Guest kimdownie Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Hi guys, been looking at parent contributory visas both temporary and permanent. I understand about the 2 year settlement period before we can apply for either, but I have read somewhere that it can take 15 months for the 143 visa, but the 173 can be quicker, if so how quick is this?? can anyone help?, also does anyone know, if the 2 year settled period is set in stone or can we apply sooner??:confused: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest koala12 Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Hi My parents are looking into the parents visas at the moment and it's all very confusing with lots of conflicting advice but Gill (gollywobbler) has been really helpful and given them some excellent advice for which we are all extremely grateful and appreciative. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Rachel&Stu Posted April 23, 2007 Share Posted April 23, 2007 Hi all! Would just like to echo what's been said - what Gill (posts as Gollywobbler) doesn't know about Parent Contributory Visas ain't worth knowing! Why don't you send her a Private Message? Cheers, Rachel:cute: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest newnico Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Yes, I second that! She's been incredibly kind and supportive to all of us in that position, as well as being a mine of information. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 24, 2007 Share Posted April 24, 2007 Hi All Your comments are incredibly kind and supportive but, as always, the truth tends to be rather prosaic! As far as I was concerned, my mother's application for a Contributory Parent visa was a hand-grenade with the pin pulled out. My sister told me airily, "We don't need a Migration Agent. You are a bloody good lawyer. You'll do instead. Get on with it, Gill." I thought to myself, "OK, sister, dear. Flattering words, no doubt, and your faith in me is as touching as it is misguided! The truth is that I am not Australian-qualified and my only knowledge of UK Immi Law is what I've read in the tabloids. The only area of Law that I actually KNOW anything about is Land Law in England & Wales - which couldn't be further removed from Ozzie Immi Law if we all tried....! I ain't got anything that could be described as a Meaningful Clue. However, Sister Has Spoken and whan she speaks in That Tone, I give in and obey her. So - the only thing for it is an intensive crash course in this topic until I am sure that I understand how it works." It is actually the most rickety possible basis from which to launch a visa-attempt, in my firm opinion! Not to mention the most worrying, too! Kim, the immediately-permanent CP 143 visa is taking 12-15 months at the minute. For most applicants it seems to be taking about 12 months. I've only seen one thread on the various forums where it took 15 months and that was because of a last-minute glitch with the Meds, mainly. According to Alan Collett not long ago, in a post I read by him on another forum, clients of his are waiting for about 10-12 months for the temporary CP 173. A LOT of the time-difference is down to the fact that there is no Assurance of Support at the Temp stage, ergo Centrelink do not get involved. For more info about that bit, please see here: http://www.gomatilda.com/news/article.cfm?articleid=391 Hiwever, my personal belief is that for the majority of applicants, it is probably safer to put up with the extra processing time and to go for the immediately-permanent one-stop-shop option of the CP 143. Cheers Gill PS I've done my best to correct all my trypos but at the minute my optician and I are at LOGGERHEADS and I am seriously contemplating murder. I keep geting bouts of conjunctivitis. I am convnced that the cause is that she has fitted me with contact lenses that do not suit my eyes, I am dosed up to the eyeballs with Paracetamol right now. I have an EXTREMELY sore eye. I have worn contact lenses since I was 17. I am now 50. Until the current lenses, I have never, ever had conjuctivitis. It could be the menopause and the "Contact Lens Cliff." It could be an incompetent Contact Lens Practitioner on the other hand. At the minute, though, I am tempted to nip round to the shop tomorrow for the purpose of killing the culprit........! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest newnico Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Gill, I'm off on a tangent here...The contact lens/sore eye thing sounds horrid. I've also been wearing them since my early 20s and am 60 now, never the slightest problem (gas permeable ones) despite doing awful unhygienic things like licking them to put them back in after I've got something in my eye. You definitely shouldn't be getting eye infections, and if it were me, I'd stop wearing the lenses for a bit to let them settle down. Not sure about the menopause bit, HRT has been a blessing. Hope you sort it out with your optician. Tell her we need you firing on all cylinders! Nico Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Hi Nico Yes - my current lenses are soft ones. I never had any problems with gas permeable lenses either until I went to the local optician in the village where I live. Nothing but hassle since and the idea of the soft ones as well is to give my eyes less stick but I reckon the soft ones are causing the problem. I think I'm going to go to the main Specsavers in Southampton because I've never had any problems with lenses supplied by them. In the meanwhile, I've just seen your latest post on the New CP thread on BE. I've sent you a PM which might help. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kimdownie Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Hi Gill, thanks for you input again:notworthy: regards Kim PS sorry to hear about your eyes!:sad: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted April 25, 2007 Share Posted April 25, 2007 Hi guys,been looking at parent contributory visas both temporary and permanent. I understand about the 2 year settlement period before we can apply for either, but I have read somewhere that it can take 15 months for the 143 visa, but the 173 can be quicker, if so how quick is this?? can anyone help?, also does anyone know, if the 2 year settled period is set in stone or can we apply sooner??:confused: HI again, Kim Now that I'm not trying to type with one eye screwed up in pain, I can read better as well! Are your parents retired? If so, they could go out to Oz on at least one long-stay tourist visa until you have been living in Oz for long enough to sponsor them for a Contributory Parent visa. Please see here: http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/tourist/676/index.htm If either of them is 70 or over, then before they apply for a 676 visa they would also need to get their own GP to complete a simple form of Medical Certificate, which is here: http://www.uk.embassy.gov.au/lhlh/files/0024A%5fMedical%5fCertificate%5fPro%5fForma%20%5f%20Over%2070%2epdf British Parents do NOT need private medical insurance in order to make extended visits to Oz on 676 visas. There is a Reciprocal Health Care Agreement between the UK and Australia which counts as medical insurance for British tourists aged 70 or over. IN practice, DIAC in London know this and do not make bones about it. Under the RHCA, Brits on holiday in Oz or visiting family are entitled to Medicare and the Pharmaceutical Benefits Scheme for any medical treatment that a doctor in Australia considers is necessary. In the event of a serious medical calamity requiring hospital care, the British tourist will be treated at no cost to the patient in public hospital in Oz. Frankly, the public hospitals in Oz are so much better than the NHS hospitals in the UK that I reckon Oz is a much safer place to be ill. The two year wait is a bit of a red herriing. What the legislation actually says is that both the child in Australia and the Sponsor of the visa application (often the same person) MUST be a settled Australian Citizen or Permanent Resident, or an Eligible Kiwi. (I've no idea what a Kiwi has to do to be Eligible.) The legislation uses the word "setled" but does not attempt to define what it means. This Immi legislation is backed up by Policy Documents. They are not Law. They are only Policies. Policy is that "setled" usually means "has lived in Australia for two years." Howevr, the real purpose of this Policy is to create a moratorium in which to allow the child in Australia enough time to decide whether s/he intends to stay there long term. I am told that far more British migrants return to the UK for good after less than 2 years in Oz than most of us realise. It is a sensible policy. There is no point in dragging the Parents out to Oz with indecent haste, especially on an expensive PR visa, if it then transpires that none of the family really want to live in Oz after all and would be happier back in the UK. Australia is very generous with long-stay tourist visas for British Parents, so again there is a LOT of sense in encouraging a delay before anyone tries to do anything which is life-changing. The 676 visa provides a first rate "try before you buy" option and ensures that family unity can be preserved during the "usual" two years. (Sorry to keep emphasisng British Parents, but it is next to impossible for Parents from some high risk countries to get tourist visas for Australia, whereas it is a doddle for a British Parent. I do not wish to give any nob-British guests on this site false hopes.) The Policy wording about what constitutes "settled" in Australia is pretty vague but it does say that it is only a general rule and that there can be exceptions to it. There have been loads of Tribunal appeals where this issue has been considered and the Tribunal has concluded that the relevant DIAC team were trying to apply Policy too rigidly and have overyurned their decisions. There are undoubtedly cases where it would be right to make an exception. THere are others where it would not be. If the Parents are fit, healthy and not botherd by air-travel, I'd be inclined to encourage a couple of long visits to Oz instead of jumping the gun with a Contributory Parent application. Once a Contributory Parent application has been made, a different bit of the Policy says that that Parent should be given a stay of up to 12 unbroken months in Australia almost "as of right" on an application for a 676 visa. A Contributory Parent visa is an offshore visa, so the Parents MUST be "outside Australia" when it is granted. However, there is no reason why they cannot spend almost all of the processing wait in Australia on a 676 visa and just nip to wherever is nearest (Singapore/Bali/NZ/Fiji) for a week right at the end of the processing wait, solely in order to satisfy the "offshore" reqiurement. My mother did this. She flew to Australia 3 weeks after I sent off her Contributory Parent application from the UK. She chose to return to the UK about a month before her CP visa was granted, so Mum's visa was evidenced in the UK. She went back to Oz about a month after the grant. My mother is very old, though (86.) We knew that she would be champing at the bit to get back to Oz once her CP visa was granted. We felt that it was best for her to spend a couple of months in the UK so that she could recover from one flight before making another etc. Loads of other CP applicants do the "Quick flip to wherever for a week", though. No two cases are ever the same. In some situations, I would encourage a completely different approach. Some people really do need an exception to the usual guidelines. Others would benefit more from sticking to them and working round them via long-stay tourism to "bridge the gaps." Does this help? Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.