Premium

The Work and Holiday arrangement with a particular country has just increased from 500 to 1,500 annual places

Subclass 870 (parent) visa sponsorship applicants must show an "overall" taxable income that is above a certain amount. The overall income can be a combination of the sponsorship applicant's individual income with the income of up to 2 other persons specified in legislation. But the sponsor's individual income must also be above a certain threshold. We discuss an example where the income test is not satisfied and an example where it is.

If the Department sends a s 57 (natural justice) letter alleging that the primary and secondary applicants have provide false or misleading information about their relationship, the obvious options are to dispute the allegation and run the risk of a visa refusal under PIC 4020(1) and a 3-year ban under PIC 4020(2) or to withdraw both the primary and secondary applications. A less obvious, yet quite interesting, option is to withdraw only the secondary applicant's application, as we explain.

Sponsors "inherit" any outstanding public health debt incurred by visa applicants and the government can recover the debt from sponsors in court, which could add up to several thousands of dollars of out of pocket health expenses, not to mention legal costs. Practitioners might need to advise both visa applicants and sponsors about that liability. Otherwise, sponsors could seek compensation from, and/or complain against, practitioners on the basis that, had they been informed of the liability, they would not have applied for sponsorship.

As discussed in a previous article, if a subclass 870 visa holder who is overseas applies for a further 870 visa, they must be overseas for a number of days by reference to the "relevant departure day". But how to calculate the "relevant departure day"?

It is commonly said that a subclass 870 visa holder who is overseas must stay overseas for 90 days before they can make a further 870 visa application. With respect, that is wrong.

The Instrument specifies the approved forms for making a valid application for the following visa subclasses: 188 (temporary business innovation and investment); 888 (permanent business innovation and investment); 132 (business talent); 124/858 (distinguished talent)

According to the explanatory memorandum to the Bill introduced on 19 September 2019, "a person who is a national or citizen of a country other than Australia ceases to be an Australian citizen if the person acts inconsistently with their allegiance to Australia by" engaging in certain type of conduct. Is this Bill a further erosion of the "sacred" concept of citizenship? Could it become a "slippery slope" towards citizenship cancellation on less serious, more subjective grounds?

"The purpose of the instrument is to remove the reference to special purpose visas (SPVs) granted to a person on the grounds that they are a crew member, or a spouse, de-facto partner or dependant of a crew member, of a non-military ship. These grounds have no longer been available for the granting of SPVs since 1 January 2008. The reference is therefore redundant".

The explanatory statement to the legislative instrument that created visa subclass 870 states that the new visa "is not intended to be a pathway to any other parent category visa". However, with respect, the legislation has not achieved that purpose. For instance, we explain how it is possible to apply for an 870 visa and then, while that application is pending, apply for a 143 visa, and vice-versa.