point. I admired them considering that they had already had two nasty frights along the way! They have good nerves, certainly! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Gill, To add to my above comment, we have one case where the CP visa has been granted and we are now progressing the spouse application through London. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hi Marian Thanks for the feedback. I don't understand why the 173 and the 143 are not in the same Class but no doubt somebody knows why! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 As I know you know, Gill, one is a temporary visa, and the other is a permanent visa - one never sees the two under the same visa class. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Marian - that's useful information, thanks. It's something other people may have considered. The other possible option I have read about on these threads in the past is for only one person to apply for the CPV, the other going out later as a spouse. There's risk and thus uncertainty involved (health for example) and I've not heard of anyone who has done it. In the end, paying the money in exchange for having the uncertainty and continued aggravation removed seems to be more attractive. But it is a great deal of dosh.Cheers Steve Hi Steve This one continues to intrigue me as well. I first heard about it around 18 months ago now. George Lombard knew about it and mentioned it to one of his clients, who asked me. I had never heard of it so I asked Alan Collett whether he knew anything about it. Nope, and to start with Alan was deeply sceptical if you look back through the threads. However George's client persisted. He was sure George was not wrong. I told the Parent, "Why don't you ask the POPC?" He did and they confirmed what George had said. I was as astonished as Alan was because I assumed that they would have spotted such a loophole and blocked it when they drafted the CPV legislation. I know that British legislation goes through 2 levels of in-house Government solicitors and then it goes out to external solicitors in private practice to see whether a fresh eye and a poacher's mind can rip it apart. I assume they do the same in Oz but I have never enquired. It doesn't catch all the loopholes but I assume it weeds a fair few out. (I can't think of anything more boring than being involved with Parliamentary Drafting.) Anyhow, Alan very kindly found out how and why the split visa idea works and with George and Alan both in agreement about it, plus the POPC, it obviously does work. However as you say, I have not come across a single British couple who have not said to me, "I wish, but my nerves won't stand it!" It isn't actually that risky. Both Parents have to pass the meds in order for the first one to get the CPV. Parents then both travel to Oz and the second one makes a spouse application onshore. There is no waiting period beforehand with those. DIAC know when to look the other way at an airport as well. Even if a medical calamity should then strike the spouse applicant a health waiver is possible with spouse visas, it will be an onshore application so a Bridging Visa would be granted and so forth. Plus in most cases the Parents have been married for donkey's years and are frequently grandparents so the spouse applicant will be sure of PR immediately. It is possible to make it quite swift, slick and elegant. But do you have the nerve?......! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 As I know you know, Gill, one is a temporary visa, and the other is a permanent visa - one never sees the two under the same visa class. Best regards. Hi Alan Now you come to mention it.... thanks.. Actually I hadn't spotted that point - or hadn't thought about it. I've always wondered why all six visas are in six different Classes. Good job they didn't ask me to draft that bit of the legislation because I would have bundled them all into one class just because all of them are "Parent" so they would be tidier in the same cubby hole. Also, from the consumer's point of view that Table in Booklet 3 is a nightmare. It just assaults one's senses when one is trying to figure out what "Aged" is supposed to mean in this context as well so the jumble of letters and numbers does not help. Like everybody else, I fell straight into that one, thinking, "Mum is undoubtedly Aged but why does she have to go to Oz in order to apply for a visa? Which visa is she meant to use to go there? WTF is this thing gibbering about?!" Sometimes feminine logic rules the mind-set! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandch Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 But do you have the nerve?......! Cheers Gill Gill; Well nerves are for pioneers. Alan confirms there are one or two of those out there. Perhaps it is good that most of us would prefer to get it over with in one go, otherwise it would quickly be a closed-off option I think. Food for thought in this winter of recession. Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest marian and ian burgess Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Hi again So Ian could withdraw his application for a CPV143, go through medicals and Police checks and when I eventually get my visa he would come with me on a Tourist Visa and then make an onshore application for a spouse visa? Have I got it? Still a bit risky for us I guess. Thanks Marian Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest PatnPete Posted December 3, 2008 Share Posted December 3, 2008 Gill; Well nerves are for pioneers. Alan confirms there are one or two of those out there. Perhaps it is good that most of us would prefer to get it over with in one go, otherwise it would quickly be a closed-off option I think. Food for thought in this winter of recession. Cheers Steve Hi Steve Glad we don't have to make that decision, Case Officer appointed today 3rd Dec and requests we obtain an AoS assessment from Centrelink:sleepyxmas: Regards to All Pat&Pete CPV143, Lodgement 27Sept 07, Ack. 8Oct07, Meds.etc 26April08. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hi again So Ian could withdraw his application for a CPV143, go through medicals and Police checks and when I eventually get my visa he would come with me on a Tourist Visa and then make an onshore application for a spouse visa? Have I got it? Still a bit risky for us I guess.Thanks Marian Hi Marian Yep - it is possible although the way I would deal with it is as follows: 1. Make a joint application for a CPV and keep it as a joint application until you hear from your CO, with the CO ready to begin the final processing. 2. At this point, discuss the situation - and the possibility - with your CO. Remember that it is legitimate to exploit loopholes in the law. Canberra and the POPC are well aware of this loophole and they have confirmed that they have no plans to close it. That could change at any time but your CO can soon find out whether it has changed (very unlikely.) 3. In the unlikely event that the loophole has been blocked, you just continue with a joint CPV 143 application. If it has not been blocked, you withdraw the secondary applicant from the 143 application at this stage. There is no sense in coughing up extra for the CPV Bond if you need not do so. 4.1. The CPV 143 is then granted to the primary applicant. Some theorists have it that the new CPV holder hot-foots to Oz to validate the CPV, leaving the other spouse in the UK to sell the house etc. The one in Oz stays in Oz. The one in the UK makes an offhore application for a Spouse application according to this theory (not to mention forking out a second lot of bunce to the offshore migration agent, but some agents are Optimists!) 4.2. This particular theory also contends that London will quite likely send for the CPV 143 file - prolly stored somewhere out in the desert by now because I should think the DIAC paper file store is kept somewhere where space is plentiful and property price/rental is cheap. 4.3. Eventually the offshore spouse application will wend its way to conclusion apparently, enabling the couple to be re-united in Oz. Personally I've yet to hear of a clumsier plan! DIAC ruddy well know what is going to happen! They know that Canberra has decided not to block the loophole. They also know that the policy is to leave the Parents of migrants to get on with it because many of the Parents are elderly and the Australian Government is not inhumane. They also know full well that they never obstruct Aussie Citizen and his British girlfriend at the airport, even though it is perfectly obvious to anyone with a couple of brain cells that she is going to make an onshore application for a spouse/de facto visa. In any case, should anyone raise a flicker of objection then no self-respecting British Parent would dream of irritating anyone. Parent will simply toddle off to a beach in Bali for a week whilst George Lombard - who really does have supreme elegance and grace with this stuff - sorts it all out. Visa Info | George Lombard Consultancy Pty. Ltd. It is a curious thing. Apart from being a first-rate lawyer, George is also a native born Aussie. The ones who have never needed a visa for Oz (and indeed have never been eligible for once) have a completely different attitude towards the migration process from the ones who had to endure the visa mill themselves. It is strange but it is true. Native Aussies have a wonderfully relaxed attitude towards wannabes who would like to join them in Oz. One thing the place is not short of is space! George's attitude is, "Yeah, sure. This is do-able and it isn't a big deal. I'll chuck another prawn on the barbie for you." Some of the others make it sound like some sort of Military Campaign - which is nonsense. I get the feeling that some RMAs are wannabe gamekeepers when private practice suggests that becoming a poacher - just like the rest of us - would be a better idea. Who wants to work for DIAC for free? And why? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 A quick note to add to Gill's points. All applicants for spouse visas require their partner to act as the sponsor. Sponsors can be Australian permanent residents, who are defined in the Migration Regulations (in the context of a spouse visa application) as "a non-citizen who, being usually resident in Australia, is the holder of a permanent visa." The Australian High Commission in London tends not to take the "usually resident" point, which means an individual who is granted a CP visa can generally sponsor his/her partner for the grant of a spouse visa sooner rather than later. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandch Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 ...3. In the unlikely event that the loophole has been blocked, you just continue with a joint CPV 143 application. If it has not been blocked, you withdraw the secondary applicant from the 143 application at this stage. There is no sense in coughing up extra for the CPV Bond if you need not do so..... Hi Gill; there's another risk here of course, that the so-called loophole is blocked after withdrawal from the 143 app, but before the spouse visa can be finalised. I very much doubt however that this issue is one that policymakers in Canberra spend any time at all fretting about. Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
frizzy1 Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 Hi, I have just read the information regarding splitting the visas which is very interesting. So, if the visa's were split and the main applicant had received their CP visa, does anyone know how long it take to get a spouse permanent visa? Frizz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted December 4, 2008 Share Posted December 4, 2008 A quick note to add to Gill's points. All applicants for spouse visas require their partner to act as the sponsor. Sponsors can be Australian permanent residents, who are defined in the Migration Regulations (in the context of a spouse visa application) as "a non-citizen who, being usually resident in Australia, is the holder of a permanent visa." The Australian High Commission in London tends not to take the "usually resident" point, which means an individual who is granted a CP visa can generally sponsor his/her partner for the grant of a spouse visa sooner rather than later. Best regards. Hi Alan I've had an e-mail today from an RMA who is following this bit of this thread. According to my contact, Canberra are saying that they intend to alter the legislation so as to block this loophole and that the legislative change will happen quite soon. I am told that this was said in a recent CPD lecture. I've got my doubts. It could easily be that a Policy person from Canberra is merely trying to encuorage RMAs to ignore the law and to treat Policy as if it were Law. If I had any active involvement in this - which I haven't - I would pick up the phone to Phil and ask him what is really going on. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Gill, I have had a conversation with someone suitably senior at the Department. Yes, the split visa strategy is on DIAC's agenda. Yes, there is the likelihood that the strategy will be closed off, probably through an amendment to the spouse sponsor provisions. But: 1. Existing applicants for CPVs who are adopting this pathway are unlikely to be affected. 2. The timeline is not thought to be imminent. Maybe 2009, but the Minister is a busy chap and there are other issues I understand to be of more significance that are to be included in the legislative program. Also, for reference, POPC is endeavouring to contact applicants within a year to 15 months of the application being lodged. Correspondence for applicants who lodged from 01/11/2007 onwards is likely to be along the lines that all is well with the core components of the application, and that they will be contacted towards the end of the current program year, most probably with an invitation to lodge meds and penals, plus (where relevant) to arrange the Assurance of Support. This will lead to anticipated visa grant in 2009/10. There is no present indication of visa numbers available for 2009/10 - given recent comments from the Minister a reduction is possible (emphasis - POSSIBLE), which would lead to a lengthening of the waiting time given that application rates continue to be sustained. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sandch Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Valuable info Alan, many thanks. A couple of questions spring to mind: ...Existing applicants for CPVs who are adopting this pathway are unlikely to be affected.... I wonder at what point one officially adopts the pathway - eg when a spouse application is lodged, or a single 143 CPV is issued. ...There is no present indication of visa numbers available for 2009/10 - given recent comments from the Minister a reduction is possible (emphasis - POSSIBLE), which would lead to a lengthening of the waiting time given that application rates continue to be sustained... In the present conditions, that's easy to believe. I wonder if that would relative to the new base of 6,500, or the old level of 3,500. They'll probably want to see how deep a recession Australia is experiencing next year. Cheers Steve Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizg Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 Been having a look at the tracker re CPV applications and note there's already been a bit of slippage with the CO appointment now happening on average 14 months after application lodged. When I applied my lodged date was 24/6/08 and they advised they were dealing with applications lodged on 25/7/07 - just thirteen months later - JUST!!!! I fear that if they don't start increasing staffing levels this is only going to get worse. I did my first car boot last Sunday, nothing like getting prepared early - and early it was - had to get up at 4am and travel through thick fog to a place I'd never been to before. Little sis made £130 but I was really embarrassed as after paying site fees I only made £35!!!! Load of tat but it's amazing what people will buy. My sister was in hysterics when I put in a kitchem sink that I never got round to fitting - didn't want to take it home so I sold it for a fiver! (Cost £70 in a sale) SANDCH (I keep going to type sandwich!!) - just a little thing but when next updating you can highlight I am not using an agent. Re the spouse thing - I have a partner of 15 years I'm leaving behind - not married, not living together. If we decided we couldn't live without each other and decide to get married once I'm settled, do you think the spouse route would be a viable option?? LizG Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lizg Posted December 5, 2008 Share Posted December 5, 2008 A little addendum - I've just been informed we've been together 17 years - how time flys when you're enjoying youself!!! LizG x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.