Thank you so much for this useful info! This is a brilliant thread. I'm applying for a 457 at the mo - planning to emigrate to Adelaide in May 2012 with my 5 yr old daughter and my mum, who's 64. We all live together and mum looks after DD while I work. I support mum financially i.e. pay her mortgage, bills, council tax, household costs as she can't afford this on her persion. I included her as a secondary applicant (dependent relative) on my 457 application but a few people on PiO said she would be refused. I'm still attaching all the docs to my partially lodged application and hoping that once that's done, we'll get a decision about whether my mum will be approved. If not, we were thinking about waiting until I can sponsor her on a CPV but goodness know how she'd afford that!
Originally Posted by casobelle
Your question crops up pretty regularly on the internet forums.
There is no firm guidance about your question. It always depends on the exact facts & details of the family concerned, the attitude and skill-level of the DIAC Case Officer who processes the visa application and it depends on the skill with which the applicants' case is presented to DIAC.
You might be able to get some tips from my friend Nigel Dobbie in Sydney. He is regularly voted as being one of the top 15 Immigration Law specialist lawyers in Australia, he helped a friend of mine in a fairly similar situation to yours, the type of research that was done beforehand was sensible and Nigel said he was pretty sure that he would be able to get an Aged Dependent Relative visa for my friend's British mother.
In the end, no visa application was made because the mother decided that she did not want to move to Australia permanently but that was her prerogative, obviously. However I felt very confident about the really solid, capable, intelligent quality of the help that the lady's daughter and I were getting from Nigel, so I think it would be well worth your while to phone him and chew the cud with him at this stage.
Are you and your mother British? It sounds as if you are, but please confirm.
If you are British, there is NO truth in the rumour that a British Parent is somehow "automatically barred" from being a Dependant just because there is a Welfare State in the UK. The criteria that DIAC actually consider are solely those described in Australian Law, funnily enough!
You want to get DIAC thinking along the same lines as the ones that the MRT considered in the case of Mrs Parr in 2008:
You will see that in that case, a lot of emphasis was placed on a report by the Institute of Fiscal Studies in the UK. The hyperlink offered doesn't work because it is full of careless typos. The correct link is below:
The 2007 IFS report has been superceded. I think the last one was in 2009 but a 2011 version might have been published by now. I live in the UK and I'm pretty sure that I saw something in the Press a couple of months ago that would tend to suggest that your mother would be living below the poverty line were it not for financial assistance from you. You need to check the IFS website and get the most up-to-date information but in your shoes, it is what I would do.
I'll send you a Private Message as well if I can. (You might have to make a certain number of post on this forum before it will activate the PMs for your account. This restriction is often imposed because otherwise spammers join these forums and bombard the members with PMs claiming that The End Is Nigh and suchlike!)
Thanks so much, Gill. I did get your PM and have replied to your e-mail address. Sorry if it's a bit long! Yes, we are British, by the way.
You certainly seem to know your stuff. The advice is greatly appreciated!
E-Petition to tthe British Government re Frozen Pensions
The ICBP is the International Consortium of British Pensioners. The BPIA are the British Pensioners in Australia, who are closely allied to the ICBP.
The ICBP have recently started an e-petirion about the Frozen Pensions issue. Please see the link below:
The link to the e-petition is at the top left of the Home Page.
The drill with e-petitions is that if they attract at least 100,000 signatures then the Back Bench Committee have to consider asking for a Parliamentary debate about the issue. Whem I addred my own name to the e-petition the other night, about 9,750 people had signed it before me.
According to the e-mail that I received from the ICBP, the Daily Telegraph are supporting the e-petition and a PR company called Champollion are trying to garner support for it too:
We need ALL the support we can get for this campaign - please, please, please.
For anyone who is not aware of the details, originally the British Government said that the State Pension would be frozen for all British Pensioners. They said it would only be uprated annually for British Pensioners living in the UK. Someone went to the European Court of Human Rights. The ECHR ruled that the annual increase must be paid to any British Pensioner living anywhere in the EU or living in a country that has a reciprocal Social Securyty Agreement with the UK.
The British and Australian Governments used to have a bilateral Social Securuty Agreement but that was terminated unilaterally by the British Government some years ago. So British Pensioners living in Australia do not receive an annual increase in their State Pensions.
In 2009, there was an Appeal to the Grand Chamber of the ECHR but the Judges ruled that the ECHR is not competent to make a ruling when the Pensioner does not live in the EU or in another country that has a reciprocal SS agreement with the UK.
The Australian Government supports the British Pensioners in Australia. They have been brilliant about expressing their unequivocal support.
Prior to the 2010 General Election, Calamity Clegg said that he supported the British Pensioners and would make noises in Parliament, would change the law if the Lib-Dems were elected and blah blah. Predictably, the silence from him has become deafening since he became the Deputy PM.
So - we have two different groups of British Pensioners - the Haves and the Have Nots. It is believed that about 250,000 British Pensioners live in Australia. All of them are Have Nots.
Your support for them would be very gratefully appreciated, I can promise. We need to get the number of signatures up to 100,000 minimum.
Last edited by Gollywobbler; 16-10-2011 at 12:35 AM.
Hi can I confirm I'm reading with info correctly please -
I have a 176 PR visa and my parents are looking at coming over.
If they come over on a tourist visa could they apply for an aged parent 804 visa (they are 67 and 71, and I only have 1 brother so do qualify) can they then stay in Oz on a bridging visa of some kind?
Thanks for any help offered x
Last edited by pixie7; 16-10-2011 at 03:14 PM.
Originally Posted by pixie7
Your Parents cannot apply for the onshore Aged Parent subclass 804 visa unless they are physically in Australia at the time when the APV application is lodged. In these circs, they would be given Bridging Visas that would enable them to remain in Australia lawfully until the outcome of the APV application is finally known. In this situation, they would not need further visitor or tourist visas.
It is not possible to get a Bridging Visa off the back of a visitor visa in the way that you imagine. One must apply for an onshore APV first because the APV application is the thing that gives rise to the Bridging Visa.
So they need to go to Oz first, apply for the APV whilst in Oz and then they can stay in Australia because of the Bridging Visas.
However they MUST NOT obtain visitor or tourist visas if the intention is to use those to enter Australia with the intention of making APV applications once they have arrived in Australia. There is no legal problem if people go to Australia and then genuinely change their minds about their intentions once they are in Oz.
However if someone turns up at an Aussie Airport and tells the Immigration Official, "Oh, I've come for the rest of my llife," the Offical will say, "Not on a visitor visa, you haven't, matey." The Official would have the power to cancel the visitor visa on the spot and send the hopeful Parent packing, out of Australia.
So it is very important that you should be absolutely clear about what everyone in your family should do and what they should think at the relevant times. There are no shortcuts to anywhere worth going to, as they say.
Last edited by Gollywobbler; 17-10-2011 at 11:24 AM.
Thanks Gill- was hoping you would put me straight- much appreciated!
Originally Posted by donnab
Gosh this is a difficult question!!! This is about my 10th attempt at a reply because I don't know where to start.
My instinct is that I wouldn't ditch your mother's application for a CPV 143. You could do it but you would feel terrible if she becomes ill before she is old enough to qualify for an APV 804 OR if DIAC decide that people are abusing the APV 804 visa and get stroppy about it before your Mum would be old enough to apply for one.
So in your shoes, I would stay as you are, to be honest.
Personally, I also suspect that APV 804s probably don't cost any less than CPV 143s in the end. I think that what happens with an APV 804 is that the same amount of actual money is spent - it is merely spent over a longer period, on other things besides the visa. Because of the longer period and the fact that it is more of a "drip feed" an APV 804 can be obtained out of cash-flow rather than out of capital.
I reckon that is the only real difference between them and I'll bet that DIAC's bean counters do their sums every year. If DIAC thought that APV 804s are genuinely "cheaper" than CPV 143s, it would have a negative effect on the demand for CPV 143s. The income from CPV applications is about $18 million a year at the moment, so DIAC are not likely to let that cash cow drop dead! Trust me, DIAC are not even slightly sentimental. Their abacus is never far from their fingers.
So they definitely aren't allowing the APV 804 route out of sentimentality. Therefore they must reckon that the sums are OK because iif the dosh is not being given to the Government in a lump sum, the same amount is still being spent in Australia so the winner is always the Aussie economy, I reckon.
Does this help?
Last edited by Gollywobbler; 23-10-2011 at 01:47 AM.
cpv 143 and APV 804 question..
"I think that what happens with an APV 804 is that the same amount of actual money is spent - it is merely spent over a longer period, on other things besides the visa. "
I assumed that once you get a bridge visa in this country, there are no other charges.. the visa even covers you for medical.. which is the biggest thing i can think of..
The aged person pension is of course a liability for the govt.. but thy become eligible after 10 yrs.
apart from this are there any other charges that anyone under APV 804 will have to pay during the processing of their visa.
can you please provide some details on this.
can you suggest some migration agents who can process these..there are just heaps on mara website.. and it's hard to choose.