RRV form 1085 - understanding question 31

[billynomates]

Hi all,

 

Before my question, here's my situation:

 

• Got a permanent resident visa in 2010
  
• I left Australia to return to the UK to live in 2011
  
• I got an RRV in 2014 (granted whilst outside Australia)
  
• I got another in 2015 (granted whilst outside Australia)
  
• I plan to return to live in Australia before this expires, but will want to be in and out of the country for a few months to arrange matters and for holidays in the UK, so once I arrive I will need to get another RRV to be able to travel
  

 

 

I'm having real difficulty understanding question 31 on the RRV (Resident Return Visa) application form (http://www.border.gov.au/Forms/Documents/1085.pdf). The question is:

 

 

• Have you been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years or since the date you were granted your most recent permanent visa or since the date you ceased to be a citizen?
  

 

 

The available answers are:

 

 

• No
  
• Yes - Do you have compelling reasons for the absence?
  
  • No
    
  • Yes - Please attach a separate sheet describing these reasons, together with evidence to support your claims
    

   

   

 

 

I have got to Q31 by answering Yes to the question "Are you applying while inside Australia?", which will be true when I apply later in the year. The way I am interpreting this question is like this:

 

• Have you been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years, or
  
• Have you been absent from Australia since the date you were granted your most recent permanent visa
  
• Have you been absent from Australia since the date you ceased to be a citizen?
  

 

 

Firstly, do you think my interpretation is correct?

 

Secondly, if I am correct, then:

 

• No, I've not been absent for a continuous 5 year period since I've been back every year, so this is fine
  
• Yes, I have been absent since I was granted my most recent permanent visa (ASSUMING this refers to the most recent RRV). However, in someone else's case it could be that they'd just been away on holiday since they got the RRV, so why the need to provide evidence for "compelling reasons"? This is why I am having trouble with the question - surely I'm misinterpreting it?
  

 

 

Any ideas?

 

Thanks.

Edited April 25, 2016 by billynomates
Missed some info.

[Bungo]

It is not a trick question, take care not to overthink it or answer a different question. Take it literally, if you are asked if you have been outside Australia for a continuous five years then that is the exact question you need to answer and it should be easy to determine yes or no.

[billynomates]

It is not a trick question, take care not to overthink it or answer a different question. Take it literally, if you are asked if you have been outside Australia for a continuous five years then that is the exact question you need to answer and it should be easy to determine yes or no.

It's not the "continuous five years" part that's a problem (I've been back and forth a few times, so it's not a continuous 5 year absence) - it's the following "or" part I don't get. If I was applying from outside Australia the question is simpler:

 

• Question 28: Have you been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years or more immediately before lodging this application?

 

 

to which I can easily answer "No". I'm trying to understand question 31 though :-( since I'll be inside Australia.

[FTA]

I would say it is asking if you have been absent continuously since you last RRV. So the answer would be 'No'.

 

But I was under the impression that the first RRV is for 5 years. After this expires you need to give a very good reason why you have not been a resident in Australia during this time. And then they will only issue the RRV for 3 to 12 month intervals.

However you didn't get a 5 year RRV, so they don't like you very much.

You must have had compelling reasons during your previous 2 applications and I suspect they have not changed.

But you will be applying from within Australia which will help, might even bump your popularity up to 5 year RRV status:)

[billynomates]

I would say it is asking if you have been absent continuously since you last RRV. So the answer would be 'No'.

This was my understanding on first reading the question, but on re-reading, the first "or" makes it less clear (to me at least!). My suspicion is that the first "or" should not be there, in which case the question would be "Have you been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years since the date you were granted your most recent permanent visa or since the date you ceased to be a citizen?" and I would say your interpretation is then definitely the correct one.

 

But I was under the impression that the first RRV is for 5 years. After this expires you need to give a very good reason why you have not been a resident in Australia during this time. And then they will only issue the RRV for 3 to 12 month intervals.

However you didn't get a 5 year RRV, so they don't like you very much.

But you will be applying from within Australia which will help, might even bump your popularity up to 5 year RRV status:)

It's nothing to do with liking me! It's the rules - "Due to the change to the immigration regulations in February 2012, to be granted a Resident Return visa with a five year travel facility, you must have lived in Australia as a permanent resident for at least two of the last five years from the date of your application."

 

You must have had compelling reasons during your previous 2 applications and I suspect they have not changed.

My last two renewals have been online from the UK. The first one was granted very quickly with no details required. The second renewal they asked for evidence of substantial ties of benefit to Australia and proof of family unit status, both of which I gave easily. There's been no requirement to detail the reason for my absence.

Edited April 25, 2016 by billynomates

[billynomates]

I've possibly misunderstood what you said here:

I would say it is asking if you have been absent continuously since you last RRV. So the answer would be 'No'.

If I'm applying whilst in Australia (which is when this question comes up), then I can't have been absent continuously since I'll be in Australia and therefore not absent! Which is why I don't understand the question :-(

Edited April 25, 2016 by billynomates

[MaggieMay24]

The way I am interpreting this question is like this:

 

• Have you been absent from Australia for a continuous period of 5 years, or

• Have you been absent from Australia since the date you were granted your most recent permanent visa

• Have you been absent from Australia since the date you ceased to be a citizen?

 

 

Firstly, do you think my interpretation is correct?

 

Secondly, if I am correct, then:

 

• No, I've not been absent for a continuous 5 year period since I've been back every year, so this is fine

• Yes, I have been absent since I was granted my most recent permanent visa (ASSUMING this refers to the most recent RRV). However, in someone else's case it could be that they'd just been away on holiday since they got the RRV, so why the need to provide evidence for "compelling reasons"? This is why I am having trouble with the question - surely I'm misinterpreting it?

 

 

 

I would interpret it the same way. Yes you've been absent since you were granted your last RRV and you need to provide compelling reasons for them to issue you another one. This requirement is undoubtedly to prevent people from getting a new RRV every time they pop over for a holiday. Instead they want to know that you deserve the RRV so you need to provide evidence of having substantial ties to Australia.

[billynomates]

I would interpret it the same way. Yes you've been absent since you were granted your last RRV and you need to provide compelling reasons for them to issue you another one. This requirement is undoubtedly to prevent people from getting a new RRV every time they pop over for a holiday. Instead they want to know that you deserve the RRV so you need to provide evidence of having substantial ties to Australia.

However it's not "evidence of having substantial ties to Australia" that is required, it's "compelling reasons for the absence" which would seem to preclude a holiday?