Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Hi All I have had an upsetting e-mail today from a guy I have been chatting with for nearly a year. I regard him as a friend so I am devasted by his news. His & his wife's application for a Contributory Parent visa has been refused on the ground that their child (the Sponsor) did not have PR at the time when the application was made. She does have PR now but that is not good enough. For what it is worth, my personal view is that it will be quicker and cheaper just to make another application than to try to argue the toss in the Migration Review Tribunal. A Registered Migration Agent submitted the application. He is not ANY of the Agents who contribute to Poms in Oz. Parents and Children, please just be CAREFUL, I would say. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest newnico Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 But how did they even apply if their child didn't have PR? You have to provide proof of it with the application. Surely it's an absolute given? Though I do seem to remember another person posting saying that she and her husband were out on a temp visa and had applied before their daughter had PR, and I was baffled as to how that was possible. I'm sure most of us have read all the DIAC stuff until we are cross-eyed. I can't help feeling sorry for your friend, but equally very surprised at what seems like a basic mistake to make. And that any sort of agent wouldn't have spotted this is pretty poor. I really hope they apply again and are successful. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest newnico Posted April 14, 2007 Share Posted April 14, 2007 Gill, I knew I had seen a post somewhere from a person who had got a visa when their child had not had PR for 2 years. It's on the Other Forum, if you know what I mean, on the New Contributory Parents thread, someone called Averina. And the delusion seems to be spreading. I remain baffled, but curious. Check it out.....maybe I'm missing something. Cheers Nico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 Hi Nico The Sponsor MUST have PR at the time of the application is what it boils down to. As you say, that is abundantly obvious from reading the DIAC website. Unfortunately, not that many Agents in the UK have really solid experience with Contributory Parent applications but Go Matilda have done loads of them successfully, so they would get my own vote every time, plus Alan Collett is an accountant so he can help Contributory Parents to get their Tax and Estate Planning right. Domicile of Origin is difficult to shake off and that governs liability for UK Inheritance Tax. I think it is a two-pronged story for Parents and that the visa is the easier of the two prongs. In this case, the visa has been refused on a pure technicality - simply that the Sponsor did not have PR at the time when the application was made. However, that requirement is in the legislation and it is absolute, so it is impossible to "take a view" about it. The couple could try to appeal to the MRT against the visa-refusal but I can't see that working. Their UK-based Registered Migration Agent has loused the thing up. The POPC are TOTALLY sympathetic to the Parents and have suggested submitting a fresh application now that the Sponsor does have PR. Father has been talking with the POPC himself and he rang me last night. He says the POPC have told him that a fresh application would be given priority processing. If so then I reckon it will take another 6 months or so. As you know, it takes time to put these applications together. Then it also takes time for the Police, the Meds and the Assurance of Support. Six months out of a lifetime is not that bad but plainly it seems so to a couple with a brand new Australian grandchild whom they long to cuddle. I agree with you, Nico. The stuff you and I are both seeing does seem baffling. Averina says her daughter had only had PR for 16 months but she does not say whether her daughter had TR before that. Time on a TR visa counts in calculating whether or not the Sponsor is "settled" in Oz. In another family, there are 3 children. The Sponsor is an Australian Citizen so there is no problem there. The crucial child has a PR visa which he has validated but he does not yet "live" in Australia. A solicitor in Perth has submitted the application. Alan Collett and I are waiting to discover what happens. I think that could be another visa-refusal, but we will see... In a third case, the Sponsor is an Australian Citizen but he is also a drop-out. He lives on a boat and only does enough work to pay for his next sailing trip. Father (lovingly) describes Son as a "free spirit." I said, "No doubt but this 'free spirit' is going to be subjected to an income test by Centrelink, so how much does the 'free spirit' earn?" Apprently a friend of the free spirit has now agreed to be the Assurer after I convinced Father that their application is in a heckuva mess, so I am simply now praying that Plan B will stick to the wall. A TOTALLY INCOMPETENT Registered Migration Agent in the UK told this couple that there would be a Bond but that an AOS would not be required. Unfortunately, the state of this so-called "profession" (Migration Agency) is so incompetent and so dodgy that with very few exceptions, I am unable to recommend it to anyone. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptlabs Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 The Sponsor MUST have PR at the time of the application is what it boils down to. Gill, The sponsor needs not only to be an Australian permanent resident at the time of application for a CP visa, but the spnosormust have been a settled Australian permanent resident. The silly agent was mis-timing it by at least 2 years as it takes a permanent resident two years to be classified as "settled" (assuming the sponsor was a permanent resident at the time of application, which wasn't the case anyway). This is a "time of application" requirement in the Migration Regulations, so a challenge to the MRT won't help at all. Nothing can change a fact at the time of application, it's black and white unfortunately - you're either a permanent resident or not. This case, very unfortunately, isn't even about "settled". I would be lodging a complaint to MARA, if only the agent was an Australian based RMA... Moral of the story: Get an agent if you must, but choose wisely. This goes for any type of visa including skills assessments, and not only limited to CP visas. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptlabs Posted April 15, 2007 Share Posted April 15, 2007 I would be lodging a complaint to MARA, if only the agent was an Australian based RMA... I take that back, I misread Gill's post thinking the agent was an unregistered agent. MARA actually has jurisdiction over foreign-based RMAs, if a complaint is justified. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi Peter Thanks for replying. The two year idea is not set in tablets of stone. If you read the relevant bit of the Policy, it acknowledges that there may be exceptions to the general rule and there are a couple of MRT cases proving the exceptions. The POPC sre not moaning about that bit. The Sponsor has lived in Oz for enough time to be "settled", as the holder of a 457 visa initially, and time on the temp visa counts towards being "settled." But her Permanent Resident visa was not granted till some time after the Parents' application was submitted. She had applied for PR but had not received it by then. That is what has stuffed everything up. Apparently the Agent said it would be OK if the Sponsor's PR came later. The Agent is MARA registered but the MARA's powers are confined to fining him or suspending him. They have no power to recover the money wasted on the Agents fees, the visa application fees and obtaining the Police checks. Luckily the meds haven't been done. Since the Agent is in the UK, it will be necessary to sue for negligence. I reckon. But it would be an absolute pain to do that as well as complaining to the MARA plus putting another visa application together. The harsh reality is that inexpert "experts" usually get away with their blunders because the client doesn't want the hassle and distress of litigation on top of sorting out the original problem. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptlabs Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 The two year idea is not set in tablets of stone. If you read the relevant bit of the Policy, it acknowledges that there may be exceptions to the general rule and there are a couple of MRT cases proving the exceptions. The POPC sre not moaning about that bit. Hi Gill, Precisely my point - the 'settled' question can be argued, as you pointed out here. The 'permanent resident' question can't be: you must be a PR (and settled one at that) at the time of application, period. Not something the MRT can remit to DIAC for a more favourable decision. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi Gill, Precisely my point - the 'settled' question can be argued, as you pointed out here. The 'permanent resident' question can't be: you must be a PR (and settled one at that) at the time of application, period. Not something the MRT can remit to DIAC for a more favourable decision. Peter Hi Peter Yes, I do now see what you are saying about the futility of trying to appeal against this refusal. The POPC have not made a mistake. Peter, in a situation like this, where the POPC has invited them to reapply, would it be enough just to get the application form and the sponsorship form completed again and sent in with a new fee? Or would DIAC want fresh certified copies of all the supporting documents as well, please? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptlabs Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Peter, in a situation like this, where the POPC has invited them to reapply, would it be enough just to get the application form and the sponsorship form completed again and sent in with a new fee? Or would DIAC want fresh certified copies of all the supporting documents as well, please? Gill, The old application was a valid application (hence the fee was taken), but the requirements at the time of application was not met (sponsor not PR yet). I would imagine the POPC would have a record of all documents from the previous application, and if the applicant supplied the letter from POPC advising of the bad news, the File Ref No would be quoted there. With the File Ref No, one can imagine the POPC can retrieve all the old documents, and if they remain valid, a case can be made to simply re-use the old documents the POPC already possess. However, having said all that, why make life more complicated - I would simply resubmit all supporting documents if possible - the path of least resistance is probably the recommended path when dealing with DIAC in general. You may save a penny by not re-certifying documents, but you may lose a pound in causing further delays while POPC retrieves old records from the archives etc. Then there's a need to provide new documents (e.g. proof of sponsor's PR) which would then need to be matched with the old documents in practice. Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Hi Peter Thanks for this and I think you are probably right, even though it will be a pain for the couple to have to re-create the whole bundle again. As you say, it is probably going to speed up the process more if they just do the whole thing again. I will send you a PM. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ErmintrudeMcMoo Posted April 16, 2007 Share Posted April 16, 2007 Is there no recourse other than litigation for these people?? It seems madness that MARA has no real teeth in cases like this - emmigration is not cheap, some of these so called agents are playing with peoples lives through incompetence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Am following this thread with interest ... if nothing else it is probably worthwhile the failed applicant sending an email to the POPC via the generic email address - parents - at - immi.gov.au - to find out whether the original file can be re-used in a new application. As Peter says though, this may take more time than is desirable. As to less competent agents: make a complaint to the MARA. This seems to be a fairly fundamental mistake ... Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The.Colebecks Posted April 17, 2007 Share Posted April 17, 2007 Confused! :goofy: Our visa will grant us immediate PR so does that mean we could lodge a CPV immediately or we'd have to wait a certain length of time? Also, if I wanted to sponsor my Sister would there be a restriction on time in the country before doing so? Karen x Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 To lodge a CPV application there must be a child who acts as the Sponsor who is "settled" in Australia. "Settled" is usually interpreted as "has lived lawfully in Australia for 2 years and is a permanent resident or citizen of Australia." This requirement for the sponsor to be "settled" does not pertain in the case of relatives sponsoring for a Skilled - Australian Sponsored visa. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ptlabs Posted April 18, 2007 Share Posted April 18, 2007 This requirement for the sponsor to be "settled" does not pertain in the case of relatives sponsoring for a Skilled - Australian Sponsored visa. And I would just add that the Designated Area Sponsored (Provisional) visa has residence period and location thresholds for the intending sponsor. But the Skilled Australian Sponsored (138) visa, as Alan's mentioned, the sponsor only needs to be a PR (or citizen). Peter Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.