Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Spouse Visas: Approval of Sponsors, obligations of Sponsors
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 5901
- 11 Comments
Spouse Visas: Approval of Sponsors, obligations of Sponsors
Welcome to our Brave new World..
The Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 was passed yesterday and is awaiting Royal Assent.
That ACT when assented to, paves the way for regulations to require, amongst other things, a prior approval of a Sponsor BEFORE a valid application is lodged.
The purpose of the Bill is articulated as follows:
The purpose of the Migration Amendment (Family Violence and Other Measures) Bill 2016 (the Bill) is to amend the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act) to introduce a sponsorship framework for the sponsored family visa program.
The proposed changes will:
• separate sponsorship assessment from the visa application process
• require the approval of persons as family sponsors before any relevant visa applications are made
• impose statutory obligations on persons who are or were approved as family sponsors and provide for enforceable sanctions if such obligations are not satisfied
• allow the Minister to refuse a sponsorship application and cancel and/or bar a family sponsor where inappropriate use of the program or serious offences are detected, especially those involving violence and
• improve the sharing of personal information between parties to the application and the program more generally.
Source:
But Wait there is more!
My experience tells me that applications for a spouse visa onshore can be "time sensitive". Thus an applicant may have a visa which is of limited duration or may be facing the cancellation of a visa, is going to be "under the gun".
By the way, the Department of Home Affairs (DOHA) hate Applicants onshore to apply for the 820/801 notwithstanding the facilitative amendments to the Regulations since 1996 and the Act since 2009.
The making of regulations which require a Sponsor to be pre-approved necessarily involves some diligent, hard working member of DOHA in a crack team, in a Centre of Excellence, to carefully consider the information in front of them, apply the regulation and at the same time, no doubt availing themselves of comprehensive policy guidance and input from the integrity unit and liaison with law enforcement to make a decision to approve or refuse the Sponsor.
Sounds perfectly reasonable doesn't it ?
Absolutely perfectly reasonable.
As long as the process can be done in a timely manner and there is no risk of a blow out and clients are not disadvantaged and in effect tipped into the Schedule 3, 820/801 (Compelling Circumstances, Waensila scenario); because the DOHA crack team etc..etc..takes too long to make a decision.
Predictive reasoning
Assuming that DOHA is tasked with this process of approval, what history of excellence can we refer to in order to gain some confidence about the efficiency and diligence of DOHA? The short answer is none. As we speak, there are still unresolved pre 17/4/2017 applications for 457 visas, SBS/Noms etc...off the back of an 80,000 applications on hand as at 17/4/17. There are over 120,000 unresolved applications for Citizenship. The Group 4 and Group 5 candidates had their Applications stalled for up to 5 Years until they were ceased and capped. The AAT has 80,000 unresolved applications for review on hand....It is on that basis that I predict that our clients and their sponsors are going to get locked into delay, procrastination and refusal driven by DHA.
What can be done about that?
Regulations should be formulated to incorporate the following:
1. The date of Application for the pre-approval of the Sponsor should be the Deemed date of the
spouse 820/801 application to avoid the Schedule 3 ( Waensila scenario) problem.
2. Where a sponsorship is refused it should be reviewable at the AAT and that the foreshadowed partner
should hold a substantive ministerial substituted visa until 35 days after the decision of the AAT.
3 In the event that DOHA fails to make a decision within 35 days there is a deemed grant of an approval
of the Sponsor.
So what are the chances of that?
Zip , Nada, Zero !
So what are you going to do about it?
(Pssst, it is unconstitutional!)
Comments
-
Thursday, 29 November 2018How about suing the Department for unreasonable delay in decision-making when the inevitable delay occurs.
Alerting the news media to these changes and illustrating how they will disadvantage prospective applicants who may fall into the Schedule 3 Black Hole, most likely unwittingly?
There are ways to screen sponsors without making approval of the sponsorship a pre-requisite for the filing of a valid partner visa application - there should be more than enough time in the 12 - 24 month period it is taking the Department to sort through partner visa applications.
One has to wonder how the Department is going to screen sponsorship applications meaningfully - just because someone has no prior AVO or equivalent recorded against them does not necessarily signify that they will not in the future engage in domestic violence.
The Department's forced separation of genuine partners while their offshore applications are being "processed" is harsh and heartless in my view. -
Friday, 30 November 2018Yes Michael. There has to be a limit to the extremes this government is going to.
to be clear, I have no objection to increasing security checks and background checks, imposing other criteria to be able to migrate but fairness must prevail.
If the sponsorship can be finalised quickly and there would be no reason not to since NPC checks are available in 2 weeks then this should be the case and finalisation could be as quick as a month.
Unfortunately we cannot rely on this government to do this. History has demonstrated otherwise.
We have a government proud that it reduced the numbers for migration last year whilst 100,000 plus partner visas were sitting in the queue ready for grant but delayed until after June 30 to ensure the numbers were lower: Falsifying the figures is lying to the public. Dishonesty is rampant in this government -
Thursday, 29 November 2018
Very funny and informative Chris
, but scary at the same time. 
-
Thursday, 29 November 2018
Looks like it could be a way to stop onshore applications. The 820 can take 25 months, the 801 can take a further 25 months. If we add another 25 months for the sponsors application, we are potentially be looking at a 6 year plus processing time frame, which will make the process untenable for many. Add to that the possibility of a sponsors application fee to the already $7,000 plus visa lodgement fee and it may also be out of many's price range. Interesting times ahead.
-
Thursday, 29 November 2018
This current government has never worried about right and wrong or the constitution. One can expect delays of 12-18 months in sponsorship approvals simply because they can. I expect and have been telling my applicants to submit before this amendment comes in.
Imagine scenarios where applicants are on student visas and have an expiry looming bit are held up waitinf for sponsorship approval. What do they do? Go home and separate for 15-18 months whils 309/100 can be applied for. Or will it be a two stage long wait -12-18 months for the sponsorship approval and then another 15-18 months for the partner visa? Cruelty is banned in out country except when it is perpetrated by the Government.
There are, of course many other examples of how this will be abused bu the givenment and it is clealy a tool to force partner visa applicants offshore. But how long will they be away?
The addition al cost to applicants and sponsors will be considerable as will the emotional suffering due to forced separation.
Which politician would agree to being forcefully separated feom their spouse/partner for ip to 2 years due to a beaurocratic opinion.
This is another example of the Government creating problems and road blocks for applicants. Overseas now if you have a problem you need to make a booking online for an appointment to fo to the Embassy. There is no facility for walk in.
How does this affect the elderly or disabled who may not have access to the internet ir not know how tonuse it or just did not thinknthey needed to look up the Embassy website before foing there?
I thought I was living in Australia where we support and help our people not abuse them like a dictatorship.
The cost of this exercise of sponsorship first them visa application will add enormous costs to the applicants on top of the ridiculously high costs of the VAC -
Friday, 30 November 2018
Could it be to remove RMA's from applications for this visa subclass - thus removing most instances of appeal?
Not that I'm a pessimist..... -
Friday, 30 November 2018
I believe the levels of complication being added to the application process will require more assistance from RMA's.
Immigration are already looking to all past applications to see if any inconsistencies exist between sponsors applications and partner applications.
There is an agenda here. Partly linked to the Domestic Violence and further allows Immigration to refuse a sponsor. What will happen then?
AAT for the sponsor? How long will this take given the excessive number of applications for appeal currently with the AAT?
Applicants could be looking at
12-18 months for sponsor approval/Refusal
18-24 months AAT appeal if refused
3-6 months for Immi to review the application and grant/refuse the sponsorship
15-18 months for Visa Processing - grant/refuse
15-24 months AAT if Visa refused
3-6 months Immi to grant the visa
In the mean time the relationship has been devastated and broken up.
OR
They have forgotten what each other look like unless the sponsor has made many costly visits to the applicants country at loss of income and payment of airfares.
Hard to be proud of this Government -
Friday, 30 November 2018
the government is trying to streamline a system that has been corrupted by some visa applicants marrying to stay here just before visa expires arranged marriages paid marriage of convenience domestic violence if you are not suited together as a couple why are you here then divorce after you get PR neglected by the government due to a lack of resources & overwhelming applications some of these are delaying tactics some of it is the fault of visa applicants something has to be done I do not have many answers reading your article above we appears to live in a perfect world & put all blame on the government hopefully visa processing times can now be improved
-
Tuesday, 04 December 2018
Perhaps partners (some) will just go live elsewhere?. Added to the fee VAC increases (cant keep increasing partner VAC (can we (they)). Perhaps expect a slump in spouse clients in due course but a rapid increase over Christmas? I work over Christmas although prefer not to but most agencies close their doors right (!?). Now if they don't increase VAC dramatically again perhaps they will add a new sponsorship application fee also (token amount to start). DoHA resources inevitably play a part. Side effects. More staff needed onshore to process more onshore partner applications from ETAs etc - offshore processing is cheaper (should be) - mind you easy to do offshore outsourcing - even privatise (just wait for it?). Fee increases did not really reduce onshore partner matters surely (processing times one indicator). Ah I recall (someone) saying this was not a likely outcome. The removal of 40SP form was a very good indicator of upcoming changes. Online only - (anyone still using paper version 40SP - I like paper sometimes - sometimes online - depending on visa type. They could at least remove 40SP upload option from the visa applicant docs to avoid confusion - maybe it has disappeared already (or will)). Perhaps DoHA will now charge a fee for partner sponsorship also (before too long). The ever changing landscape of Immigration legislation - essential for survival of migration agents.
-
Wednesday, 05 December 2018
I’ve got a feeling that they will allow for the submission of the application if a sponsorship has been previously submitted (even if not granted yet).
The good … more complexity equals more work I think the people who decide to sponsor will more likely get official assistance.
The bad…. I think they will increase the cost, and ADD punitive fines etc. (similar to Div 2.11 – Div 2.23) as a punishment to the sponsor if he makes a miss step. I think a lot of males would reconsider before sponsoring (and I mean males as I’ve been to the courts, yes there are some good ones but there are some extremely biased judges there).
Immigration blog
So basically the object of this was to stop onshore partner visa applications?