Login / Join
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5838
- 2 Comments
High VAC charges leading to more partner visa refusals
There are suggestions that the increased costs in Visa Application Charges (VAC) are forcing partner visa applicants to attempt what can be a complicated application process without any professional assistance. This, according to Robyn Oyeniyi is leading to a greater number of partner visa refusals.
"I have heard it said many applications prepared by the couple without professional guidance/assistance are manifestly inadequate and lead to refusals. This alone is often why a later professionally prepared appeal is successful.” says Robyn Oyeniyi, a prominent human rights campaigner and author of the book, Love versus Goliath.
“Perhaps the increase in refusals is due to an increase in couples preparing their own applications and I suggest this may well be driven by the increase in Partner Visa Fees.
Couples struggling to meet the budget …may well decide to do their application themselves to save the professional fees. Of course, this becomes self-defeating as then they are left with the additional costs of an appeal process,” she notes in her blog.
Offshore applications especially from ‘high risk' countries; the couples age differentials; and relationships that are under 3 years are often cited as the key reasons for refusals. The onus is on the applicant to convince the decision-maker with compelling evidence that there is a ‘genuine relationship’.
Accordingly, the inability of applicants to present convincing applications has resulted in more refusals but she notes that while the number of MRT appeals are increasing, there has however been a fall in the proportion of visa refusals being appealed (compared to application numbers): “For the last three years (ended June 30, i.e. excluding the current part year) the percentage has dropped: 23% down to 18% then down to 17%. Is the drop from 23% to 18% linked directly to the fee increases? Couples just don’t have the money left to fight?"
Immigration blog
Fee increases always impact on people's choices to get professional advice or not - we can't change that. However, I totally agree with the author of the book - most clients (not just for partner visas) find it prohibitive to budget for over $10k for a permanent visa... And that's for applications void of the complexities cited in the article. The figures from the MRT in terms of decrease in numbers of partner visas for merits review? It may very well be that there are no funds left to fight after a refusal for a long standing application. It could also be that some clients decide it would be probably quicker and cheaper to re-apply by taking into considerations the reasons for refusal. Anecdotal evidence also shows that this is the advice given to many applicants overseas after a refusal. This road does not necessarily lead to saving money and people eventually give up. Who loses? Everyone except DIPB.
I end up dealing with a lot of botched up (innocently or otherwise) partner visa refusals which then require backtracking and further documenting in a tribunal hearing, taking anything between 18-24 months to happen, if we're lucky. All well and good if the applicant is in Australia, but often fatal for relationships overseas which need to deal with the angst of the refusal and the tyranny of distance and time - I am not sure what the figures are for 'refused' partner visa applicants-come-MRT-applicants to travel to OZ as visitors and spend some time with sponsors who can’t afford to travel overseas every year – I suspect not a lot of those are approved and if they are, we can get an idea of what countries are likely to be advantageously or most disadvantageously profiled...
Another point, about the high rates of refusals for onshore partner applications should concern us because if, for whatever reason, the relationship breaks down on the merits review queue - even if there are children born while-one-waits , ministerial intervention requests for refused partner visas, no matter how deserving these may be, almost always don't get a look (because of the Ministerial guidelines) and I am not sure whether this an unintended consequence of the regulation or whether this is intentional, thought up by some obscure and horribly sociopathic person hiding in some corner in the policy unit somewhere in DIPB land... THAT's a really important issue to tackle and raise as a valid one along with those in the article and in the book.
But getting back to the main issue of this blog and the book, which I commend to everyone to read: (http://teamoyeniyi.com/to-buy-love-versus-goliath/) is that the Australian government doesn’t care if you’re an ozzie and marry and divorce 6 times in Australia, as long as you marry a permanent resident or citizen… but beware if you want to marry a foreigner, Big Brother will scrutinize your life, the life of your friends, your most intimate moments; it will check your bank movements, Centrelink and tax records and refuse applications for the most stupid and confronting situations which would NEVER take place in OZ (like 'what was the colour of so and so’s underwear the first time you had sex? or how often do you have sex with your sponsor who is 25 years older than you or what was SHE wearing when you first met, etc.). It will determine how many times you can marry an ‘import’ and after two strikes? You’re out! (a bit like zero tolerance for drink drivers but without the criminal element) This is Big Brother trying to save us from ourselves when it comes to our decisions to marry foreigners… not to save THEM but to PROTECT US from THEM - We live on Orwellian times and not in a yellow submarine anymore – border protection has taken a whole new meaning here...
I have colleagues who have indicated that sponsors and partners are now looking for 'assistance' with the application and are 're-negotiating' fees if they do the bulk of the work and someone 'checks' it.
That's all well and good but the issue still remains: clients don't have access to the PAMs, don’t understand the meaning of the regulations, don’t have any ideas what Schedule 3 is or if it affects them, wouldn't know what a PIC was, let alone ‘the financial and social aspects of the relationship or the nature of the household or of the commitment’ and even if some can, many won’t possibly follow the complexities of these instructions. Do we as RMAs support disadvantaged clients because we're nice and understanding of these OR do we assert ourselves in terms of our knowledge and expertise and become doomsayers? It's a bummer of situation to be, particularly for newer or smaller RMAs who understand the issues, are willing to do the work, and want to do the right thing by the client. I'm sure there isn't anything in the Code of Conduct that gives well-meaning and charitable RMAs brownie points when entering MARA heaven... it's a heck of a lot of work over a crazily long period of time, for not much remuneration, contrary to popular belief...
We get squeezed between clients who can ill-afford DIPB fees and professional fees, the Department which can increase its fees whenever it wants no questions asked, and the regulatory authority which is forever scrutinizing RMA fees. This stuff is likely to get worse, not better let we keep this issue (and a dozen of equally deserving other ones) alive and kicking...
Cheers, Bea