Parent with only 1 of 3 kind in Oz

[Guest richy richy]

Hi guys - this post is fantastic and great to receive so much information.... :biggrin:

 

I have been on the DIMIA website, however have failed to find any solution or confirmation of my situation, however this forum may be the answer?

 

I live in Sydney (UK Citizen) and have 2 children here with me (now married in Oz). My mam has been here on a 12 month 676 visa and it is due to expire in June of next year so plenty of time - just looking into things at the moment....

 

Her situation is she has 2 children in UK and only myself in Oz.... She would probably like to spend time with both and come and go but it is very expensive with flights! My children are very young at the moment and she has been a big help to me and my wife and we were wondering options for her next year to extend.....

 

The options so far:

 

Another 676 - this was the second 12 month visa she had approved. In the last correspondence with DIMIA they advised we should be exploring alternative visa options and it would be unlikely another 12 months would be approved. We could get a normal 3 month visa but it is a lot of flying to and from and not what we really want..... She would like a long extended stay in Oz where she can come and go as she pleases.

 

Retirement visa - she is only 59 therefore not eligible - these also look very expensive.

 

Parent Visas (contributory) - not applicable as she has 2 x children in UK. Is there anyway around these restrictions?

 

I am at a bit of a loose end and see there are a number of very knowledgable people on this forum therefore I would be grateful for some input/feedback re options going forward. The DIMIA advised the following in the last 676 I applied for which makes me worry/wonder whether my mam would be granted another??

 

As stated in our previous correspondence, based on your previous travel history OR ( information held by the Department) and your intended period of stay in Australia, you should note that if you continue to use one or more Tourist Visas, including Electronic Travel Authorities (ETAs) and Tourist Visas (Subclass 676) to reside in Australia that you may not be considered to be a genuine tourist as stated above. Therefore if you wish to reside in Australia or continue to spend the majority of your time in Australia you may like to consider other visa options. Should you continue to use Tourist Visas to reside in Australia you should note subsequent Tourist visas applications could be refused or you may experience difficulties or delays on arrival in Australia.

Alternative Visa Options

 

It would be great if I knew what these visa options are - if at all there is any but the DIMIA did not assist - I would be grateful for any comments from the people on this post....

 

Thanks

 

Richy

[Guest guest36187]

HI,

 

Have moved this into a thread of its own. In long threads like the parent one, quesitons like yours can get lost amongst everything. You are looking for answers to definitive questions. Hopefully someone can help you.

 

By the way: Welcome to PIO

[Guest richy richy]

ok understand Joanne...... The other post looked good and full of knowledgable people, hopefully they'll take a look at this :biggrin:

 

Cheers

 

Richy

[Guest carolynr6280]

Hi

 

My mum is in the same position too so would be great to hear some replies on this thread. My mum only got a couple of months left on her visa so we need to act fast!!!

 

Regards

Carolyn

 

Hi guys - this post is fantastic and great to receive so much information.... :biggrin:

 

I have been on the DIMIA website, however have failed to find any solution or confirmation of my situation, however this forum may be the answer?

 

I live in Sydney (UK Citizen) and have 2 children here with me (now married in Oz). My mam has been here on a 12 month 676 visa and it is due to expire in June of next year so plenty of time - just looking into things at the moment....

 

Her situation is she has 2 children in UK and only myself in Oz.... She would probably like to spend time with both and come and go but it is very expensive with flights! My children are very young at the moment and she has been a big help to me and my wife and we were wondering options for her next year to extend.....

 

The options so far:

 

Another 676 - this was the second 12 month visa she had approved. In the last correspondence with DIMIA they advised we should be exploring alternative visa options and it would be unlikely another 12 months would be approved. We could get a normal 3 month visa but it is a lot of flying to and from and not what we really want..... She would like a long extended stay in Oz where she can come and go as she pleases.

 

Retirement visa - she is only 59 therefore not eligible - these also look very expensive.

 

Parent Visas (contributory) - not applicable as she has 2 x children in UK. Is there anyway around these restrictions?

 

I am at a bit of a loose end and see there are a number of very knowledgable people on this forum therefore I would be grateful for some input/feedback re options going forward. The DIMIA advised the following in the last 676 I applied for which makes me worry/wonder whether my mam would be granted another??

 

As stated in our previous correspondence, based on your previous travel history OR ( information held by the Department) and your intended period of stay in Australia, you should note that if you continue to use one or more Tourist Visas, including Electronic Travel Authorities (ETAs) and Tourist Visas (Subclass 676) to reside in Australia that you may not be considered to be a genuine tourist as stated above. Therefore if you wish to reside in Australia or continue to spend the majority of your time in Australia you may like to consider other visa options. Should you continue to use Tourist Visas to reside in Australia you should note subsequent Tourist visas applications could be refused or you may experience difficulties or delays on arrival in Australia.

 

Alternative Visa Options

 

It would be great if I knew what these visa options are - if at all there is any but the DIMIA did not assist - I would be grateful for any comments from the people on this post....

 

Thanks

 

Richy

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi richy

 

Welcome to Poms in Oz.

 

You mention 3 children. Did your mother give birth to all 3 of the children or is one of them actually a step-child, please? Step-children no longer count as "children" unless the Parent has formally Adopted the child concerned.

 

Assuming that your Mum is the biological mother of yourself and your two siblings then she does not meet the Balance of Family Test, as you have already been told. However I want to double-check the step-child possibility because the majority of migration agents give inaccurate legal "advice" when one of the children is actually a step-child. We very nearly fell prey to this example of gross ignorance and gross incompetence ourselves with my own mother in 2005, until I wrote to DIAC myself and resolved the step-child issue as far as my own mother was concerned.

 

If we cannot solve the Balance of Family Test with your Mum then what other options does she have?

 

You say that she is 59 years old. If so then she is eligible for an Investor Retirement subclass 405 Visa if she can afford it but an Investor Retirement visa requires the involvement of the State that the retiree intends to move to. I am pretty sure that NSW does not participate in the Investor Retirement scheme. The ACT does so, however, and it is perfectly possible to live closer to the ACT/NSW border than Canberra. The other advantage of the ACT is that the whole State is deemed to be "regional" Oz, so you are talking about capital of $1 million AUD and income of $50,000 a year rather than the higher figures that are required if the retiree wants to live in a metropolis such as Sydney.

 

Investor Retirement (Subclass 405)

 

I would think that the distance from wherever you live in Sydney to the NSW/ACT border would take about 1.5 hours in a car? That would not be ideal for child-minding, obviously, but as long as Mum had an address in the ACT there would be nothing to stop her from visiting you almost as much as she likes....

 

If an Investor Retirement visa is not possible, there is no reason why Mum should not become an International Student in Oz, attending whichever TAFE or Uni is reasonably nearby, teaches a course that is available for International Students and is something that she wants to learn. This option would enable her to do paid work part time during the academic terms and to work for as many hours as she and an employer might agree on during the academic vacations. That would help to defray some of the (high) tuition fees at least. Plus a Student visa would enable Mum to move to Oz 3 months before the start of her course and to remain in Oz until a couple of months after it ends.

 

Students - Visas & Immigration

 

As long as the course is approved by CRICOS for International Students, the only person who would care what subject Mum studies is Mum herself. DIAC doesn't care what she studies and she is too old for employer-sponsored skilled migration, so she could suit herself about which course she would like to study if she chooses this option.

 

It is not an uncommon option. Plenty of other British parents have used it and plenty more are doing so/will do so in the future. It is not ideal and it is not cheap either but it is a way of being close to their grandchildren for a few years at least. Additionally, it is an avenue via which a British Mum might meet an Aussie Partner. If that were to happen, Partner migration might become a possibility that would solve all other problems......

 

Failing both of the ideas above, another sc 676 visa would be cheaper than either of the options above. The wording of DIAC's stern warning is standard wording. DIAC is like every other Government Department, as well. Middle-ranking staff are the decision makers about visa applications. Some of them are dreadful little Jobsworths who take a perverse delight in being as obstructive and as obnoxious as possible. Other decision makers have far more self-confidence and they have lives outside of their jobs, so they tend to take a much more relaxed attitude when push comes to shove.

 

Even the Jobsworths can be swayed a bit by pleas about the beloved grandchilden. My own mother had several long-stay Tourist visas between 1993 and 2006 when her Contributory Parent visa was granted. There was really no denying that she was "living" in Australia, albeit not officially. In that time, we only came across one Jobsworth - a right little miserable git of a no woper working at the Australian High Commission in London - but even he relented when my mother was 83 years old and she pleaded with him about her two grandsons (her only grandchildren) in Perth. He'd have been a curmudgeonly little git if he had tried to do anything other than give in to Mum, imho!

 

With every other Tourist Visa for Mum, the Aussie decision-makers were absolutely wonderful and bent over backwards to help - understanding that Mum did not meet the Balance of Family Test, realistically she was too old to study anything in Oz and although she could just about have afforded the old Retirement subclass 410 visa, the figures were really much too marginal for that to have been a sensible idea. When the situation was explained to them, they shrugged and said sunnily, "Well, she obviously likes Australia, so good luck to her!" With that, they granted another long stay Tourist visa.

 

They are obliged to shove in the stern words but that does not necessarily mean that they will be enforced. It is merely a warning to your Mum that the words can be enforced and that if the next decision-maker decides to enforce them, there is nothing that you or your Mum can do to prevent it.

 

Does this answer your questions, please?

 

I would have replied to you on the Parents Visa thread as a matter of fact but by replying to you on this thread instead, hopefully Carolyn will see this answer as well.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest carolynr6280]

Thank you Gill for your informative post. Unfortunately we have no step children involved in our situation, so will have to wait until 2 out of the 3 children become permanent before mum can apply for CPV.

 

Your information has given us something to think about.

Many Thanks

Carolyn

[Guest richy richy]

Thanks Gollywobbler, that is a great response and given me a number of things to think about.......

 

In regards to step children - my mother is the biological mother of all 3 therefore this option is not available.

 

I will look into the study - but as you said with your mam probably unlikely at her age, although you never know?

 

I did look at the retirement visas however these are very expensive and require large asset/income which my mam does not have..... I also doubt she would likely live in ACT?

 

You did bring one point of note up re a partner - our next door neighbour is an elder scotsman (ozzy citizen hes been here for 40+ years) and they seem to be getting on really well :biggrin: what is the situation with a partner visa - do they need to be married/defacto? Is it hard at their age - he is 60+ years old and lives on his own next door..... Can you let me know what the visa is and cost - I will have a look on the DIMIA website, sorry to ask but I never thought of this option before:idea:

Thanks for the comments re the 676's, maybe all is not lost atm - maybe I will look into it a bit more closer the time. However, would she have tp go home for a certain period (ie 3 months or 6 months or longer?) or will it just be a case by case situation as you said......

 

Thanks for the info/post it was great and definitely helpful.

 

Look forward to further feedback.

 

Cheers

 

Rich

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Rich

 

I know very little about Partner migration. We only got involved with the idea that Mum might move to Australia in 1993. My father died in 1991, after which Mum was very upset and she was rattling about in a large family house that had become far too big for her on her own. I live in the UK. My sister Elaine has lived in Oz for the last 30 years, where she is married to an Aussie. My half-sister (Mum's step-child) also lives in the UK but she is not Mum's daughter. Mum was determined not to be a Wicked Step-Mother towards Ann, but Ann was 17 a few days before I was born and she never lived as part of Dad's second family. She had her own mother (Dad's first wife) so there was never any question of Mum adopting Ann or anything.

 

My sister's father in law, Eric, is single.... Two wives in a row have divorced him! Mum wouldn't have contemplated another husband after Dad died but in any case, Eric is such an unsuitable specimen that I haven't even been able to give him away for free to any Mum who needs an Aussie OH as a way around the Balance of Family Test. When Mums who have never even met him don't want him, I guess it is not surprising that my own mother, who knows Eric and knows what his children and both of his ex-wives all say about him, would not have considered any sort of Aussie Deal that involved Eric in any way! (I'm wondering about whether putting a price tag of $25,000 AUD on Eric might make him a less un-marketable commodity, actually.)

 

You live in NSW. In 3 of the Aussie States it is now possible to "register a relationship." I don't know any of the details except that NSW is one of the 3 States where this is now possible. I'm not interested in Partner migration so I rarely read any of the threads about it on Poms in Oz.

 

It is probably much too soon for your mother and the chap next door to want to think about registering their friendship as being any sort of a mutually exclusive, on-going, "serious relationship" but I suspect that it would be worth your own while to discover exactly what this registration is and what it is for (and what it would cost) just so that you know precisely what the story with it is. There is no need to discuss your findings with either Mum or the chap next door at this stage, obviously.

 

People tend to pair off when they are young. Everybody who is a bit older tends to know that young love often fizzles out so everybody is a little suspicious when a young couple suddenly say that they want a Partner visa for the non-Aussie half of the duo. DIAC tend to expect them to go to quite a lot of trouble to prove that they genuinely are "an item." If they have been co-habiting and all their friends know that they live together, it tends to send a "keep off the grass" message to any third party who might be eyeing up one of the couple and who might have made a move on the object of his/her desires were it not for the other member of the couple. Plus young couples tend to be paupers so it is reasonable to expect that the ownership or tenancy of their love nest will be in joint names, as will the utility bills, and it is reasonable for them to set up a joint account.

 

Once a couple are significantly older, like your Mum and the Scotsman, it is much less likely that they will do the same things as one would expect from a young couple. Both halves of an older couple are likely to have their own money and they have less reason to mix it via a joint account. It is probable that both of them have their own homes and that they can each afford to run their own home on their own. Even if they decide to shack up together in one or other of the homes, there is no great need to change the ownership/tenancy or any of the utility bills into joint names.

 

Plus it is extremely unlikely that the non-Aussie will confuse being smitten by a partner with being smitten by his/her own children and grandchildren. If an older couple are each secure financially, it is very, very unlikely that they would agree to live together for any reason other than a genuine wish to put up with the other one over the cornflakes every morning. Additionally, the older couple's relationship tends to be founded on genuine principles of friendship, not on the much less uncertain principles of romantic love. As my mother has continually harped to my sister and I from a very young age, "Don't marry your best lover. Marry your best friend." She is undoubtedly right.

 

So if anything, I would expect that an older couple would not find it anything like as difficult to convince a DIAC CO that they are together because they want to be together for the long term than it might be for a young couple to prove this to the same CO.

 

However I do not speak from personal experience, only from common-sense.

 

There is no legal requirement to get married or to express any sort of intention of getting married. With the divorce rate standing at over 50%, HUGE numbers of people have lost faith in the formal contract of marriage, including older couples. DIAC understand that perfectly well. I think, too, that DIAC would not have a problem with the idea that marriage might not fit in well with other dynastic plans concerning succession to one's estate when one dies.

 

Les Mighalls is a migration agent in Melbourne who is very experienced with Partner migration. He does not charge for 30 minutes of his time on the phone so I'd suggest that you phone Les and pick his brains foc.

 

http://www.migrationassistance.com.au/consultants.html

 

Les is British by birth though he moved to Oz many years ago. He is also a dentist by profession - he only became interested in the Law and in visas later on in his life. He must be in his 50s by now at least and he advises lots of couples about the options with Partner migration to Oz, plus he knows what "registering one's relationship" is about, so in your shoes, I would be inclined to have a chat with Les out of earshot both of your own mother and the chap next door.

 

If I'm wrong about the idea that an older couple might have an easier time with DIAC than a young couple, Les would be the man who could put you onto the genuine right track.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest true blue sue]

Hi Rich

 

I know very little about Partner migration. We only got involved with the idea that Mum might move to Australia in 1993. My father died in 1991, after which Mum was very upset and she was rattling about in a large family house that had become far too big for her on her own. I live in the UK. My sister Elaine has lived in Oz for the last 30 years, where she is married to an Aussie. My half-sister (Mum's step-child) also lives in the UK but she is not Mum's daughter. Mum was determined not to be a Wicked Step-Mother towards Ann, but Ann was 17 a few days before I was born and she never lived as part of Dad's second family. She had her own mother (Dad's first wife) so there was never any question of Mum adopting Ann or anything.

 

My sister's father in law, Eric, is single.... Two wives in a row have divorced him! Mum wouldn't have contemplated another husband after Dad died but in any case, Eric is such an unsuitable specimen that I haven't even been able to give him away for free to any Mum who needs an Aussie OH as a way around the Balance of Family Test. When Mums who have never even met him don't want him, I guess it is not surprising that my own mother, who knows Eric and knows what his children and both of his ex-wives all say about him, would not have considered any sort of Aussie Deal that involved Eric in any way! (I'm wondering about whether putting a price tag of $25,000 AUD on Eric might make him a less un-marketable commodity, actually.)

 

You live in NSW. In 3 of the Aussie States it is now possible to "register a relationship." I don't know any of the details except that NSW is one of the 3 States where this is now possible. I'm not interested in Partner migration so I rarely read any of the threads about it on Poms in Oz.

 

It is probably much too soon for your mother and the chap next door to want to think about registering their friendship as being any sort of a mutually exclusive, on-going, "serious relationship" but I suspect that it would be worth your own while to discover exactly what this registration is and what it is for (and what it would cost) just so that you know precisely what the story with it is. There is no need to discuss your findings with either Mum or the chap next door at this stage, obviously.

 

People tend to pair off when they are young. Everybody who is a bit older tends to know that young love often fizzles out so everybody is a little suspicious when a young couple suddenly say that they want a Partner visa for the non-Aussie half of the duo. DIAC tend to expect them to go to quite a lot of trouble to prove that they genuinely are "an item." If they have been co-habiting and all their friends know that they live together, it tends to send a "keep off the grass" message to any third party who might be eyeing up one of the couple and who might have made a move on the object of his/her desires were it not for the other member of the couple. Plus young couples tend to be paupers so it is reasonable to expect that the ownership or tenancy of their love nest will be in joint names, as will the utility bills, and it is reasonable for them to set up a joint account.

 

Once a couple are significantly older, like your Mum and the Scotsman, it is much less likely that they will do the same things as one would expect from a young couple. Both halves of an older couple are likely to have their own money and they have less reason to mix it via a joint account. It is probable that both of them have their own homes and that they can each afford to run their own home on their own. Even if they decide to shack up together in one or other of the homes, there is no great need to change the ownership/tenancy or any of the utility bills into joint names.

 

Plus it is extremely unlikely that the non-Aussie will confuse being smitten by a partner with being smitten by his/her own children and grandchildren. If an older couple are each secure financially, it is very, very unlikely that they would agree to live together for any reason other than a genuine wish to put up with the other one over the cornflakes every morning. Additionally, the older couple's relationship tends to be founded on genuine principles of friendship, not on the much less uncertain principles of romantic love. As my mother has continually harped to my sister and I from a very young age, "Don't marry your best lover. Marry your best friend." She is undoubtedly right.

 

So if anything, I would expect that an older couple would not find it anything like as difficult to convince a DIAC CO that they are together because they want to be together for the long term than it might be for a young couple to prove this to the same CO.

 

However I do not speak from personal experience, only from common-sense.

 

There is no legal requirement to get married or to express any sort of intention of getting married. With the divorce rate standing at over 50%, HUGE numbers of people have lost faith in the formal contract of marriage, including older couples. DIAC understand that perfectly well. I think, too, that DIAC would not have a problem with the idea that marriage might not fit in well with other dynastic plans concerning succession to one's estate when one dies.

 

Les Mighalls is a migration agent in Melbourne who is very experienced with Partner migration. He does not charge for 30 minutes of his time on the phone so I'd suggest that you phone Les and pick his brains foc.

 

http://www.migrationassistance.com.au/consultants.html

 

Les is British by birth though he moved to Oz many years ago. He is also a dentist by profession - he only became interested in the Law and in visas later on in his life. He must be in his 50s by now at least and he advises lots of couples about the options with Partner migration to Oz, plus he knows what "registering one's relationship" is about, so in your shoes, I would be inclined to have a chat with Les out of earshot both of your own mother and the chap next door.

 

If I'm wrong about the idea that an older couple might have an easier time with DIAC than a young couple, Les would be the man who could put you onto the genuine right track.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

Are you advising someone to enter into a sham marriage/de facto relationship to enable them to get a visa to Australia? You as a lawyer should know that it is illegal and if it's found out the person is likely to be deported and barred from entering Australia for 3 years.

 

It's the migrant's dilemma that parents and friends are left behind, but it seems to me that it should have been sorted before they migrated and not expect Australia to be the solution to a problem that it didn't create in the first place.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Are you advising someone to enter into a sham marriage/de facto relationship to enable them to get a visa to Australia? You as a lawyer should know that it is illegal and if it's found out the person is likely to be deported and barred from entering Australia for 3 years.

 

It's the migrant's dilemma that parents and friends are left behind, but it seems to me that it should have been sorted before they migrated and not expect Australia to be the solution to a problem that it didn't create in the first place.

 

Hello true blue Sue

 

What on earth are you wittering self-importantly about?

 

Please point to the spot where I might have advised somebody to enter into a sham relationship for the purpose of obtaining a visa for Oz in anything other than pure jest about my sister's father in law. Come on. You are busy being Holier than Thou so ruddy well either QUOTE my exact words or keep quiet, I firmly suggest. How DARE you make allegations of this type when you do not have a single shred of hard evidence with which to back them up? How dare you? So be quiet instead, I recommend.

 

Australia, for your information, is busily encouraging visas that might well be based on relationships that you in your self-opinionated wisdom might consider to be none-too-kosher.

 

Family - Visas & Immigration

 

Part of the reason for the change above is because it allows a graduate Student to apply for a Partner or other similar visa onshore in circumstances where the non-Aussie would otherwise have to go offshore in order to make the visa application.

 

Also, at the same time, DIAC were told to stop behaving like the actors playing the American Immigration Officials in the famous film called Green Card. It is very, very difficult to devise and apply any sort of objective test to a relationship that is essentially subjective in nature. If two people say that they care for each other and that they genuinely plan to stay together ad infinitum, who the hell are you or I to judge whether they really mean that or not? How do you define the term "mean" in this situation? With the DIAC officials trying to behave like little tin gods towards the visa applicants that they decided to interview, it was not rocket science to work out that somebody was going to sue the Minister for Immigration about a visa refusal based solely on what the junior tin god thought at the interview and the Courts in Australia would come down on the Minister like a ton of bricks if that ever happens.

 

Evans took the sensible line. He ordered the DIAC staff processing applications for Partner Visas to back off and to stop behaving like dreadful little Jobsworths doing overtime.

 

Partner migration also solves a number of Ministerial Headaches in the furore over the mess that the bloke made about how to deal with the backlog of GSM visa applications. If people have Aussie partners - which is not unlikely if the non-Aussie has been studying in Oz for some years - it is much, much easier for the Minister if the non-Aussie ex-Student quietly gets a Partner visa based on the relationship with the Aussie than having a situation where the Minister would love to refuse the GSM visa on the basis that the graduate has been studying Cookery at a college which is allegedly just a visa factory etc etc.

 

If he attacks the GSM visa application just because he doesn't like the way the graduate has been studying and he reckons that the purpose of the so-called "studying" was purely in order to get PR in Oz and then do something else, he runs the risk that the visa applicant will shout "discrimination" drag the Minister straight into Court and the Minister will then be forced to explain the real basis for his extraordinary action. If he does not explain that bit to the satisfaction of a sceptical, impartial Judge then the visa applicant will win the litigation, with both sides' costs being awarded against the Minister and being paid by the Aussie tax-payer, which includes yourself, I assume.

 

It is much easier and cheaper for the Minister if he simply turns a Nelsonian blind eye to the love-match and ignores any qualms that he might have about the genuineness of that relationship. The non-Aussie will only be granted a temporary visa for Oz anyway, so the relationship will either gel properly during the temporary period or the non-Aussie will have to leave Australia at the end of the temporary period anyway.

 

This pragmatic, sensible solution solves many more headaches than it causes.

 

If you believe that Governments ever do anything in genuine good faith then you are very naive and gullible, my dear.

 

In the meantime, I suggest that you become a solicitor or a barrister before you start trying to tell a lawyer how to practice the law. Your ignorance of the Law is obvious from your ludicrously black & white allegations, frankly.

 

Gill

[Guest true blue sue]

Hello true blue Sue

 

What on earth are you wittering self-importantly about?

 

Please point to the spot where I might have advised somebody to enter into a sham relationship for the purpose of obtaining a visa for Oz in anything other than pure jest about my sister's father in law. Come on. You are busy being Holier than Thou so ruddy well either QUOTE my exact words or keep quiet, I firmly suggest. How DARE you make allegations of this type when you do not have a single shred of hard evidence with which to back them up? How dare you? So be quiet instead, I recommend.

 

Australia, for your information, is busily encouraging visas that might well be based on relationships that you in your self-opinionated wisdom might consider to be none-too-kosher.

 

Family - Visas & Immigration

 

Part of the reason for the change above is because it allows a graduate Student to apply for a Partner or other similar visa onshore in circumstances where the non-Aussie would otherwise have to go offshore in order to make the visa application.

 

Also, at the same time, DIAC were told to stop behaving like the actors playing the American Immigration Officials in the famous film called Green Card. It is very, very difficult to devise and apply any sort of objective test to a relationship that is essentially subjective in nature. If two people say that they care for each other and that they genuinely plan to stay together ad infinitum, who the hell are you or I to judge whether they really mean that or not? How do you define the term "mean" in this situation? With the DIAC officials trying to behave like little tin gods towards the visa applicants that they decided to interview, it was not rocket science to work out that somebody was going to sue the Minister for Immigration about a visa refusal based solely on what the junior tin god thought at the interview and the Courts in Australia would come down on the Minister like a ton of bricks if that ever happens.

 

Evans took the sensible line. He ordered the DIAC staff processing applications for Partner Visas to back off and to stop behaving like dreadful little Jobsworths doing overtime.

 

Partner migration also solves a number of Ministerial Headaches in the furore over the mess that the bloke made about how to deal with the backlog of GSM visa applications. If people have Aussie partners - which is not unlikely if the non-Aussie has been studying in Oz for some years - it is much, much easier for the Minister if the non-Aussie ex-Student quietly gets a Partner visa based on the relationship with the Aussie than having a situation where the Minister would love to refuse the GSM visa on the basis that the graduate has been studying Cookery at a college which is allegedly just a visa factory etc etc.

 

If he attacks the GSM visa application just because he doesn't like the way the graduate has been studying and he reckons that the purpose of the so-called "studying" was purely in order to get PR in Oz and then do something else, he runs the risk that the visa applicant will shout "discrimination" drag the Minister straight into Court and the Minister will then be forced to explain the real basis for his extraordinary action. If he does not explain that bit to the satisfaction of a sceptical, impartial Judge then the visa applicant will win the litigation, with both sides' costs being awarded against the Minister and being paid by the Aussie tax-payer, which includes yourself, I assume.

 

It is much easier and cheaper for the Minister if he simply turns a Nelsonian blind eye to the love-match and ignores any qualms that he might have about the genuineness of that relationship. The non-Aussie will only be granted a temporary visa for Oz anyway, so the relationship will either gel properly during the temporary period or the non-Aussie will have to leave Australia at the end of the temporary period anyway.

 

This pragmatic, sensible solution solves many more headaches than it causes.

 

If you believe that Governments ever do anything in genuine good faith then you are very naive and gullible, my dear.

 

In the meantime, I suggest that you become a solicitor or a barrister before you start trying to tell a lawyer how to practice the law. Your ignorance of the Law is obvious from your ludicrously black & white allegations, frankly.

 

Gill

 

I really don't care what you 'firmly suggest'. This is not the first time you have 'jokingly' suggested someone marry to get into Australia, and not the first time you have given unhelpful advice. For someone who professes to despise Australia you seem hellbent on shoehorning as many people into here as you possibly can.

 

As someone who has had two family members having to prove to immigration that the relationships they were in were genuine I know what's involved and as someone who has read your suggestions to PIO members on how to get to Australia, about how the Liberal Party was going to win the election, how Australian universities and the immigration dept have the power to force another general election, I suggest 'my dear' that you stop spouting off about things you really shouldn't be spouting off about.

[Guest guest36187]

Can I suggest that we get back to assisting the poster rather than arguing amongst ourselves???

[Guest Gollywobbler]

I really don't care what you 'firmly suggest'. This is not the first time you have 'jokingly' suggested someone marry to get into Australia, and not the first time you have given unhelpful advice. For someone who professes to despise Australia you seem hellbent on shoehorning as many people into here as you possibly can.

 

As someone who has had two family members having to prove to immigration that the relationships they were in were genuine I know what's involved and as someone who has read your suggestions to PIO members on how to get to Australia, about how the Liberal Party was going to win the election, how Australian universities and the immigration dept have the power to force another general election, I suggest 'my dear' that you stop spouting off about things you really shouldn't be spouting off about.

 

Now listen, once and for all.

 

Do you actually believe that the ALP "won" the recent General Election?

 

Are you a lawyer or an RMA, even? Evidently not. I am not in Australia so I can say what I like. For you to start laying down the law about what you think Aussie Immi law might say requires you to be a Registered Migration Agent because your feet are on Australian soil, which my own are not.

 

I am a lawyer and unlike you, whether or not somebody else chooses to move to Australia is zero concern of my own. I am not trying to be a policeman or a Jobsworth. The Law says what it says. If what it says is not good enough for your liking then lobby your local MPs and see whether you can get the Law changed so that it suits you. THAT is the way to do it, not via your vigilante nonsense on here.

 

Every lawyer has a dog called Loophole, not a dog called Pest. Lawyers don't invent the Law - Parliament and the Courts do that bit instead.

 

A good lawyer does not stray into moralising, either. The Law has nothing to say about issues of morality. They belong to whichever religion the country in question happens to subscribe to. I believe that the moral code in Australia is the Christian one? If I am right then I would suggest discussing your own ideas about moral law with your local Man of the Clothes.

 

The fact is that with your idiotic witterings about what you think the Law might say about Partner migration, all that you are doing is revealing yourself to be a grotty little Jobsworth who apparently has no understanding of the fact that the Law is not black & white, as you seem to imagine. A Jobsworth with zero sense of humour who apparently fails to understand that if you are properly trained in the Law then the Law is actually several shades of grey, as a decent education about the Law would soon teach you. Read Austlii and the Migration Legislation in detail. Then come and tell me what you think they say. I've read them. You haven't, so do your homework properly before you start sounding off.

 

Now be quiet and stop interfering with this thread because nothing that you have said has any relevance whatsoever to what richy rich said in the first place.

 

Gill

[Guest richy richy]

Thanks Gill

 

I have taken your info on board - it is very helpful and I think I agree with the position the DIMIA would take in regards to an elderly couple - its not like they would be sharing bills or signing a joint tenancy etc..... The scotsman next door has been there for 20+ years so dont think he'd want to change anything in his name - he is seriously happy ticking along!

 

I would ignore the other poster - as you say they have not said anyhting constructive on my points.... although I have missed a lot on this post, where have I been :chatterbox:

 

I came onto the website to seek assistance as I'd looked into a number of facts/points and realised a parent visa may not be the easiest under her circumstances...... A partner visa therefore may be a possibility and the next door neighbour has fancied my mam since she got here haha!!

 

I will have a closer look into it and the 'registration' and let you know how I go.... Does anyone know how long you have to be together before u apply for the temp visa - i am thinking 12 months but not sure where I got that figure from???

 

Thanks

 

Rich

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Thanks Gill

 

I have taken your info on board - it is very helpful and I think I agree with the position the DIMIA would take in regards to an elderly couple - its not like they would be sharing bills or signing a joint tenancy etc..... The scotsman next door has been there for 20+ years so dont think he'd want to change anything in his name - he is seriously happy ticking along!

 

I would ignore the other poster - as you say they have not said anyhting constructive on my points.... although I have missed a lot on this post, where have I been :chatterbox:

 

I came onto the website to seek assistance as I'd looked into a number of facts/points and realised a parent visa may not be the easiest under her circumstances...... A partner visa therefore may be a possibility and the next door neighbour has fancied my mam since she got here haha!!

 

I will have a closer look into it and the 'registration' and let you know how I go.... Does anyone know how long you have to be together before u apply for the temp visa - i am thinking 12 months but not sure where I got that figure from???

 

Thanks

 

Rich

 

Hi Rich

 

DIAC produce a Fact Sheet that suggests that they are looking for 12 months' cohabitation.

 

However the business of registering relationships seems to be a State Government initiative. I know that 3 States are doing it. I am certain that NSW is one of them, fairly sure that VIC is the second and I think that the ACT might be the third although I am not certain about that.

 

I have noticed vaguely that registering the relationship reduces DIAC's demand to prove that the relationship has been on foot as more than just a friendship for not less than 12 months and I think it might do away with the need to cohabit but I am not certain.

 

Most grannies would choose to stay in the house where their child and grandchildren live, even if the man of the granny's dream only lives right next door. She can nip across the fence for a bit of nookie with him if she wants to, anytime, but most grannies will put their grandchildren first.

 

I know that the cohabitation thing is not always considered to be essential by DIAC but I do not know the details. DIAC suggest religious taboos but I am told that what they accept goes way beyond that.

 

Personally I don't believe that living together cements a relationship in any way. A few years ago I exchanged posts with a Norwegian man who was about to marry an Aussie girl. He said that he had received an impertinent letter from DIAC demanding to know what the "sleeping arrangements" were for this couple. I suggested sending a photo of a double bed with a detailed description about the bed.... The girl complained to her local Federal MP and he got DIAC to stop their impertinent, intrusive, irrelevant nonsense about "sleeping arrangements."

 

Australian Immigration Fact Sheet 35. One-Year Relationship Requirement

 

As with everything, if you try to set rigid rules about something so personal and so subjective as the relationship between a couple, it is inevitable that civil service Jobsworths with zero brains, zero common-sense and zero sensitivity will overreact to the"rules" and will then do a fair impression of the Gestapo in their misguided but zealous belief that this is what their paymasters and bosses require them to do!

 

I worked in the Civil Service in the UK for two miserable years a few years ago. Our little unit of about 6 people included a woman called Clare, who was the Jobsworth to end all Jobsworths. We were told to have a meeting amongst ourselves to decide how we would handle an outbreak of Bird Flu. (Privately I thought that my own solution would probably be to skive off at home, pretending to have been struck down, but still....)

 

Clare wittered, wittered and wittered some more. She was totally foxed by how the sick would be able to get sick notes from their doctors in order to submit them to the employer on time. She went on, and on, and on about this and we were simply wasting time in which everybody could have been doing some w-o-r-k instead. Eventually I chipped in and suggested that if the doctors were so busy that it was impossible for them to visit people in time for the people to produce sick notes on time, "no doubt HR will tell us what to do, Clare."

 

Stone the crows! It did the trick and shut her up! She kept saying, "Yes. HR will tell us what to do so there won't be a problem." I thought, "Thank god for that! According to this stupid document that we are supposed to be discussing, the staff in HR will all be lying in bed themselves, far too sick to turn up for work let alone to tell Clare what to do but shut up about that bit, Gill, or we'll all be in this stupid bloody meeting all day!"

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest true blue sue]

Now listen, once and for all.

 

Do you actually believe that the ALP "won" the recent General Election?

 

Are you a lawyer or an RMA, even? Evidently not. I am not in Australia so I can say what I like. For you to start laying down the law about what you think Aussie Immi law might say requires you to be a Registered Migration Agent because your feet are on Australian soil, which my own are not.

 

I am a lawyer and unlike you, whether or not somebody else chooses to move to Australia is zero concern of my own. I am not trying to be a policeman or a Jobsworth. The Law says what it says. If what it says is not good enough for your liking then lobby your local MPs and see whether you can get the Law changed so that it suits you. THAT is the way to do it, not via your vigilante nonsense on here.

 

Every lawyer has a dog called Loophole, not a dog called Pest. Lawyers don't invent the Law - Parliament and the Courts do that bit instead.

 

A good lawyer does not stray into moralising, either. The Law has nothing to say about issues of morality. They belong to whichever religion the country in question happens to subscribe to. I believe that the moral code in Australia is the Christian one? If I am right then I would suggest discussing your own ideas about moral law with your local Man of the Clothes.

 

The fact is that with your idiotic witterings about what you think the Law might say about Partner migration, all that you are doing is revealing yourself to be a grotty little Jobsworth who apparently has no understanding of the fact that the Law is not black & white, as you seem to imagine. A Jobsworth with zero sense of humour who apparently fails to understand that if you are properly trained in the Law then the Law is actually several shades of grey, as a decent education about the Law would soon teach you. Read Austlii and the Migration Legislation in detail. Then come and tell me what you think they say. I've read them. You haven't, so do your homework properly before you start sounding off.

 

Now be quiet and stop interfering with this thread because nothing that you have said has any relevance whatsoever to what richy rich said in the first place.

 

Gill

 

I'll keep this short, something you obviously have trouble doing.

 

The ALP won the general election by garnering over 50% of the vote. What part of that don't you understand?

 

I hope you read your briefs more closely than you read my post. I said nothing about MORALS or MORALITY, I said it was ILLIGAL for someone to enter into a sham marriage/de facto relationship to be able to get a visa to enter Australia.

 

I don't know what a 'jobsworth' is, it sounds Victorian England, much like yourself.

[Guest richy richy]

Thanks again - love the feedbACK.......

 

Will be conducting a bit of research and ring around on Monday - will let u know how I go!

 

Cheers

 

Rich

[Guest richy richy]

In response to earlier replies and the Partner visa I have looked into it and yes there is a lot of wor/requirements but I suppose that is in place to stop the bogus claims/visas!

 

Mam is considering her relationship and whether they could take it to the next level and "register their relationship" (which you can in NSW) or if they should move in together on a more, permenant basis.....

 

Thanks again for your help/ideas and I will look into the Prtner visa more if and when they decide tp go down this path. As you have previously said, I am unsure re requirements if both 60+ but advice I have received is they still need strong evidence to support they are financeially dependant on eachother. This is obviously hard as mam's income/assets etc are mainly from home and she doesnt work here so this may work against her......

 

Any ideas/suggestions re the DIMIA's approach to 60+ years old who are looking at a Partner visa and not working? I suppose it is more of a leisure/retirement visa but none of these are applicable as mam does not meet the age/birth children and assets/income criteria.

 

Thanks again

 

Rich

[Que Sera Sera]

I'll keep this short, something you obviously have trouble doing.

 

The ALP won the general election by garnering over 50% of the vote. What part of that don't you understand?

 

I hope you read your briefs more closely than you read my post. I said nothing about MORALS or MORALITY, I said it was ILLIGAL for someone to enter into a sham marriage/de facto relationship to be able to get a visa to enter Australia.

 

I don't know what a 'jobsworth' is, it sounds Victorian England, much like yourself.[/QUOTE]:shocked:

 

 

This post was set up to ask a specific question for the OP. Gill has done her level best (as she always does!) to help answer the question. She has been an enormous help to myself and many of my friends. I find that personal insults really horrid and pointless.:eek: