# Report: NSW Onshore Partner Application Processing Time Est: 15 months



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hi All -

I read some very depressing news tonight from another agent who recently spoke to DIAC's temporary partner processing section in Sydney and is reporting that the current estimated wait time for partner visa processing (onshore, NSW) is "over 15 months." Additionally, decision-ready (DR) processing for partner visas in NSW has all but been abandoned as so many applications are now coming in as "decision-ready" that DIAC apparently thinks it would not be "equitable" to give all of them priority processing as it would unfairly disadvantage all the non-DR applications. So all partner applications are being processed in NSW in one queue now, not a separate queue for DR and non-DR.

Given reports of processing times less than this, I think there is still hope for those who lodge DR applications and have a bit of luck. But if this report is accurate, it represents a major delay in processing these applications, and as far as I'm concerned, it's simply not fair, just or "equitable" to force married or defacto couples to wait this long simply to have their visa processed.

I really have to wonder what DIAC's priorities are at this point. Assuming this report is true, they are willing to live with a steep decrease in processing standards, while at the same time increasing the application fee significantly. Where is the accountability? Where is the fairness to visa applicants and their families? And where is the responsible management at DIAC being accountable for such a shocking slippage in delivery standards?

It occurs to me that a collective body of visa applicants and those who care about the rights of visa applicants may be in order. It's simply too easy to deliver poor service when for most people it's a one-shot deal and they have no continuing involvement with the government after the visa is granted. I would be happy to be involved with such an organisation, but for it to have credibility it should be led by those directly affected by the issue.

Any thoughts? Sorry to be the bearer of bad news tonight, but we all in one way or another have a stake in timely visa processing, and I just see things these days getting worse, and let's not even talk about the haphazard and inconsistent offshore partner visa processing that is discussed at length here. Ideally the interests of both onshore and offshore applicants could be addressed by such an organisation, similar to the way that Bus Rider's Unions have lobbied municipalities, etc in the USA to battle fare increases and poor service.

Best,

Mark Northam


----------



## Adventuress (Jan 8, 2012)

Mark,

Thank you very much for posting this. I have often suggested the same thing that you are - we need some some kind of organised body that fights for the right of potential migrants and visa applicants. There is no transparency or accountability in the process the way it is, and yes, it is ridiculously unfair that fees are increased while service standards drop. Something needs to be done by us, their clients.

This is too much power for one government department to wield. And they appear to be invincible - applicants fear to make complaints because they're afraid it would affect their applications, while at the same time, the department answers to nobody. Once a visa is declined, there appears to be no recourse except to pay for an appeal and to sit back and wait even more months to be heard. What happens when case officers make mistakes, misunderstandings or downright lie in refusing applications? There are plenty of examples to be found on this forum.

I think the first step is to develop a campaign of information. This issue can affect any Australian these days, what with increased mobility and globalisation, and yet most Australians don't know a thing about what they're up against until they're caught facing the system, and then they have nowhere to go. If we, first of all, let other people know about how things actually are, I'm willing to bet there'd be a whole lot more outrage in support of us.

This thread would be a great place to discuss what we can do together to fight this unfair system. What would be the first steps to organising a representative body and giving it legal status?


----------



## sunnysmile (Oct 13, 2011)

Thanks, Mark. The info you posted is exactly what my CO told me in September: no decision ready applications, all the applications are treated the same and processing times are extended because of higher workload.

http://www.australiaforum.com/visas-immigration/16385-current-london-partner-processing-time.html#post65385


----------



## kttykat (Oct 30, 2012)

Yeah thanks Mark, this explains much of what we are seeing on the ground so to speak.

Kttykat


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

Thank you for sharing the news, your opinion and the suggestion, Mark.

*steps on soapbox* _(deepest apologies for the essay I just realized this turned into)_

I have to say first of all I find it hard to speak out about this. I can't put my finger on exactly why. Maybe it's because I've worked in customer service at a bank and no matter how hard I worked, the system was so flawed that I sometimes could not provide the service needed and I was still the one in the chain who got to then deal with the angry customers - maybe that's made me more aware that I don't want to hurt the feelings of Case Officers who do try. Or maybe because somewhere deep inside me hides a little bit of paranoia - I'm sure people from DIAC have come across this forum, and I'm fairly sure there's not that many Dutch Nelly's applying in Melbourne that were born in '87, and I don't want them to think I am ungrateful as I have only turned in my application a few days ago and they might actually be trying for me and then off I go online about how they are too slow... I don't know. I do realize this issue's obviously bigger than me and my case.

Over the past two years I have caught my partner saying several times: I am an Australian citizen with a spotless history and not even half a trace of ever being involved with anything suspicious, why can't I just have my girlfriend here without having to beg, beg and beg some more. I in turn have caught myself wondering - I've been nothing but an absolute stand-up citizen in my own country, if they took a few days to verify all my Form 80 information they would get confirmed I am spotless, why am I being made to feel like I am a criminal trying to clear herself... but such is the process.

That said, there is a core of truth in both those sentiments - Australian citizens are entitled to care from their government, and that includes not causing unnecessary months or years of emotional stress just to hear the verdict on a partner visa that can practically be seen as a trial period for the actual partner visa with permanent residency. But I could be wrong.

Temporary Onshore is not a life or death decision, and I have always wondered why so incredibly much weight is put and invested into allowing the Temporary phase if it will be completely reevaluated anyway two years later before Permanent Residence is even considered. I read somewhere the denial percentage is much higher on the 801 than on the 820 because many couples do end up splitting up after two years - and after giving a couple two years together in Australia, shouldn't it be so much more evident how serious and real they are? People who apply for the Temporary often haven't even had a chance to build up the amount of evidence expected, how can you have much proof of a physical joint life together if you do not have a partner visa... why don't they put more into processing 801 and less into PMV and 802 so at least couples can be together and build a fair life together before it gets assessed? The system is flawed in my opinion, but I am not an expert and I deeply sympathize with all the case-officers who do work hard to do this right because I know how they feel... they have peoples' lives in their hands and they must take it seriously and they must want to approve everyone they have a good feeling about as soon as possible.

But the waiting times I agree are out of hand. I'd be happy to join some kind of organization of group for that and at the same time this paranoid little voice in my hand says... why do you want to bite the hand that might eventually (after 15+ months) feed you... stupid I know. That's the problem with partner visas. They are emotional and applicants cannot always be expected to be reasonable and wait x amount time because of this and that, because it is a highly personal visa and last time I checked to love was such a basic human right it doesn't even need to be put in a law.

That is part of the problem, too. DIAC can just stretch and not adapt to increasing workload. What are the people with pending applications going to do? Risk making a bad impression by protesting when they are essentially being evaluated largely on character? I think not.

At the end of the day I can honestly say - I wouldn't mind waiting months, _years_ to be allowed to be with my partner, as long as I feel we get a fair chance to prove how genuine we are. And with the current system, I don't feel that is entirely the case. I think they do it as fairly as possible, with as much information they can process, but that doesn't mean it's truly fair. I will wait 10 years for an approval, but I will not wait 15 months for a rejection because the only way a genuine couple can get rejected is if they haven't been given a proper chance to prove themselves. For instance never having been able to save up to build that ideal life together before because we were always flying back and forth. For instance because paperwork is paperwork but anyone can share finances - if you're going to make me wait over a year, would you mind visiting my home to see with your own eyes? But that's not how it works. Times increase but effectiveness stays the same and that is what's unfair in my opinion. They do not change the system to allow people to prove themselves more elaborately, and they do not change the system to give people more of a chance to actually genuinely produce that ideal evidence (I am sure in two years my partner and I will have our own house, for instance), but they are comfortable changing the waiting time and that's not fair. If they were meanwhile openly working on improving chances for genuine couples, yes. But I have not seen a single announcement of that (but maybe it's like the form changes... wooossshh) - in fact the only announcement I have seen from Immigration since my partner and I started planning to apply for this visa, was that we were going to have to cough up an additional $1000. Something just isn't right somewhere. But then again, it's an emotional visa, for us anyway, and I am not sure how eloquent I'll ever be about it because it's got all our joint hopes and dreams (which are not evidence even though they're joint ) weighed onto it.

Maybe I'm wrong. I'll be happy to be corrected if I am. I am not trying to attack DIAC or anyone working there. But there is always room for improvement in large organizations, I know because I've seen it from the inside, and I hope if not for our sake then for the sake of those others waiting forever to just be with their partner, that at some point DIAC will realize if you increase what you ask of people, you may also increase what you yourself give in some way.


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

Wow, just read back - really sorry about that! Shouldn't rant so much, now my head hurts and I need a long shower to figure out what I just thought


----------



## sunnysmile (Oct 13, 2011)

Thanks Nelly, I really liked what you wrote. I would like to add that this visa waiting is not just emotional, it is existential problem as well. I finished my work contracts but couldn't accept new ones because our plan is to migrate permanently. I can't promise my customers to finish my job in May or June if I plan to move whenever visa is granted. So as people could be in limbo emotionally they could be in business limbo, too.


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

That is another very good point... life stagnates. Even onshore, lucky as we are to be together, we stagnate. What if we sign a lease - I have the income right now of the two of us, and we get rejected? My unemployed partner, sponsor, will be stuck with the lease. Even if he wasn't unemployed - if we were both working we would want to start looking at buying a house... not gonna buy a house if I can't stay. 

It all looks like "it's just a house" but when you've already been waiting to finally properly start your life together for 2 years, it gets a bit much.


----------



## louiseb (Dec 22, 2012)

Surely this wouldnt effect offshore aplications, i,e people going through Berlin for example. Or would it? Oh my heart goes out to all of you still waiting, what a sickner this news is.


----------



## Laegil (Sep 17, 2012)

Wow. I must say I am a bit shocked about what Mark said. 15 months is the *average* waiting time now, that means that a lot of people with not-so-clear cases are easily in for a 24 months wait! Just like that! 
I don't know why DIAC is obviously struggling so much to keep ahead of their workload. Is it pure lazyness? Are they hoping that people will be deterred by the price increase and the long waiting times, a very smooth way to cut the number of migrants? Or is there simply no funding for additional staff, and the way they deal with applications is outdated and made for a time where there were a lot less applicants?

I think a good way to start out with some kind of "protest" would be to increase the public awareness. I know so many people here that are somehow connected to people on partner visas (friends, colleagues, family members etc.) and every time I talk to them about the whole process they are very surprised. They immediately side with me saying that they can't believe what applicants and their partners are going through, but they have never heard of it before or were even concerned with it (and why would they, really).

Making people aware of that people they meet every day, people like them, their neighbours and colleagues, are affected by this system and that even they themselves could one day be affected in this multicultural world could move a lot, I think. 
They would see how a government department tries his best to hide how it is working, not telling people anything, raising fees unexpectedly and without a proper reason and on the other hand failing to come up with anything remotely related to 'customer service'.

My hope is that the public will start to think about it and speak out. Just think about the recent 'Occupy' protests, and a lot of the people participating weren't even personally affected, it was an outcry against the general injustice. 
An open letter to the government might also be a good idea. If someone can find a way to publish it in a newspaper, even better. Now that I think about it, if anyone is working/knows someone who is working at a newspaper, it might be worth publishing an article about it, or a letter to the editor.

These are just my two cents.


----------



## sunnysmile (Oct 13, 2011)

louiseb said:


> Surely this wouldnt effect offshore aplications, i,e people going through Berlin for example. Or would it? Oh my heart goes out to all of you still waiting, what a sickner this news is.


It would affect offshore applications, louiseb. My CO already told me that now it is 1 year, not 7-9 months any more.


----------



## kttykat (Oct 30, 2012)

sunnysmile said:


> It would affect offshore applications, louiseb. My CO already told me that now it is 1 year, not 7-9 months any more.


I would have to agree that offshore processing is just as likely to blow out due to the changes in the skilled migration requirements pushing people into alternatives like the partner migration scheme. It would seem in the case of Washington DC that applications are just stagnating.

Kttykat


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

So as a layman - do petitions actually do anything? And if so, for one to have effect in Australia would it be best to go with Australian signatures only, or add international ones of applicants' family members as well?


----------



## philipg (Dec 28, 2011)

With all applications computerised, I'm sure DIAC has stats on progress and processing times.
They would have certain targets that they'd like to meet, but I read somewhere on the immi website, that there are approx 14,000 new applications every month.
Most come from NZ and Oceania, followed by China then the UK and others.

High risk countries figure in the lowest percentage of applications. 
These stats include all applications.

A bit of interesting info.
"*Priority processing times*

Application processing times are given priority depending on which Family Stream visa you apply for. The following are examples of priority processing times:


Higher priority is given to immediate family such as those applying within the Partner or Child categories. This includes dependent children, children for adoption, orphan relatives, partners and fiancés.
 Higher priority is given to those applying for Carers visas. Carers fall within the Other Family category. The higher priority is in recognition of the support they provide to Australian residents with a serious medical condition and their contribution to the community.
 Higher priority is given to those applying for the Contributory Parent visa rather than those applying for the Parent visa within the Parent category.
 Lower priority is given to other applicants who fall within the Other Family category such as Remaining Relatives, and Aged Dependent Relatives."


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

I personally don't think the timeframe is the worst part of it when you're applying onshore. At the end of the day we are lucky enough to be home with our loved ones. What really bugs me is I'm not "authorized" to leave the country until my visa has been approved. 

15 months is a long time to put one's life on hold especially when you know deep down you're going to be approved anyway... When I think about all the things we will be missing back in Europe just because we're waiting on my Temp Partner Visa to be approved, it really sickens me. They want you to build a real relationship, to do things together so you can "prove" it's all genuine. Realistically, in increasing the processing times, they're just making it yet more complicated for people to start their real life together and give them proof they are in a committed relationship.

Seeing that I'll be applying for my visa in a week or so, I now know I won't be able to make it to my cousin's wedding next year, and also know we won't be able to start planning our European wedding for yet another couple of years. This is ridiculous. 

And I feel so sorry for those who are waiting abroad, hoping to get the good news on a daily basis 

In saying that though, why is it some people on this forum have managed to get their visa approved within weeks? What is it that makes them worth the grant more so than someone else?


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hi Krysthell -

Assuming you're applying onshore and are "legal" when you apply, you'll likely get a Bridging Visa A, which allows you to apply for a Bridging Visa B for a trip offshore for "substantial" reasons, which in my experience would include a family wedding. You can apply for multiple BV-B's over the course of your processing as long as the trips are for "substantial" reasons. 

Back in the good old days (3 years ago), some onshore partner visas were approved on the spot at the counter at DIAC! Even as recently as 2011 I've seen onshore partner visas approved in a few weeks in some cases where the application was decision-ready, all docs were included and there were no unusual circumstances about the visa application.

I still have to believe that application packages that have all docs and no unusual circumstances still will get (somewhat) faster processing than others.

Best,

Mark Northam


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

MarkNortham said:


> Hi Krysthell -
> 
> Assuming you're applying onshore and are "legal" when you apply, you'll likely get a Bridging Visa A, which allows you to apply for a Bridging Visa B for a trip offshore for "substantial" reasons, which in my experience would include a family wedding. You can apply for multiple BV-B's over the course of your processing as long as the trips are for "substantial" reasons.
> 
> ...


Thank you Mark.
I just didn't think a family wedding was a substantial reason as far as immigration was concerned but it is somewhat of a relief.


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hint: Make sure you describe it as a very special, once-in-a-lifetime, family wedding


----------



## philipg (Dec 28, 2011)

MarkNortham said:


> Hi Krysthell -
> 
> Assuming you're applying onshore and are "legal" when you apply, you'll likely get a Bridging Visa A, which allows you to apply for a Bridging Visa B for a trip offshore for "substantial" reasons, which in my experience would include a family wedding. You can apply for multiple BV-B's over the course of your processing as long as the trips are for "substantial" reasons.


Thank you Mark

I was trying to decipher the BV only yesterday, from the immi site.
Your info is the answer I was looking for.

Philip


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hi Philip -

Glad I could help. BV's are a confusing subject for many.

With BV-B's, the key is to show the trip is substantial. That being said, if you're nearing visa grant, they generally won't approve a BV-B, and the longest I've seen a BV-B issued for is 3 months generally - more often they're issued for 1 or 2 months or however long (shorter than 3 months) you request.

Best,

Mark Northam


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

KrystHell said:


> I personally don't think the timeframe is the worst part of it when you're applying onshore. At the end of the day we are lucky enough to be home with our loved ones. What really bugs me is I'm not "authorized" to leave the country until my visa has been approved.
> 
> 15 months is a long time to put one's life on hold especially when you know deep down you're going to be approved anyway... When I think about all the things we will be missing back in Europe just because we're waiting on my Temp Partner Visa to be approved, it really sickens me. They want you to build a real relationship, to do things together so you can "prove" it's all genuine. Realistically, in increasing the processing times, they're just making it yet more complicated for people to start their real life together and give them proof they are in a committed relationship.
> 
> ...


I wish I knew deep down I'm going to be approved anyway... that would take a lot of anxiety out of the wait.

But good luck with BVB  sounds like you definitely have the circumstances for it, I hope they won't make you miss the wedding!


----------



## Tahlia (Jan 9, 2013)

This is really frustrating and upsetting. Not to mention confusing! I have just spoken to "Lea" on the DIAC hotline, who GUARANTEED that if we hand in a DR application (onshore partner visa) that not only would we have a faster processing time, but 
a) the italian police checks (normally valid only six months) would be valid for 12 months.
b) my partner would NOT have to re-submit any expired medicals or police checks, in the case that the "guaranteed" short processing time exceeded 12 months. (Obviously contradicting the first guarantee..)
She also said that on his application he needn't write down every entry and departure date of multiple visits to the same country. 

This is after reading Mark's post and the original blog post. And after previously talking to someone else on the DIAC hotline who said that they CANNOT guarantee quicker processing times for DRA.
Personally, I'm not going to kill myself running around at last minute (his WHV expires late March) collecting forms, paying heaps of money etc in order to hand in a DRA on the back of what ONE person has said. 
This process is already time consuming and emotionally draining without being given contradictory and/or confusing advice too.

However we are so lucky that we are both in the same country already and we can afford to pay the fees.
Good luck everyone!
P.S. Mark - we are applying for a bridging visa B as we have booked flights to return to Italy for a holiday for 6 weeks and to celebrate his parents wedding anniversary.. Do you think that will suffice?  We desperately need a holiday after all of this!


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hi Tahlia -

Sounds like a good Bridging Visa B application reason to me! - Best to apply 1-2 weeks before you wish to leave, and bring your flight booking info and any other evidence with you just in case (ie wedding information or plans, even emails, etc) - it's often not necessary, but just in case you get stuck with a picky case officer, always ready to be prepared.

Happy and safe travels!

Best,

Mark


----------



## richh1833 (Aug 7, 2012)

I reckon a strongly worded letter to my local MP is required to get things started


----------



## Tahlia (Jan 9, 2013)

Thanks a lot Mark! Your input on this forum is so helpful.


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

Thought I'd throw this one in there too since I just received the acknowledgement letter:

Processing times 
The onshore partner visa program is experiencing strong 
demand, and as a result, the current average processing 
time for subclass 820 applications is around 13 months 
from lodgement. Note that this is an average processing 
time, and the actual processing time for each application 
may vary significantly, and in many cases may be 
significantly shorter, or longer, than the average
Applications which are fully documented will generally be 
processed more quickly than applications which are 
incomplete, so please ensure that if you have not yet 
provided us with all the necessary documentation that 
you do so as soon as possible. 



So yeah 13months average is pretty bad but we'll see how I go. They received mine on Valentine's day. Hope it'll be a good omen!


----------



## melandabdul (Sep 1, 2012)

Mark....would you consider getting in contact with 60 minutes...the age...the Herald Sun...Today Tonight (I know the calibre is slipping as I write) and sharing the story...the reality, the ins and outs...the tragedy of the situation both on and off shore for the Australian population to see how much stress and agony the legit people go through to get here?

I can see the headlines now - "Julia does it both way - traumatises legal and illegal immigrants!"


----------



## Adventuress (Jan 8, 2012)

melandabdul said:


> Mark....would you consider getting in contact with 60 minutes...the age...the Herald Sun...Today Tonight (I know the calibre is slipping as I write) and sharing the story...the reality, the ins and outs...the tragedy of the situation both on and off shore for the Australian population to see how much stress and agony the legit people go through to get here?
> 
> I can see the headlines now - "Julia does it both way - traumatises legal and illegal immigrants!"


Yes, yes, yes!! This is what I have been hoping could happen. It may take not one person but several of us who are experiencing hardship from this unfair system to tell the Australian public how it is.

Please somebody tell me this is possible for us to do!


----------



## Kantata (Jan 7, 2013)

Sorry to resurrect a month-old thread, I only recently found the blog article written by Grant Williams on my own, then found this thread here. Here's a question that has no answer: why on earth has DIAC not updated this page? Client Service Charter

Is it really good practise to get people thinking they'll have their temp partner visa processed in 6 - 8 months?? On Grant's blog I read a post by a fellow who submitted his 820 application in person at the Melbourne office on March 7th of this year, and was granted his visa on March 22nd. Yet they prefer applications by post... what on earth is going on with DIAC? If this was a private corporation they'd be bankrupt and facing lawsuits by now.

I know there are no answers to be had out of this messy, messy thing. I don't know what I'd do without these forums, the support and sense of community they provide. Not to mention the great venting platform!


----------



## melandabdul (Sep 1, 2012)

Kantata said:


> Sorry to resurrect a month-old thread, I only recently found the blog article written by Grant Williams on my own, then found this thread here. Here's a question that has no answer: why on earth has DIAC not updated this page? Client Service Charter
> 
> Is it really good practise to get people thinking they'll have their temp partner visa processed in 6 - 8 months?? On Grant's blog I read a post by a fellow who submitted his 820 application in person at the Melbourne office on March 7th of this year, and was granted his visa on March 22nd. Yet they prefer applications by post... what on earth is going on with DIAC? If this was a private corporation they'd be bankrupt and facing lawsuits by now.
> 
> I know there are no answers to be had out of this messy, messy thing. I don't know what I'd do without these forums, the support and sense of community they provide. Not to mention the great venting platform!


I would like to say that it is laziness that they haven't updated the pages but I think it is more strategic than that. In the end I think it has nothing to do with us, the consumers of their service, and a lot to do with the appearance in an election year and how this would reflect upon the minister and the government.

I think that they only way that these kind of things and the other great points that you raised can and will be changed is when there is public outcry and I cant only see this happening when people like us take the venting from the forum to the media....places like the newspapers and the current affairs shows.

This is the time to make the noise with it being an election year if it is going to change they will have the most incentive to do something now.


----------



## purple (Apr 20, 2012)

MarkNortham said:


> It occurs to me that a collective body of visa applicants and those who care about the rights of visa applicants may be in order. It's simply too easy to deliver poor service when for most people it's a one-shot deal and they have no continuing involvement with the government after the visa is granted. I would be happy to be involved with such an organisation, but for it to have credibility it should be led by those directly affected by the issue.


Having not even submitted my application yet, it already makes me angry that the anticipated waiting period will be that long especially after having to save up so much money for the initial application.

Coming back to the original thought, in my opinion it is long overdue that such a body is established. How is it even possible that an organization that deals with highly sensitive issues like DIAC has to answer to no one?

Even if there might be COs out there who are slow and lazy, I can only assume that the system itself is fault and the issue lies with workloads (aka too many applications assigned to one CO - they must be frustrated too!!). How can there be an enormous increase in fees if the money doesn't go back into the system, for example into hiring more staff or making the process more efficient and transparent? This is simply unjustifiable! Where DOES the money go??

On top of that, making people wait and putting their life on hold only hurts the system in the end. With that many people waiting in Australia, many of them not able to work due to restrictions or simply not able to find employment because of the temporary character of bridging visas (and even the temporary partner visa once it is issued) puts many in a position that makes it more likely to have to rely on the welfare system in the future.

Every other organisation or body has to answer to a controlling body, why is there no possibility to do anything about how DIAC works? I have to agree with Kantata, if this was a private coorporation they would be bankrupt. If they can't handle the flood of applications there are many ways of improve the system! Not only employing more people, also more informations for applicants on how to fill out forms correctly and how to put together an application, so COs don't have to sort through paperwork that is different for every application!

Having said that, I think establishing such a body that tries to make the issue more public and change how things are being handled must come from Australians first, not only people who are personally effected but also people that just see that it is an issue. Even though most people who got their Visa are probably just glad and don't ever want to hear about it again, I'm sure there are plenty who would be willing to be part of this after they have their Visa in their hands. I agree that everyone who is still in the application process probably just doesn't want to be publicly involved in making a fuss.

It is also a big problem for Immigration Agents I assume because they need to provide a service and, I assume, are dealing with a lot of unsatisfied customers as well if DIAC makes it impossible to speed up applications! Would it make sense to have someone speak up from that side? There would surely be a lot of backup from everyone affected? Even though, I think as a migration agent you actually are affected directly as well, because DIAC makes it hard to deliver a service, if they don't even make a difference in processing times for DR applications?

Sorry for having a rant, but things have to change!


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

I just wanted to add my perspective on the waiting time - or at least: how I deal with it (and how I can't, lol).

My partner and I have always said: as long as they say "yes" and treat our case fairly, I don't care how long they take. I can wait years for a "yes". I can't wait a week for a "no" but let's just not think about that one yet. We are preparing for a 15 month wait just because we can. This makes it slightly more bearable I think.

Having said that, almost two months after applying now I seem to have run into a small issue with the waiting time. You see, I'm on Bridging Visa A and that means if I expect fifteen months, by the time I'd be able to see my family and friends in The Netherlands again it will have been 1,5 years. That is all good and well - I made my decision, I called the shot, I chose a life with my partner in Australia over my friends and family at home and I stand by that choice. I am happy.

But I guess in the light of one of my best friends soon giving birth to her first child (and that'll be the first time any of my friends has a baby) I guess I just got gloomy. She was a huge part of my life before we both met our partners and of course life is what it is and she is starting a family and I am starting over - but we keep in close touch. I won't be there when her daughter is born and at the rate of the waiting game for the visa I won't see her daughter until she's over 1 year old. I can't ask her to travel to Australia, 28 hour flight pregnant or with a baby - and I can't really go to DIAC and claim my friend having a healthy child is an emergency that requires Bridging Visa B.

I guess I just started realizing how bittersweet it really is. First I was like - HAH, I CAN'T even leave Australia now!... and now almost two months later it's sinking in. It may sound cruel - I don't miss my family and friends as much as I would miss my partner, I know I made the right call, but the whole "we'll take 15 months... and you can't go abroad even once unless someone's dying or dead" is a bit much for me.

Maybe last week just made me nostalgic. Three birthdays of people I used to see all the time (my dad, my roommate and my cat who now lives with a friend there), my friend getting ready to give birth... it felt kind of _cruel_ in light of those things that I can't go see them at all unless I absolutely have to. I would think allowing people one two/three week exit-entry wouldn't hurt? But who am I.


----------



## MarkNortham (Dec 19, 2012)

Hi Nelly -

Great post. One thing however - the grounds for requesting a BV-B don't have to be life & death - the key phrase is "substantial reason for travel".

I've included some language from DIAC's policy manual (PAM3) re: assessing the need to travel - I hope it might be of some help to you!

Best,

Mark Northam

From DIAC PAM3 re: BV-B, assessing the need to travel:

_52 About the requirements

Clause 020.212(2), (3), (4) and (5) all require that the delegated officer must be satisfied that, at the time of application, the BVB applicant's reasons for wishing to leave and re-enter Australia (to travel) are substantial. The BVB applicant must continue to satisfy this requirement at the time of decision (020.221).

53 Substantial reason and genuine need for travel

The migration legislation does not define "substantial" in the BVB context. The ordinary dictionary meanings of "substantial" that are relevant in this context are "real", "actual", "important", "of real worth or value". Officers must bear in mind the above dictionary meanings of "substantial" and apply them in two ways to the assessment of the criterion:

• is the reason for wishing to travel substantial - that is, is it important, of real worth or value? and
• is the need to travel genuine - that is, is it real and actual?
It is departmental policy that both these aspects are assessed and satisfied. For example, if a person applied for a BVB on the basis that their parent was very sick they would have a substantial reason for wishing to travel. However, if an investigation of the department's systems indicated that the parent was in Australia there would not be an associated genuine need to leave Australia.

However, departmental policy should not be applied inflexibly and each application should be assessed on its individual merits.

54 Substantial reason for wishing to travel

A substantial reason for wishing to travel would include travel associated with the person's:

• employment, business or education - for example:
• attending work or study conferences
• participating in business negotiations or meetings
• undertaking academic research or presenting papers
• family, other relatives or other person important to the person - for example:
• visiting a seriously ill family member, relative or close friend
• attending the wedding, or other culturally important event, of a family member relative or close friend
• attending the funeral of a family member, relative or close friend
• substantive visa application - for example:
• undergoing medical treatment for an existing condition
• obtaining documentation needed to satisfy legal criteria
• resolving custody issues relating to a claimed family unit member
• travelling outside Australia for personal reasons (including having a holiday) because the processing or review of their substantive visa application has been protracted.
The above examples are given as a guide to the types of reasons that could be considered and are not exhaustive. Officers must use their judgment when deciding if they are satisfied that the person's reasons for wishing to travel are substantial and document the reasons for their decision.
_


----------



## CollegeGirl (Nov 10, 2012)

Nelly, it may not be a wedding or a funeral, but I would certainly think the birth of a baby is just as important a milestone, and so would qualify. Why not try applying for a BVB?


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

Thank you both for your advice and support - I might actually do that: at least shortly after the baby is born, I want to see the little girl while she is still little  I hope DIAC will see the emotional value of the visit, too. It's already strange enough to picture I won't be an active part of one of my best friends' baby girl's life, it would be heartbreaking to not be there for her at least when she's just had her. I couldn't have waited 15 months for that!


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

Nelly87 said:


> I just wanted to add my perspective on the waiting time - or at least: how I deal with it (and how I can't, lol).
> 
> My partner and I have always said: as long as they say "yes" and treat our case fairly, I don't care how long they take. I can wait years for a "yes". I can't wait a week for a "no" but let's just not think about that one yet. We are preparing for a 15 month wait just because we can. This makes it slightly more bearable I think.
> 
> ...


Amen to that. I'm at that point where I'm on the exact same set of mind. It's really hard to think you have to put your life on hold for so long. 
And like my husband said: "why do they eve need to tell us not to get out of the country? what difference does that make to the process?"


----------



## missjaay (Nov 30, 2012)

@KrystHell - Yes, absolutely! What difference does staying put in Australia make to the process? I wonder what's the logic behind the no-travel-permitted rule.. It might be okay for applicants whom found work in Australia, but those without work, what do they do all day?


----------



## theskyisblue (Sep 28, 2010)

Hi folks
I'm going to play ''devils advocate'' and present a very different point of view. I know it will not be popular on this forum, but I think its important to have some balance and perspective in the discussion. Please hear me out before you throw stones...!

Firstly I will point out that I have been through the process. My partner (husband) is from a high risk country & is currently on 820. The visa application process was one of the most stressful & emotionally draining things I've ever been through. I've been through all the waiting & uncertainty, and I understand everything everyone has said so far.

HOWEVER to be honest I have never considered that my partner has a ''right'' to be in Australia. I don't think any migrant has a ''right'' to come here just because they happened to develop a relationship with an Australian. Likewise I don't think my husband necessarily has a ''right'' to become a Permanent Resident, or even have a ''right'' to Citizenship. I feel we (myself & my partner) have been given a great* privilege* to be able to have the opportunity to be live together and create a life here. Something which I don't take for granted, and I am extremely grateful for having the possibility at all. Not every country allows this..

Continuing on from this, I think people should understand that the Government needs to balance the desires of migrants to come here against the needs of the greater Australian public -- for infrastructure & services (like roads, railways, water infrastructure, hospitals, schools etc). We have a growing population but we don't have unlimited resources. This is one of the reasons why there have to be quotas. The needs of Australians must come first before migrants (otherwise you really will have protests & public outcry -- but not for those of us with immigrant partners, but rather against us!). Population increases have to be carefully planned. I know sometimes we feel ''but its only one more'', but when you have thousands upon thousands of people wanting to migrate it makes a difference. Right now there there is enormous demand for migration to Australia particularly with the current global economic situation -- and like any supply/demand, if there is more demand (applications) than supply (quota) then waiting/processing periods will naturally be pushed out.

I think its really easy for us just to say that DIAC should employ more staff etc to solve processing timelines -- but again, the Government does not have a bottomless bucket of taxpayer funds to pay for everything we want. Once a year at budget time, each Department has to ''compete'' with all the other Departments for taxpayer money. So Immigration has to compete with Health, with Education, with Infrastructure for tax funds. (You should be able to find these budget presentations somewhere on public record). Allocating *more* money to Immigration logically means *less* money for other areas because there is a limited bucket of money. The cost of a new CO could possibly pay for a new hospital nurse, or a new teacher. Particularly with the global downturn, you will find the Government hesitant to allocate more money for something like Immigration when they are trying the reduce spending (otherwise the other option is raising taxes!! That really would not make Australians happy).

If you were to present this to the average Australian -- that the processing of visas for migrants was allocated more money & going to use up more of their money to the detriment of schools and hospitals and roads for Australians...... well you can imagine how that would go down with the public. Someone mentioned going to the media/newspapers/current affairs shows to speak out about ''migrant rights'' etc -- but do you really think they will present the story how you would like it? (Particularly shows like Today Tonight??) I have my doubts.

The other thing about visa applications costs... it is extremely expensive, yes. Its a big hit to our bank balance. Huge. HOWEVER, again, should the Australian people have to pay for my husband's visa costs with their tax money? Or should I? To be honest, although its an enormous cost, I think if I want my husband here then it should be my responsibility to pay for the total cost involved. Not the Australian people. I don't think the visa costs we pay cover the processing costs to the Government. Its hugely expensive to run a Government department -- its not just salaries for COs, its management costs, its overhead costs (eg IT, building leases, utilities, phones, training, security etc). We all know that our all our household bills are increasing all the time, likewise the costs to DIAC would too. Also its not just DIAC that we're talking about -- its a joint process with Centrelink, ASIO, Health, AFP, Embassies, all playing a part in our partners visa processing (and they have their own salaries & overheads to pay for) and these other agencies also have their own priorities and workloads which I suspect may push out timelines if they're under-resourced.

So.... yeah. This is just another perspective to think about. I think sometimes we are so emotionally caught up in our own situation that we don't forget about the other side of the story. There's always another side to the story.

Wish you all the best.


----------



## sunnysmile (Oct 13, 2011)

So we just have to be happy to pay thousands of dollars, not to be replied to our emails, not to bother them with questions, to allow extensions of processing times whenever they want and put our lives on hold for unknown amount of time and give them shoulder for crying in the end? Sorry, but your perspective of other side of the story is just salt on my wound!


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

sunnysmile said:


> So we just have to be happy to pay thousands of dollars, not to be replied to our emails, not to bother them with questions, to allow extensions of processing times whenever they want and put our lives on hold for unknown amount of time and give them shoulder for crying in the end? Sorry, but your perspective of other side of the story is just salt on my wound!


I have to agree with her to a certain extent. 
It is a big privilege to be living in Australia. Lets not forget that not only is the lifestyle fantastic, but it also is a country which has barely been affected by the economic downturn over the past few years,

The extension of processing time could also be a result of a lot more applications being received. Let's face it, a lot of people have been trying to get into Australia on the same grounds as us. A lot of people fake relationships to try and be allowed to stay here because they can live a better life. It ends up affecting people like you and all the others on this forum. Is it fair? Not really, but can you blame them for spending more time processing applications? For all we know, it could just be because they're trying to go through all the evidence more thoroughly.

The one thing I still don't understand though is their need to prevent people from living the country while they're on a bridging visa. The bridging visa is a result of longer processing times. If you have allowed someone to stay in the country and that person has a valid application for a permanent visa, I do not see the point of telling them they cannot travel while their application is being assessed. Does anyone have a valid explanation on this particular issue? You'd think having to assess applications for BVBs as well as the main visa application would be a bit of a waste of time...


----------



## dkero (Mar 18, 2013)

Hi, I just recieved some annoying information today and after reading around the internet I feel that I should add our situation to your thread.
My partner and I had been together for 3 years when we lodged our partner application on the 30th of December last year, just in time to beat the price increase. My partner couldn't include her Hong Kong police check due to the Hong Kong police first requiring a letter from the imagration department that the application had been made. It was a bit of a backward way to do things but we accepted it.
My fiance call the department today to confirm that the Hong Kong police check had arrived.  While chatting to the guy he informed her that due to a high work load we will not be assigned a case officer until next year. That means we will have lodged our application in 2012 and no one will even start looking at it until 2014. Mean while we will have had our wedding in July. My statutory declaration describes our relationship up until the end of 2012, but by the time the case officer starts reading it a whole extra year of relationship goodness will have passed. Will I need to up date it? And our financial records? And the 1000 other bits of paper they wanted? Heck, by they time they look at it they'll look at us having been married for at least 6 months and everything would be different than what we described. 
My fiance is also having trouble finding work because employers are hesitant when they hear the term Bridging Visa. Why would they give her a job if there is a chance her application fails? She just graduated from studying nursing and needs to get a nursing job within 12 months of graduating or her registration will be voided and she will need to study again. If she can't get a job because employers hesitate over the visa situation. 
I'm sure if I keep thinking about it I'll find more things that annoy me about the long wait. Like if we went to Hong Kong for the honeymoon and get her a bridging visa B will they keep our spot in the que for a case office while we are on holiday or does it get put on hold and other people shuffled in front until we get back to Australia? Which sounds like something they would do when ques where only a month long and probably would still do now.


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

dkero said:


> Hi, I just recieved some annoying information today and after reading around the internet I feel that I should add our situation to your thread.
> My partner and I had been together for 3 years when we lodged our partner application on the 30th of December last year, just in time to beat the price increase. My partner couldn't include her Hong Kong police check due to the Hong Kong police first requiring a letter from the imagration department that the application had been made. It was a bit of a backward way to do things but we accepted it.
> My fiance call the department today to confirm that the Hong Kong police check had arrived. While chatting to the guy he informed her that due to a high work load we will not be assigned a case officer until next year. That means we will have lodged our application in 2012 and no one will even start looking at it until 2014. Mean while we will have had our wedding in July. My statutory declaration describes our relationship up until the end of 2012, but by the time the case officer starts reading it a whole extra year of relationship goodness will have passed. Will I need to up date it? And our financial records? And the 1000 other bits of paper they wanted? Heck, by they time they look at it they'll look at us having been married for at least 6 months and everything would be different than what we described.
> My fiance is also having trouble finding work because employers are hesitant when they hear the term Bridging Visa. Why would they give her a job if there is a chance her application fails? She just graduated from studying nursing and needs to get a nursing job within 12 months of graduating or her registration will be voided and she will need to study again. If she can't get a job because employers hesitate over the visa situation.
> I'm sure if I keep thinking about it I'll find more things that annoy me about the long wait. Like if we went to Hong Kong for the honeymoon and get her a bridging visa B will they keep our spot in the que for a case office while we are on holiday or does it get put on hold and other people shuffled in front until we get back to Australia? Which sounds like something they would do when ques where only a month long and probably would still do now.


You should really take everything Immigration says with a pinch of salt. Some people on this forum have had their application processed and approved within weeks, others have been waiting months. It's very hard to tell what's going to happen.

With regards to the work situation, I know my employer had no issue giving me a permanent position despite being on a bridging visa. I think she really needs to explain why she is on that particular visa and the outcome of the wait (i.e. partner visa). Once they understand she will not be asked to leave anytime soon I'm sure they'll be ok. Especially in her line of job, there is a huge demand for workforce so I cannot see it being a problem with every single employer!

Good luck.


----------



## dkero (Mar 18, 2013)

I was backing up the first post that mentions an average waiting time of 15 months. I haven't read any recent cases that have been granted in a few weeks. 
Also there isn't a nursing shortage in Queensland. Only 10% of nursing graduates last year gained a graduate position in a hospital. When my fiance spoke to the HR representative of the pubic hospitals at the graduate open day she was told they could only hire Australian citizens this year due to the lack of funding and were rejecting all applications from students on visas. Makes the competition for any remaining jobs rather tight.


----------



## KrystHell (Jan 27, 2012)

dkero said:


> I was backing up the first post that mentions an average waiting time of 15 months. I haven't read any recent cases that have been granted in a few weeks.
> Also there isn't a nursing shortage in Queensland. Only 10% of nursing graduates last year gained a graduate position in a hospital. When my fiance spoke to the HR representative of the pubic hospitals at the graduate open day she was told they could only hire Australian citizens this year due to the lack of funding and were rejecting all applications from students on visas. Makes the competition for any remaining jobs rather tight.


I'm sorry to hear that. I know of a couple of friends on a visa who have had no issues getting a nursing job in the Sydney area. I didn't know about QLD.
That being said you have to try and remain positive. I know it's easier said than done but she will find something. It takes time and energy I know, but if she wants a job she will find one.

Again, the 15months wait is a guideline but God only knows what's happening with immigration. Like I said, you'll find in this forum that some people have been approved with a matter of weeks. You just need to remain positive. it's not that easy, I know exactly how it feels, but that's the only way I have found to remain sane!


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

I always appreciate people who don't mind playing devil's advocate because it keeps the discussion sharp and interesting.

However I find the "right/privilege"-debate a _very_ loaded one because it can be a very grey area. You see, people don't have the right to be in Australia just because they're in love with Australians - but do Australians have the right to be with their loved one if the relationship is genuine and the partner has proven to not pose a threat or excessive burden? What you're opening there is a question of gratefulness and that can be a very sore one for some people in my opinion. My partner does believe it is his right to have me with him if we have proven to be self-sufficient, not a threat and contributing to the system. And I am definitely grateful to be in Australia, but privilege for me is a difficult word - it is also a privilege to have grown up in a safe, stable country before I came to Australia. But my record - my clean record and my good employment history - those aren't a privilege, those are of my own accord and hard work. Where does privilege start and stop? When do we all just live in the same world where good people are good and bad people are bad regardless of what is on their passport? I guess it's a personal discussion for some.


----------



## Adventuress (Jan 8, 2012)

theskyisblue said:


> Hi folks
> I'm going to play ''devils advocate'' and present a very different point of view. I know it will not be popular on this forum, but I think its important to have some balance and perspective in the discussion. Please hear me out before you throw stones...!
> 
> ........


I can easily understand that perspective, and to a large extent I agree, but there is a number of things that your post does not take into account.

Yes, I agree that it is a privilege and not a right for a migrant spouse of an Australian to be allowed to come to Australia. However, it is a right of the Australian to choose the person with whom he/she wants to be in a relationship with (in fact, it's a basic human right), and it is his/her right to access the system that accords the privilege to his/her partner.

But that's where things begin to come apart. You won't find anyone on this forum arguing that there shouldn't be a system at all. Nobody is suggesting that people should be able to enter the country as and when they like. Nobody is protesting the fact that evidence needs to be submitted and security/medical checks undertaken and forms filled out. We have all made peace with the fact that a certain amount of bureaucracy needs to be traversed before we can access what we desire.

However, it is not inappropriate for us to expect that the system be applied with reason and fairness. It is not inappropriate for us to expect that all necessary checks and processes be completed in an efficient and timely manner. It is not inappropriate for us to expect to be treated fairly and with compassion. It is not inappropriate for us to expect consistency in the application of rules, transparency in what actually goes on for the indefinite period of time, and accountability when mistakes are made and wrong decisions affect lives for years to come.

This is what we are protesting. The system, in its present state, is not operating to Australian standards. Is that ok because the system is not dealing with Australians in the first place? Or perhaps that's the idea: "welcome" to Australia.

In any case, the system involves money exchanging hands for a certain "product". It is a business transaction like any other - and in fact, we should not ignore that DIAC's slogan is "People our business". As such, we as clients expect certain standards in customer service while we wait to receive that "product", and we expect that if the price of that "product" is raised, then that will be reflected in quality.

As it has been observed in the past couple of years - and perhaps no more than that - the system is continuously failing all our expectations. It is unreasonable to expect people to continue their lives in normal relationships, as per the eligibility requirements, while there are longer and longer delays in the processes, which necessitate more and more time spent apart. It is unreasonable and unfair that longer and longer delays should preclude people from planning their lives for a year or more. It is unfair and downright callous for applicants to be told off for asking for updates while they are forced to wait for a completely undefined period of time without any news whatsoever. It is unfair and inconsistent for the Department to claim that applications are processed in order of lodgement when we can all see that that is not at all the case. It is unfair and unreasaonble that when mistakes are made by case officers, the only recourse we have is to pay another fifteen hundred dollars and wait another 16 months for our case to be heard by a tribunal. It is disturbing that applicants are afraid to use the provided complaints system because they fear it will have a negative impact on their applications.

We do not actually want much. We simply want to be treated with fairness and compassion, and for the system and its processes to be conducted with reason, consistency, transparency and accountability. This appears to have been possible five, ten years ago.

For an interesting comparison, the UK Border Agency claims that 95% of settlement visas (which includes the partner category) are decided within 12 weeks. 100% are decided within 24 weeks. So most are decided in three months, and all are decided in six months. Even at a high risk country such as the one my husband applied from, 100% are decided within 90 days. The UK until recently has been accepting 250,000 immigrants per year. I'm not suggesting this for Australia, or even that such a figure is sustainable, but I am arguing that it is possible to have a fast turnover even with a huge caseload.

Regarding the price rises for Australian partner visas, yes, perhaps it would make more sense if the projected extra $520.5 million over four years were directed into infrastructure. It would make the most sense if the extra $520.5 million were directed back into the immigration system from whence it came (i.e. from the pockets of migrants), to improve processing times and customer service and response standards. And these aren't taxpayer funds going into roads and hospitals and schools - it has been advertised as a "user pays" system - this indicates to me that the user pays for the processing of their own applications. And sure, that would make sense if that were actually the case. However, the Treasurer has not been shy in declaring where the money is actually going: towards the budget surplus so that the government can finally deliver on its election promises. It's not going back into the immigration system, and it's not going into roads and schools and hospitals. And in fact, we "users" are paying 30% more for a more and more inferior product.

In light of all this information, I do not feel that any of our protests are inappropriate or unreasonable. We can all easily agree that having our partners join us is a privilege for them and for us. But I think we can also all agree that the system that is in place to grant that privilege is in poor condition, and that there is plenty more room for fairness, compassion, reasonability, consistency, transparency and accountability.


----------



## Nelly87 (Jul 3, 2011)

Adventuress I enjoyed reading your post so much. So many good points made that I want to get into later today or tomorrow, but right now I have to leave for work in a matter of minutes so let me just add this as well - 

There is also the argumentation of "explain to Australians that more of their money should go to immigration, they will not be happy". I understand this but slightly resent validating the sentiment behind it. I understand that that would be the response - not popular. But that doesn't make it a valid response for myself and that doesn't mean I should expect to be seen the same way. The whole point of the free world is that all voices can be heard and all votes are counted and I say I intend to spend the rest of my life positively contributing to Australia. I want that to count for something, too. Just because the popular belief is that immigration costs more than it pays, doesn't mean all immigrants should be regarded as financial black holes. 

I'm just saying Australia is also taking on board many many good people who will eventually pay more tax in their life than they cost to go through the immigration mill. I would be interested to see this properly researched and addressed with statistics to explain to the Australian public and immigrants what is and isn't realistic.


----------



## Adventuress (Jan 8, 2012)

Nelly, I think you have plenty of good points to raise as well and I look forward to reading them. I think more research in general into immigration is necessary. I am doing my very own small part, looking at all the documentation available and investigating trends, but I wish there were more people at university level - or even a whole committee - interested in researching the system and its effects on its users. I would do it myself but I'm already overly committed to my own field!

I also wanted to mention that there is no question that the world is getting smaller. People are travelling more, people are migrating more - often more than once - and people are entering into more and more cross-cultural, transnational partnerships. I think within the next few decades we will find that something has to give. And this will probably happen as the younger generations - for whom this has always been the status quo and nothing new - mature and enter government and positions of power. It's going to be either that or a new law that will forbid all Australians from marrying non-Australians! But maybe that would be better - let us know where we stand in the beginning rather than making us jump through hoops and waste money and time for what may be essentially the same outcome!


----------



## CollegeGirl (Nov 10, 2012)

Excellent, excellent post, Adventuress.  I agree with so much of it.

Just one part:



Adventuress said:


> Nobody is protesting the fact that evidence needs to be submitted and security/medical checks undertaken and forms filled out


You're right, nobody's protesting this. I will say, though, that I don't know how I feel about the medical requirements. I do feel that, in a certain light, they can be viewed as discriminatory against those with disabilities.

Do I think people should have to undergo testing to make sure they aren't bringing anything into Oz that is a public health risk? Absolutely!

But what about Australians who fall in love with people who previously had to have a kidney transplant... or have survived and beaten back cancer. These are all people who can have a hard time getting visas because, *even if they are healthy at the time of applying,* simply the POTENTIAL of what they could cost the healthcare system IF they had a relapse of some kind is considered an extraordinary burden. I know most people on this board are lucky enough to be relatively healthy and never have to think about this issue, but (as you all know from my numerous posts about it), it's close to my heart.

My fiance and I are incredibly lucky that he can demonstrate the ability to offset the cost of my healthcare (which due to a few chronic conditions, would be high). If he couldn't, or if we couldn't afford to hire an excellent agent who specializes in these kinds of issues, I can't even imagine where we'd be. My heart breaks for people who fall in love, just like my fiance and I did, and then are ripped apart because of their lesser income. It just seems like the system penalizes people who have conditions they can't help and can't change. It's really, really sad.


----------



## Adventuress (Jan 8, 2012)

CollegeGirl said:


> Excellent, excellent post, Adventuress.  I agree with so much of it.
> 
> Just one part:
> 
> ...


Hi CollegeGirl, yes this aspect has always made me very sad, and I have read all your posts about your own case with fear and sorrow that something so simple - and perhaps in the end inconsequential - may affect your application and your chance to be together. I just read in a very old thread (from 2009) which has been resurrected by a new post, that at one time someone was refused because his son has Down's syndrome! Luckily this was overturned by the Minister, but how sad is it that it was a reason to reject in the first place? As you say medical issues are completely out of people's hands and never ever caused by intention (unlike criminal history), people have been punished once by their diagnosis and then another time by the system. You will always have people play the card that these people would be a burden to the country, etc. etc., which perspective I am able to understand, but the practice of rejecting partner visas, of all things, on these criteria does certainly appear to be discriminatory and very sadly unfair.


----------

