The Brand New PIO Parents Visa thread

[ramot]

6 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

Don't forget the cross benchers ...

Best regards.

Will send more emails

[Alan Collett]

17 hours ago, SusieRoo said:

I guess this could happen as it's a minimum requirement. I think an even worst scenario would be if someone, who wasn't called early for their AoS, is now unable to obtain a visa. While others have sailed through under the old system.  

Consider an onshore applicant - eg subclass 804.

Lodged the application say 10 years ago.

Has now been asked to arrange the AoS.

Family can't meet the new income requirements.

Is the Government seriously suggesting that the elderly parent must now leave Australia?

This change to AoS income requirements is manifestly retrospective and ridiculous.    It surely can't survive in its present form.

Best regards.

[LindaH27]

@Alan Collett after doing some googling about AOS etc I’ve just read your blog of 6/10/16! You said then that you thought there would be an increase in charges but obviously this big jump in income for AOS wasn’t anticipated. One of the govt suggestions then was for a temporary visa for say 5 years. That was introduced last year but has never been ratified. What is the expected outcome for this visa?  If it is implemented then if delays in processing carry on would an applicant be able to get one of these whilst waiting for 143 to allow a parent to live legally in Australia  without jeopardising 143? 

It is obvious that the govt has been wanting to tinker with visas for parents for a while but I suspect most agents (as you suggested) thought the fees themselves would be increased - this AOS income increase requirement came out of the blue. Have any  visa changes in the past become effective immediately or have retrospective applicants been allowed under old rules ? 

i believe they stopped one type of visa then reinstated it months later. Another post mentioned that this AOS requirement goes before parliament/ senate on 8 May -  is this happening and could the increase be ratified to allow retrospective protection? 

[Fisher1]

10 hours ago, Skeelsy said:

 

Ditto ditto and ditto. We wished gone straight for 143 but money just wouldn’t work to it. Since granted 173 we have lived and worked here full time. We applied after about 18 months as soon as we knew money was in the bank to do it.  We applied whilst in Australia and can be granted on shore  

Really has been a ‘ducking and diving’ experience as haven’t sold house back in uk and so haven’t got a lot of equity to access but we have managed. 

I was horrified to see waiting time gone from 3 months to over a year when we applied to convert.  I get the new way for aos - I think. It’s just circumstances has turned our ‘that’s all covered’ in terms of requirements for aos to ‘OMG’ what are we going to do. My girls are on maternity leave, and one hubby is assurer for his parents etc etc. They are only so many people you can go to for such a big commitment. Our bad luck that whos available just doesn’t work even with 3 assurers because partners have to be included. 

Worst thing is in June we have to go onti bridging visas which gives you same rights but not really  - as a contractor my husband is ignored as they see temp visa and don’t understand who it works. My son who came with us on application tried to buy a car yesterday and was rejected as 173 runs out in June and he wanted small loan to be able to afford it. Medicare is cancelled from June and we gave to go back on reciprocal etc etc - and to think we could be 6 + months at least on bridging us nightmare. We have to pay to swop to b type of bridging as given a type which means you can leave Australia but then can’t return until 143 granted. B type let’s you travel and return which we have to pay to switch but need as mother in law very very ill and we will need to go back to uk most likely with little notice. 

Hopefully my rant has been useful in some way Kim

I dont know if this will help, but my daughter was our assurer (at the old rate). She was on mat leave at the time, and got her income counted by submitting a statement from her accountant stating her 'usual' income.

[Skeelsy]

Thanks fisher1. Unfortunately you now have to have 2 years tax returns plus latest 2 pay slips to verify and appears now won’t accept anything less

[SusieRoo]

14 hours ago, Skeelsy said:

 

Ditto ditto and ditto. We wished gone straight for 143 but money just wouldn’t work to it. Since granted 173 we have lived and worked here full time. We applied after about 18 months as soon as we knew money was in the bank to do it.  We applied whilst in Australia and can be granted on shore  

Really has been a ‘ducking and diving’ experience as haven’t sold house back in uk and so haven’t got a lot of equity to access but we have managed. 

I was horrified to see waiting time gone from 3 months to over a year when we applied to convert.  I get the new way for aos - I think. It’s just circumstances has turned our ‘that’s all covered’ in terms of requirements for aos to ‘OMG’ what are we going to do. My girls are on maternity leave, and one hubby is assurer for his parents etc etc. They are only so many people you can go to for such a big commitment. Our bad luck that whos available just doesn’t work even with 3 assurers because partners have to be included. 

Worst thing is in June we have to go onti bridging visas which gives you same rights but not really  - as a contractor my husband is ignored as they see temp visa and don’t understand who it works. My son who came with us on application tried to buy a car yesterday and was rejected as 173 runs out in June and he wanted small loan to be able to afford it. Medicare is cancelled from June and we gave to go back on reciprocal etc etc - and to think we could be 6 + months at least on bridging us nightmare. We have to pay to swop to b type of bridging as given a type which means you can leave Australia but then can’t return until 143 granted. B type let’s you travel and return which we have to pay to switch but need as mother in law very very ill and we will need to go back to uk most likely with little notice. 

Hopefully my rant has been useful in some way Kim

Very sorry to hear how unfairly you have been affected by the changes to AoS. I’m sure you are not alone and there must be hundreds of parents on 173 and 804 visas going though the same experience. Australians are good and decent people and I have no doubt, with enough exposure, this situation will be rectified (please everyone keep sending emails and letters).

Here in the UK, the news has been dominated by the shameful treatment of the Windrush immigrants. And at the same time we had all the Commonwealth heads of government meeting in London.

Malcolm Turnbull has just witnessed a humiliated Theresa May having to apologise and seen her squirming as the media reveal the awful truth. It turns out that the Home Office (under Theresa May) created a ‘hostile environment’ for immigrants and refused to listen to the concerns many had raised.

I can’t help thinking this will reverberate with Australian politicians when considering immigrants caught up their own disgraceful AoS situation.

The phrase ‘Hostile Environment’ seems to have struck a cord in the uk and is shaping public opinion into associating this negative label with Theresa May.

Many people on this forum are now writing to Australian MPs about the changes to AoS. I wonder if including the words ‘Hostile Environment’ and ‘Peter Dutton’ would also be beneficial.

[Fisher1]

4 hours ago, Skeelsy said:

Thanks fisher1. Unfortunately you now have to have 2 years tax returns plus latest 2 pay slips to verify and appears now won’t accept anything less

Disgusting situation. I just hope that, like the decision to discontinue the 103 visa a few years ago, that they think better of it. 

[Tulip1]

On 20/04/2018 at 14:22, Zaki said:

until PR holder doesn't become settled PR holder he/she could not sponsor anyone and it takes around a year to be

Edited April 21, 2018 by Tulip1

[Kelly065]

On 20/4/2018 at 08:41, Tidang said:

Hi who can help me guess the process of my application Im very need to know this Please help me. 

1 . CPV lodgement 26.03.2015

2. Invation to commence document 21.10.2017

3. Request for documents 29.1.2018

4. AOS paid 9.4.2018

5. AOS acceptance letter ?

6 2nd VAC payment ? 

7 Visa granted ? 

I just know all of this because my sister do it . My sister get stuck in AOS about 4 months so howlong i get 2nd vac request . I see some application get 1 months to get 2nd payment and the others get about three months. Im so nervous because im dependent child whether i can fail and i have submit all of documents to prove i depent on my parents ( school fee, clothing recepit and i have study full time up to now) and how can i contact to immigration department to know my processing time    . 

Im sorry because im reply this

Anyone sign the petition about Change Of Assurance OF Support Legislation Of Contributory Parent Visa . Please ....

https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-social-service-change-of-assurance-of-support-legislation-of-contributory-parent-visa-petition?recruiter=870995824&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.nafta_share_post_interaction.notify&utm_content=ex85%3Av3

[Kelly065]

Anyone sign and share all group about Visa 143/173.

https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-social-service-change-of-assurance-of-support-legislation-of-contributory-parent-visa-petition?recruiter=870995824&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.nafta_share_post_interaction.notify&utm_content=ex85%3Av3

[LindaH27]

Please read this 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/April/Assurance_of_Support_changes

change to AOS can be disallowed under motion  by senate or House of Representatives. 

One shocker of a statistic is this ...

“The changes may reduce the number of applicants for affected visa categories. There is currently strong demand for the limited number of parent visa places resulting in potential wait times of more than six years for Contributory Parent visas and more than 36 years for Non-Contributory Parent visas (based on 2016–17 statistics). In 2016–17, there were 6,218 Contributory Parent places granted and 1,345 Non-Contributory Parent places granted. As at 30 June 2017, there were 38,508 clients in the Contributory Parent ‘pipeline’ awaiting a place, and 49,735 clients in the Non-Contributory Parent pipeline. Contributory Parent visa applicants pay higher fees in exchange for shorter processing periods.”

 

Six years???!!!

[Skeelsy]

6 hours ago, Kelly065 said:

Im sorry because im reply this

Anyone sign the petition about Change Of Assurance OF Support Legislation Of Contributory Parent Visa . Please ....

https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-social-service-change-of-assurance-of-support-legislation-of-contributory-parent-visa-petition?recruiter=870995824&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.nafta_share_post_interaction.notify&utm_content=ex85%3Av3

 

[Skeelsy]

All our family and friend signed/signing petition. Up to over 90k signatures this morning Kim 

[Mrs Depp]

If there's a set quota of 143 visas per year, it would be nice if the dept could explain why the timeframe for the grant keeps getting pushed further out.  

The way it's going, some people's medicals and police checks will have expired by the time the 2nd VAC is requested.

Happy to take the money but it's like dealing with the secret service sometimes and they come across as very arrogant, they seem to forget that everyone who is sat in this queue are eligible and have followed the criteria that they set. To be left in the dark like this is disgusting! 

Rant over! 

[ramot]

7 hours ago, Kelly065 said:

Anyone sign and share all group about Visa 143/173.

https://www.change.org/p/minister-for-social-service-change-of-assurance-of-support-legislation-of-contributory-parent-visa-petition?recruiter=870995824&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=psf_combo_share_initial.nafta_share_post_interaction.notify&utm_content=ex85%3Av3

864 visas as well.

Another obvious reason to sign is that although your assurers might fulfill the new amount needed now. Their financial situation might not be the same in 2/3 years time. 

Please everyone sign even if it doesn't affect you.

[Alan Collett]

2 hours ago, Mrs Depp said:

If there's a set quota of 143 visas per year, it would be nice if the dept could explain why the timeframe for the grant keeps getting pushed further out.  

The way it's going, some people's medicals and police checks will have expired by the time the 2nd VAC is requested.

Happy to take the money but it's like dealing with the secret service sometimes and they come across as very arrogant, they seem to forget that everyone who is sat in this queue are eligible and have followed the criteria that they set. To be left in the dark like this is disgusting! 

Rant over! 

It has been made clear in the last couple of weeks that the number of visas published in the migration program at the time of the annual Federal Budget is a ceiling, not a target.

What we are seeing now - ie inaction on visa processing at the PVC - is a manifestation of that principle.

I agree that the lack of transparency does the nation no credit.

Best regards.

[Alan Collett]

4 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

Please read this 

https://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliament/Parliamentary_Departments/Parliamentary_Library/FlagPost/2018/April/Assurance_of_Support_changes

change to AOS can be disallowed under motion  by senate or House of Representatives. 

One shocker of a statistic is this ...

“The changes may reduce the number of applicants for affected visa categories. There is currently strong demand for the limited number of parent visa places resulting in potential wait times of more than six years for Contributory Parent visas and more than 36 years for Non-Contributory Parent visas (based on 2016–17 statistics). In 2016–17, there were 6,218 Contributory Parent places granted and 1,345 Non-Contributory Parent places granted. As at 30 June 2017, there were 38,508 clients in the Contributory Parent ‘pipeline’ awaiting a place, and 49,735 clients in the Non-Contributory Parent pipeline. Contributory Parent visa applicants pay higher fees in exchange for shorter processing periods.”

 

Six years???!!!

It was manifestly obvious many years ago that a problem with the parent visa program was in the offing - the skilled program was stepped up markedly, creating a scenario where more parents would be eligible for visas.

And the Government did nothing.

Until now, when it decides to introduce legislation with retrospective effect.

Is anyone surprised there is so much contempt for our elected representatives?

Onwards!

[Skeelsy]

My son posted this on Facebook and it’s being shared by lots of people so proud of him being so proactive 

[Alan Collett]

19 hours ago, LindaH27 said:

@Alan Collett after doing some googling about AOS etc I’ve just read your blog of 6/10/16! You said then that you thought there would be an increase in charges but obviously this big jump in income for AOS wasn’t anticipated. One of the govt suggestions then was for a temporary visa for say 5 years. That was introduced last year but has never been ratified. What is the expected outcome for this visa?  If it is implemented then if delays in processing carry on would an applicant be able to get one of these whilst waiting for 143 to allow a parent to live legally in Australia  without jeopardising 143? 

It is obvious that the govt has been wanting to tinker with visas for parents for a while but I suspect most agents (as you suggested) thought the fees themselves would be increased - this AOS income increase requirement came out of the blue. Have any  visa changes in the past become effective immediately or have retrospective applicants been allowed under old rules ? 

i believe they stopped one type of visa then reinstated it months later. Another post mentioned that this AOS requirement goes before parliament/ senate on 8 May -  is this happening and could the increase be ratified to allow retrospective protection? 

 

Hi LindaH.

The Australian Government funds itself on the horns of a dilemma.

Clearly the number of people applying for parent visas is way in excess of the number of visas available each year.

Even with a given number of visas available for each program year the number is now seen as a ceiling rather than a target.   We are already aware of a shortfall in parent visa gramts for 2016/17.   I dare say we are looking at the same for 2017/18.

Processing times for parent visas have blown out massively in the last couple of years.

So what does the Federal Government do?   Outrageously (IMHO) it introduces legislation to increase the AoS income requirement with retrospective effect.

It has legislation apparently needed - though it is not clear why - to introduce a temporary parent visa stuck in the Senate.

This legislation pertains to domestic violence and the need for greater check on sponsors of family visas.

As if sponsors are going to commit d/v against their parents.  

Dysfunctional?   You couldn't make it up.

I'll keep a look out for any disallowance motion in respect of the recent AoS instrument.

Best regards.

 

[Alan Collett]

26 minutes ago, Skeelsy said:

My son posted this on Facebook and it’s being shared by lots of people so proud of him being so proactive 

I humbly suggest that time is best spent writing to Senators in an effort to have the instrument disallowed.

Best regards.

[Mrs Depp]

52 minutes ago, Alan Collett said:

It has been made clear in the last couple of weeks that the number of visas published in the migration program at the time of the annual Federal Budget is a ceiling, not a target.

What we are seeing now - ie inaction on visa processing at the PVC - is a manifestation of that principle.

I agree that the lack of transparency does the nation no credit.

Best regards.

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your response and I understand that but when people are lodging their application with a timeframe of 18mths to 2yrs to now be around 40mths and possibly extending further to more than 6yrs. It's just seems a bit rich to be taking money from people and giving them no information other than a system generated email hat isn't really personal to their application.

My parents were asked for a couple of updates to their Form 80 at the beginning of March then absolutely nothing since. Judging by most on here they were very lucky to hear from them but it's really sad that people are getting fobbed off with generic emails when they'v been patiently waiting for a lot longer than they expected.

Still we've waited this long let's hope the wait isn't tpo much longer now.

Cheers.

[Alan Collett]

1 minute ago, Mrs Depp said:

Hi Alan,

Thanks for your response and I understand that but when people are lodging their application with a timeframe of 18mths to 2yrs to now be around 40mths and possibly extending further to more than 6yrs. It's just seems a bit rich to be taking money from people and giving them no information other than a system generated email hat isn't really personal to their application.

My parents were asked for a couple of updates to their Form 80 at the beginning of March then absolutely nothing since. Judging by most on here they were very lucky to hear from them but it's really sad that people are getting fobbed off with generic emails when they'v been patiently waiting for a lot longer than they expected.

Still we've waited this long let's hope the wait isn't tpo much longer now.

Cheers.

Long ago I realised that fairness and equity are attributes one cannot use when describing Government Departments in the UK or in Australia.

Decisions are usually driven by political imperatives.

All one can reasonably do as a concerned and annoyed member of the public is make oneself a nuisance and seek to persuade those in a position to influence change.

Write to your MP and Senators.   

Find journalists who write or who appear ion TV/radio on matters pertaining to migration - and contact them.   Peter Mares is a name that springs to mind.

Don't post on here - send emails and letters!

Best regards.

[Kipper99]

1 hour ago, Alan Collett said:

It has been made clear in the last couple of weeks that the number of visas published in the migration program at the time of the annual Federal Budget is a ceiling, not a target.

What we are seeing now - ie inaction on visa processing at the PVC - is a manifestation of that principle.

I agree that the lack of transparency does the nation no credit.

Best regards.

Alan

 

So you think the cap has been reached for the year and it will not start moving again until 1/7/2018 ?

[Mrs Depp]

1 hour ago, Alan Collett said:

Long ago I realised that fairness and equity are attributes one cannot use when describing Government Departments in the UK or in Australia.

Decisions are usually driven by political imperatives.

All one can reasonably do as a concerned and annoyed member of the public is make oneself a nuisance and seek to persuade those in a position to influence change.

Write to your MP and Senators.   

Find journalists who write or who appear ion TV/radio on matters pertaining to migration - and contact them.   Peter Mares is a name that springs to mind.

Don't post on here - send emails and letters!

Best regards.

Thanks Alan,

I've just sent a message to Peter.

[Alan Collett]

1 hour ago, Kipper99 said:

Alan

 

So you think the cap has been reached for the year and it will not start moving again until 1/7/2018 ?

There is no cap - there is a ceiling.

No, I don't think the ceiling has been reached.

Rather, I think the Government/the Minister has a desire to see the total number of visas granted for 2017/18 come in under the ceiling so he can demonstrate action is being taken in response to "the concerns of the Australian public" about the liveability of Sydney and Melbourne, and population growth.

This is manifesting itself in a marked slowing of visa grants.

You may call me a cynic, but I follow which way the political wind is blowing - and it is in favour of reduced migration presently.

No politician with ambitions - at least none these days - is going to disregard concerns raised by opinion polls.   The days of conviction politicians seem to be long gone.

Best regards.