2024년 12월 7일 부터 Early Childhood (Pre-Primary School) Teacher 직업군의 기술심사가 AITSL (기존 기술심사기관)에서 ACECQA  (새로운 기술심사기관)으로 옮기게 됩니다. 따라서, 이날부터 해당직업군 기술심사를 원하시는 분들은 새로운 기술심사기관인 ACECQA에 접수해야 합니다. 

A Migration Skills Assessment is for applicants applying for a skilled migration visa. It is an assessment of your early childhood education and care qualification/s and employment experience to determine comparability against the assessment standards for a skilled worker in your nominated occupation.

ACECQA is the approved Assessing Authority for the following occupations:

• Child Care Centre Manager
• Child Care Worker (Group Leaders only).

A Migration Skills Assessment is for applicants applying for a skilled migration visa for an occupation listed on the:

• Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL)
• Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL)
• Regional Occupation List (ROL) or
• Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (RSMS) ROL List.

발췌한 곳: https://www.acecqa.gov.au/qualifications/migration-skills-assessment

Last update: 2024년 11월 8일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

호주 비자 신청서 relationship status (밑에 7개 중에 하나를 선택) 해야 할 것입니다.

Relationship status

Last update: 2024년 11월 8일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

485 비자를 신청할 때 주신청자가 있고 배우자는 dependeant라고 해서 동반자 둘 사이에 자녀가 있을 경우 자도 동반비자를 받을 수 있습니다.

485 비자가 그란트된 다음에 한가족이 즐거운 생활을 하면 살다가 어떤 사유가 있어 둘이 헤어질 경우 특히 주신청자의 배우자의 비자는 어떻게 될까요?

주신청자가 더이상 부부 사이 또는 사실혼 관계가 아니라고 이민성에 통보를 하면 배우자의 비자는 취소 (cancellation)이 됩니다. 이때 바로 취소되는 것은 아닙니다. compelling reason 이라고 해서 어떤 특별한 사유 (취소하면 안되는) 있다면 이것으로 취소를 면해 달라고 요청을 해 볼 수 있습니다. 그럼에도 불구하고 취소가 되었다면 AAT에 재심을 요청할 수 있습니다. 불행히도 재심에서도 패소되면 할 수 없이 35일 안에 떠나야 합니다. 

MIGRATION – cancellation – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass  485  (Temporary Graduate) – member of the family unit – parties divorced in Australia – contact with child in Australia – Parenting order – rental obligations and other expenses – best interests of the child – decision under review affirmed

STATEMENT OF DECISION AND REASONS

Application for review

1. This is an application for review of a decision dated 3 July 2024 made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs to cancel the applicant’s Subclass  485  (Temporary Graduate) visa under s 116 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).
2. The applicant is a national of India, born in December 1992. He was granted the visa as a secondary applicant in December 2022 (동반비자그란트). In June 2024 the applicant was issued with the Notice of Intention to Consider the Cancellation (NOICC) of his visa(비자취소통보). It is reported that the applicant did not respond to the NOICC (although he told the Tribunal he did meet with an Immigration officer and explained his situation) and his visa was cancelled in July 2024.
3. The applicant appeared before the Tribunal on 24 September 2024 to give evidence and present arguments. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the decision to cancel the applicant’s visa should be affirmed.(패소)

Relevant law

4. Under s 116 of the Act, the Minister may cancel a visa if he or she is satisfied that certain grounds specified in that provision are made out. Relevantly, to this case, these include the ground set out in s 116(a). If satisfied that the ground for cancellation is made out, the decision maker must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled, having regard to all the relevant circumstances, which may include matters of government policy.
5. A visa may be cancelled under s 116(1)(a) if the Minister is satisfied that the decision to grant the visa was based, wholly or partly, on a particular fact or circumstance that is no longer the case or no longer exists.

Does the ground for cancellation exist? (비자 취소 사유?)

6. The applicant provided to the Tribunal a copy of the primary decision record. It indicates that the applicant was granted the Skilled visa in December 2022 on the basis of being a partner, and a member of the family unit of Ms Kaur. The visa was to be in effect until December 2025.
7. The primary decision record indicates that in May 2023 the Department received advice that the applicant’s relationship with Ms Kaur has ceased (남편과 헤어짐을 통보). The applicant was issued with the NOICC in June 2024 (통보후 약 한달후 비자취소하겠다고 이민성에서 연락)  but it appears that he did not respond to the Notice and his visa was cancelled in July 2024 (아무 연락이 없어 약 한달후 비자 전격 취소).
8. In oral evidence the applicant confirmed that his relationship with Ms Kaur had ended. He told the Tribunal that they had been married for three years and he had paid her fees but they are now formally divorced.
9. Having regard to the above evidence, the Tribunal finds that the applicant is no longer a spouse or de facto partner of Ms Kaur. There is no suggestion that the applicant met any of the alternative criteria of the definition of the term ‘member of the family unit’ or that he met the primary criteria for visa grant. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is no longer a member of the family unit of the primary visa applicant. The Tribunal finds that the Skilled visa was granted to the applicant on the basis of him being a member of the family unit of Ms Kaur and that fact or circumstance no longer exists. The Tribunal finds that there are grounds for cancelling the visa under s. 116(1)(a) of the Act.
10. As that ground does not require mandatory cancellation under s 116(3), the Tribunal must proceed to consider whether the visa should be cancelled. (관련 법에 따라 비자 취소가 맞는지 고려해야 함)

Consideration of discretion

11. There are no matters specified in the Act or Regulations that must be considered in the exercise of this discretion (재심관의 재량이 고려될 수 있음). The Tribunal has had regard to the circumstances of this case, including matters raised by the applicant, and matters in the Department’s Procedures Advice Manual (PAM3) ‘General visa cancellation powers’.

The purpose of the visa holder’s travel and stay in Australia, whether the visa holder has a compelling need to travel to or remain in Australia (호주에 남아 있어야 하는 그 사유가 뭐냐?)

12. The primary decision record indicates that the applicant previously held a Student visa and had completed some study in Australia. He returned to Australia holding a Student dependent visa and was subsequently granted a Skilled visa.
13. The Skilled visa is a temporary visa which enables the visa holder to remain in Australia for a specified period. The applicant was granted the visa as a secondary applicant. The purpose of that visa and of the applicant’s stay in Australia was to enable the applicant to remain with his partner. However, he is no longer in a relationship with the primary visa holder. The Tribunal finds that the applicant is not able to fulfil the purpose of his travel and stay Australia because he is no longer in a relationship with the primary visa holder. (주신청자가 파트너였기에 호주에 남아 있었지만 더이상 부부사이가 아님)
14. The applicant told the Tribunal that he does not want to live in Australia but needs 1-2 years to be able to see his child. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a child, who is 3 years old. He states that his mother in law took away the child through false claims (claiming the child would be returned after 6 months and that there would be regular contact but that has not happened). The applicant states that his wife’s family refused to intervene when they were getting the divorce. He states that initially his wife allowed him to have contact with his child but in the past six months his wife prevented that contact and she told him that he cannot see the child. The applicant states that he wants to save money to hire a lawyer and make an application for a Parenting order so he can see his child again. He has saved about $3000 and needs a few months to get more savings before he can start the process. (호주에 남고자 하는 이유는 3살된 딸을 보고 싶을 뿐 살고 싶은 생각은 없다. 변호사 비용을 더 벌어야 한다. 현재는 3천불이 있지만 돈을 더 벌어야 한다고)
15. The applicant confirmed that he presently does not have a Parenting order and has not commenced any proceedings to obtain a Parenting order. His evidence is that he is trying to save money to pay for the lawyer and the legal process and get a Parenting order that would enable him to access his daughter. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant wants to remain in Australia to see his child. However, the present circumstances are such that there are no arrangements at present that enable the applicant to see the child, the child’s mother has refused him access, there are no current proceedings on foot to enable the applicant to obtain a Parenting order and no certainty as to whether, or when such proceedings could commence. In such circumstances, the Tribunal is not satisfied there is a compelling need for the applicant to remain in Australia.

The extent of compliance with visa conditions

16. There is no evidence of any non-compliance with any visa conditions.

Degree of hardship that may be caused (financial, psychological, emotional or other hardship)

17. The applicant told the Tribunal that he needs time to be able to get a Parenting order to see his daughter. The Tribunal acknowledge that if the applicant is to leave Australia as a result of his visa being cancelled, he may not be able to obtain the Parenting orders. However, the Tribunal places wight on the fact that the applicant has not yet commenced the family law proceedings and, on his own evidence, is not able to commence these as he does not have sufficient funds. In the Tribunal’s view, the applicant’s ability to see his daughter in such circumstances is merely hypothetical (noting also that the applicant’s visa is due to expire in late 2025 and the parenting orders may or may not be obtained by that time).
18. The applicant told the Tribunal that he has a taxi contract for 2 years and has to pay nearly $1,600 a month for the taxi fees. He refers to his rental obligations, registration, various bills and other expenses. The Tribunal accepts that the applicant has financial obligations but is mindful that if the applicant is to leave Australia, he may not have to meet many of these expenses.
19. The applicant told the Tribunal that he does not want to live in Australia but wants to stay here for 1-2 years and wait until his daughter is a little older so he can communicate with her. The Tribunal is mindful that the applicant’s visa would have expired in late 2025 so that even if the visa is reinstated, the applicant will not have the two years to remain in Australia. The applicant suggested that he would apply for another visa but he has not been able to identify what visa he could apply for and how he could extend his stay in Australia. The applicant then said that he would leave Australia upon the expiry of his visa.
20. The applicant told the Tribunal that he wanted his mother to travel to Australia and to see his daughter with his mother, as it may help re-establish the relationship. However, he told the Tribunal that his mother has not travelled to Australia so far due to the high cost of the air ticket, the fact that she is looking after another grandchild in India and her physical needs. The applicant also stated that even if his mother could come to Australia, the police told him that he would still need a Parenting order before he can see his daughter. The Tribunal accepts that if the applicant’s visa is cancelled, it is unlikely that the applicant’s mother would travel to Australia but the applicant’s own evidence is that even his mother’s presence in Australia is unlikely to enable him to see the child.

Circumstances in which ground of cancellation arose

21. The ground for cancellation arises because the applicant, who was granted the visa on the basis of being a secondary applicant, is no longer a member of the family unit of the primary visa holder. The applicant told the Tribunal that there was no family violence in their relationship.

Past and present behaviour of the visa holder towards the department

22. Nothing adverse is known about the applicant’s past and present behaviour towards the Department.

Whether there would be consequential cancellations under s 140

23. There are no persons whose visa would be subject to consequential cancellation.

Whether there are mandatory legal consequences, such as whether cancellation would result in the visa holder being unlawful and liable to detention and removal, or whether detention is a possible consequence of cancellation and if so, for how long, or whether there are provisions in the Act which prevent the person from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention

24. If the applicant’s visa is cancelled and unless he is granted another visa, the applicant will be an unlawful non-citizen and may be detained. There is no suggestion that he will be detained indefinitely. The Tribunal acknowledges that unless the applicant is granted another visa, he may be subject to possible removal from Australia and he would be subject to an exclusion period in relation to some future visa applications. There are no provisions in the Act which prevent the applicant from making a valid visa application without the Minister’s intervention although there are limited types of visas for which the applicant may be able to apply onshore due to the operation of s. 48.

Whether any international obligations, including non-refoulement, family unity and best interests of the children as a primary consideration, would be breached as a result of the cancellation

25. There is no evidence, and the applicant does not claim, that Australia’s non-refoulement obligation arise in this case.
26. The applicant refers to his close relationship with his child and states that his only wish is to see his daughter. In most circumstances, the Tribunal would accept that it is in the best interest of a young child to maintain a relationship with a parent. However, in this case the Tribunal notes the applicant’s evidence that he has not had any contact with his daughter for the past six months, that his former partner has not had any contact with him (and does not allow such contact between the applicant and his daughter) and that her family do not support such contact. While the applicant hopes to obtain a Parenting order in the future, his evidence is that he presently does not have the funds to commence the process and it is uncertain when (or whether) he will be able to make the application for the Parenting order and whether he will be successful in that application. There is no certainty that the process will be finalised before the applicant’s visa would have expired in late 2025 and the applicant has not satisfied the Tribunal that he will be able to extend his visa and remain in Australia for a longer period. The Tribunal also notes the applicant’s evidence that he and his former partner and child live in different states and the applicant has not suggested that he would move to live closer to his daughter. That is, at best, there will be sporadic and limited personal contact between the applicant and his daughter and otherwise electronic contact which can occur whether the applicant remains in Australia or lives elsewhere.
27. In such circumstances, the Tribunal does not consider that the best interests of the applicant’s minor child will be adversely affected by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa.

Any other relevant matters

28. The applicant has not identified any other matter.
29. The Tribunal has considered the applicant’s circumstances. The Tribunal has found that the circumstances that permitted the grant of the visa no longer exist and that there are grounds for cancelling the visa.
30. The Tribunal has formed the view that the applicant is no longer fulfilling the purpose of his travel and stay in Australia as he is no longer in a relationship with his partner. The Tribunal is not convinced there is a compelling need for the applicant to remain in Australia, given that he is unable to have contact with his daughter and, on his own evidence, is not presently able to make an application for a Parenting order that would enable him to have access to his daughter. For that reason also, the Tribunal has formed the view that the best interest of the applicant’s child would not be adversely affected by the cancellation of the applicant’s visa. This is because there has been no contact between the applicant and his daughter for the past six months, there is no certainty as to whether such contact could be negotiated by the family, whether the applicant will be able to make the application for the Parenting order and whether such an application could be successful before the applicant’s visa was due to expire and the applicant would be required to leave Australia.
31. The Tribunal is not satisfied the cancellation of the visa would cause hardship to the applicant. While the applicant referred to several financial obligations in Australia (such as rent, living expenses and taxi license), most of these would no longer apply if the applicant was to leave Australia. Significantly, the applicant repeatedly told the Tribunal that he does not wish to remain in Australia and that he intends to return to India upon the expiry of his visa or in 1-2 years. In the circumstances where the application itself, and the outcome of his application for parental rights is uncertain, the applicant has not established, in the Tribunal’s view, the hardship that would result from the cancellation of his visa rather than the expiry of his visa in late 2025.
32. The Tribunal acknowledges that there are circumstances that weigh against the cancellation of the visa, most notably, the opportunity for the applicant to re-establish contact with his daughter and the more limited visa options in the future. However, in the circumstances of this case, the Tribunal has decided to give greater weight to the fact that the applicant is no longer able to fulfil the purpose of his travel and stay in Australia.
33. Considering the circumstances as a whole, the Tribunal concludes that the visa should be cancelled.

DECISION

34. The Tribunal affirms the decision to cancel the applicant’s Subclass  485  (Temporary Graduate) visa.

긴 이야기 짧게 하면 재심에서 고려해 주지 않았습니다. 한가지 흥미로운 점은 아빠는 딸과 부인의 연락처를 6개월간 전혀 모르고 있다는 점을 아빠가 딸을 보고자 하는 심정을 크게 보지 않았다는 점입니다. 그래서 보통은 어린 아이가 있을 경우 고려를 해 주는데 반면 이 케이스는 그렇지 않았습니다. 결국 그는 호주를 떠나야 하는 상황이 18 October 2024 이후로 발생합니다. 딱 35일 안에 떠나야 하는 …

Last update: 2024년 10월 31일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

485 비자를 신청할 때는 물론이고 485 비자 final decision 까지 신체검사를 하지 않아서 비자 거절되고 AAT에 재심을 요청후 승소를 합니다.

이민법무사로서 참 궁금한 점은 왜 미리 하지 않아서 이렇게 재심이라는 것을 해야 하는지 이유를 잘 모르겠다는 것입니다.

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass  485  (Temporary Graduate) – health requirement – Medical Officer of the Commonwealth assessment – evidence of medical examination provided upon review – decision under review remitted

1. This is an application for review of a decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Home Affairs on 29 May 2024, to refuse to grant Mr Saif Ullah Saad (the applicant) a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa under s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (the Act).

2. The applicant applied for the visa on 30 March 2024. The delegate refused to grant the visa on the basis that the applicant did not satisfy cl  485 .216 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (Cth) (the Regulations) because the health criteria in Public Interest Criterion (‘PIC’) 4005 of Schedule 4 to the Regulations was not met.

3. The applicant applied to the Tribunal on 19 June 2024, for review of the delegate’s decision. The application was accompanied by a copy of the primary decision record. The Tribunal also has before it the Department file containing all information before the delegate at the time of their decision.
4. In reaching its decision the Tribunal did not consider a hearing to be necessary as it was able to find in favour of the applicant based on the material before it, pursuant to s 360(2)(a) of the Act.
5. The applicant was represented in relation to the review.
   6. For the following reasons, the Tribunal has concluded that the matter should be remitted for reconsideration.

6. CONSIDERATION OF CLAIMS AND EVIDENCE

   7. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion (PIC) 4005 as required by the criteria for the grant of the visa. Public Interest Criterion 4005, as it applies to this case, is extracted in the attachment to this decision. It requires the applicant, in certain circumstances, to undergo medical assessment, and to be free of certain diseases or conditions that may impact on the community. At the time the delegate made their decision the applicant had not provided evidence to support he had undertaken a medical assessment.

   Has the applicant undertaken a medical assessment (PIC 4005(1)(aa))?

   8. Public Interest Criterion 4005(1)(aa) requires that if the applicant is in a specified class of persons, he or she must undertake the specified medical assessment and be assessed by a specified person unless a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) decides otherwise.
   9. Since the delegate’s decision, the Tribunal has received confirmation from the Department that the applicant undertook the required medical examination on 19 August 2024 and meets the health requirements for his subclass  485  visa application. On the basis of this information, the Tribunal accepts that the applicant satisfies the requirements of PIC 4005(1)(aa).
   10. Given the findings above, the appropriate course is for the Tribunal to remit the matter to the Minister for reconsideration of the remaining criteria for the visa.

Timeline Summary 

30/03/2024 – 485 비자 신청

29/05/2024 – 비자 거절

19/06/2024 – AAT 재심 신청

25/10/2024 – AAT 승소

케이스본문보기

Last update: 2024년 10월 31일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

그 거절된 사유가 가짜 정보 제출로 비자가 거절된 경우 특히 유의해야 합니다.

MIGRATION – Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa – Subclass 485 (Temporary Graduate) – previous student visa application refused because of false or misleading information or bogus document – discretion to waive criterion – compassionate or compelling circumstances – actions of previous agent – employer may be affected – three-year period now passed – decision under review affirmed

과거 비자가 거절된 경우가 있고 그 사유가 거짓정보를 제출한 경우 아래 조항을 만족하지 못하면 AAT (지금의 Administrative Review Tribunal : ART) 에서 승소하지 못합니다.

6. The issue in this review is whether the visa applicant meets Public Interest Criterion 4020 (PIC 4020) as required by cl 485.216 for the grant of the visa. Broadly speaking, this requires that:
   • there is no evidence that the applicant has given, or caused to be given, to the Minister, an officer, the Tribunal, a relevant assessing authority, or Medical officer of the Commonwealth, a bogus document or information that is false or misleading in a material particular in relation to the application for the visa or a visa that the applicant held in the 12 months before the application was made: PIC 4020(1); and
   • the applicant and each member of the family unit has not been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(1) during the period starting 3 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2) and (2AA); and
   • the applicant satisfies the Minister as to his or her identity: PIC 4020(2A); and
   • neither the applicant nor any family unit member has been refused a visa because of a failure to satisfy PIC 4020(2A) during the period starting 10 years before the application was made and ending when the visa is granted or refused, unless the applicant was under 18 at the time the application for the refused visa was made: PIC 4020(2B) and (2BA).
7. The requirements in PIC 4020(1) and (2) can be waived if there are certain compelling or compassionate reasons justifying the granting of the visa: PIC 4020(4). However, this waiver does not apply to the identity requirements in PIC 4020(2A) and (2B). PIC 4020 is extracted in the attachment to this decision.

유일한 예외 법이 있긴 한데 7번 항목처럼 어떤 특별한 사유가 아니고는 PIC 4020를 만족하지 못해서 재심에서도 패소하게 됩니다.

실제케이스 

Last update: 2024년 10월 31일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

309 / 820 파트너비자를 신청한 다음에  (사람사는 일이라서) 어떤 이유로 헤어질 수 있습니다.

만약에 스폰서 나는 더이상 그녀 / 그남자와 살고 있지 않으며 그래서 스폰서쉽을 철회하고 싶다고 한다면 신청한 비자는 어떻게 될까요?

아래 예외적 사유가 아니라면 비자는 거절될 가능성은 99.99%로 매우 높다할 수 있습니다.  왜냐하면 309/820 비자 신청시는 물론이고 309/820 비자 그란트되는 시점에서도 두사람간의 관계가 유지되어야 하며 스폰서가 스폰서쉽을 철회하지 않아야 하기 때문입니다. 

1. being death of the sponsoring partner (비자 처리중에 스폰서가 사망한 경우)
2. family violence (가정 폭력)
3. certain court orders (어떤 법원 명령)
4. responsibilities in relation to children (자녀와 관련하여 책임)

이런 경우가 있는데도 불구하고 case officer가 파트너비자 신청서를 거절한 경우라면 AAT에 재심을 신청하여 억울함을 호소할 수 있습니다.

이런 경우가 아닌 다른 어떤 경우가 있더라도 비자가 거절된 경우 재심 여부를 판단해 볼 수 있습니다.

사람이 살다 보면 별의별 일이 있는 것 같습니다. 특히 이 파트너비자가 복잡하고 고려할 것이 많습니다.

상담이 필요하신 분들은 연락주세요.

감사합니다.

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

어그제 실제 제 고객님께 있었던 일입니다.

흔히 국제선을 타야하는 분들은 가급적 공항에 3시간 전에 도착하라고 합니다. 다양한 이유 때문이겠지요. 제가 알고 있는 그 다양한 이유에서 하나 더 추가(?)를 해야 할 것 같습니다.

토요일 집에서 쉬고 있을 때 카톡전화가 옵니다. 그분은 여행을 위해서 호주를 떠나 있는 상태임을 기억하고 있었는데 그리고 아직 입국을 하지 않음을 알고 있는데 카톡전화가 온다는 것은 뭔가 일이 발생했음을 즉감하고 전화 받을 상황은 아니라서 즉시 문자로 응대를 했죠.

공항에서 보딩을 해야 하는데 자신의 비자가 조회가 안된다는 것입니다. 혹시 여권을 새롭게 바꾸셨나? 혹시 다른 무슨 잘못된 정보가 항공사에 들어가 있나 등 잠시 여쭤 보고 VEVO 확인을 제가 직접 했습니다. 사실은 약 10여 전에 파트너 비자가 그란트가 되었던 분이었고 그 분은 이전에 BVB를 소지하고 호주를 떠난 상태. 현재 VEVO는 새로 그란트가 된 820 비자를 가지고 있었고 이 비자는 전세계 어디에서나 조회가 가능한데 유독 한 항공사 국적기 공항 시스템에만 조회 불가능한 것임을 확인했습니다.

고객님도 그리고 곁에 계신 가족분들도 그분들의 모발폰으로 VEVO 확인을 하니 정상적으로 비자 조회가 되는데 유독 항공사 시스템에서만 올라오지 않으니 난감한 상태. 그러나 이것은 호주정부나 고객님이나 저나 걱정할 것은 없다 다만 항공사 발권 직원께 이렇게 설명하라고 말씀드렸습니다.

“비자는 잘 그란트되어 있다. VEVO로도 이렇게 확인이 되고 있다. 이 VEVO 전세계 어떤 나라에서 어떤 곳에서든 조회가 가능하다. 그럼으로 항공사 시스템에서도 잘 보여야 하는 것이 정상이다. 안되는 이유는 (장담할 수 없으나) 항공사 시스템과 호주 이민성 간의 자료 교환 문제라고 예상한다.” 라고요.

그리고 항공사 발권 직원(들)이 인식을 하고 호주 이민성에 확인을 받고 발권을 받았답니다. 다만 시간이 부족해서 부리나케 탑승하러 뛰었다고 차후에 문자 메세지가 왔었습니다.

현대사회에서 정보처리시스템의 의존도가 매우 높은 요즘세상에 어떻게 무슨 일이 발생할지는 정말 장담 못하는 세상. 만에 하나 (One in 10,000) 에 대비하는 차원에서 가능한 공항에는 일찍 가는 것이 좋다는 것이 오늘의 제 이야기 입니다.

만에 하나라도 문제는 해결되었지만 공항에서 이미 비행기가 떠나 버리는 사태가 발생하면 이것도 어쩔 수 없이 받아 들여야 하는 상황이지만 참 안타까운 상황이 발생하지 않을까요.

아무튼 이 또한 Happy Ending으로 잘 해결되어 천만다행입니다.

이민법무사로 23년째 일을 하지만 제 고객님들 중에서 이런 문제는 처음이라서 함께 공유해 드립니다.

Last update: 2024년 10월 29일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

호주파트너비자를 위해서는 호주인 / 호주영주권자 (스폰서라고 칭함) 의 스폰서쉽을 받아야 합니다.

이때 그 스폰서는 평생 두번의 스폰서쉽을 줄 수 있도록 법이 정해져 있습니다.

세상을 살다보면 두번 이상 헤어지고 사람을 사귀는 경우가 왕왕 있습니다. 이미 두번 스폰서쉽을 외국인 여성들에게 제공했고 이젠 기회가 없는데 하필 만난 사람이 또 외국인입니다. (이번에도 한국 국적의 외국인)

기존에 파트너 영주비자를 받도록 해 준 사람들은 20세때 그리고 10년이 지난 30대 초반 그리고 새로운 사람을 만났습니다. 1993년 20세때는 (파트너 여성이 18세) 서로 어린 나이에 알게 되어 살다가 2001년에 헤어지게 됩니다. 두번째 여성은 2010년에 만나 2012년 헤어집니다. (비교적 짧은 편)

세번째 여성은 2014년 4월에 만나 2015년 4월에 서로 삶을  하기로 결정하고 시드니에서 2017년 4월에 결혼을 합니다. 2015년 비자 신청인이 호주에 와서 둘이 어떻게 살아 갈 것인지 이야기도 나눕니다. 2016년 5월 호주를 여행하고 시드니 시내에 카페도 열어 두분이 열심히 일도 합니다 (1주일 7일 쉬는 날도 없이 하루 12시간). 양가 부모님들도 이 부부를 적극 지지해 주십니다. 2017년 결혼후 2018년 카페를 매매합니다. 왜냐하면 이때 시드니 시내에 전철 공사를 함에 따라 George Street에 통행에 불편함에 생겨 카페의 접근성이 낮아져 매출에 영향을 줌. 그대신 새로운 사업을 홈부쉬에 새로운 비지니스를 시작합니다. D 케이크샵입니다.

아무튼 긴이야기 짧게 하자면 두사람은 genuine relationship 임을 증빙하는 수많은 자료를 제출하고 AAT 심사관의 마음을 움직이게 함으로서 세번째의 스폰서쉽을 얻습니다. AAT에서 승소할 수 있었던 근본적인 이유는 그 파트너 비자 신청자의 비자 거절이 되어 호주를 떠나야 하는 상황이 발생할 경우 그로 인해 genuine relationship에 있는 두사람에 지대한 영향을 준다는 점. 특히 어려서 부모를 따라 호주에 와서 호주에서 자라고 공부하고 살아 온 호주 시민권자 (스폰서) 의 삶 그리고 그들이 셋업을 한 사업 그리고 한국에 (만약에 돌아가야 할 경우) 가서 새롭게 삶을 펼쳐야 하는 그런 점을 고려할 때 그것 보다는 예외적으로 (waive)을 줘서 그들이 호주에서 사는 것이 오히려 좋다고 무게중심을 준 케이스입니다.

Happy Ending으로 잘 마무리된 케이스가 아닐 수 없습니다.

저 자신도 케이스를 읽어가면서 기쁘지 않을 수 없었습니다.

원문보기 

Last update: 2024년 10월 17일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

중국인 출신의 영주권 취소 케이스입니다.

호주에 와서 10여년 공부를 하고 결혼도 하고 유학후 기술이민 절차를 밟습니다.

그리고 점수가 높으면 좋다 싶어서 파트너 (회계 쪽으로 공부를 마침) 그리고 IELTS 최소 6.0 x 4를 받아야 하는 입장입니다. 그런데 시간이 지날 수돌 이 점수를 얻지 못합니다. 주신청자는 아니고 파트너로서 이 점수를 확보해야 되는 상황이었는데

AAT 판결문에 보면 그들의 에이전트가 대리시험을 치루고 점수를 제출하자는 제안을 했고 그 제안을 받아드렸다고 이실직고 합니다. 그래서 영주권은 그란트가 되었습니다.

2. The delegate cancelled the visa on the basis that the applicant provided incorrect information and a bogus document in support of her combined Skilled – Independent (Subclass 189) visa application lodged on 3 October 2017 and granted on 14 November 2017 (‘the Skilled visa’). Accordingly, the delegate determined there has been non‑compliance with s 101(b) and s 103 of the Act. The issue in the present case is whether that ground for cancellation is made out, and if so, whether the visa should be cancelled.

2017년 10월 3일 신청된 189 비자가 2017년 11월 14일 빠르게 그란트된 이 케이스가 어떻게 해서 발견되어 2020년 8월 4일 이 사람들의 비자가 취소되었을까요?

3. The applicant provided the Tribunal with a copy of the primary decision record from the Department of Home Affairs (‘the Department’) dated 4 August 2020.

그 이유는 대리시험을 치룬 IELTS 사진과 그녀의 여권 사진이 일치하지 않는다는 것을 이민성에서 차후에 ” facial comparison checks“을 통해 발견된 것입니다. (실제  facial comparison checks를 통해서 가짜 정보를 찾는 경우는 제가 케이스 공부를 하면서도 몇번 본 적이 있음)

The examiner then made a facial comparison with the photo attached to the IELTS test report provided with her visa application and concluded they were not the same person. (동일 인물이 아니라는 것) 

21. In the NOICC the delegate stated^[12] that he did not consider the applicant had not complied with s 103 of the Act because:

The photograph appearing on Ms Gao’s IELTS test report, which was submitted in support of Ms Gao and the visa holder’s combined Skilled – Independent (subclass 189) visa application, is not an image of Ms Gao as claimed in the document, but of Ms Jiao SONG (born 5 February 1986).^[13]

그래서 비자가 캔슬됩니다.

그런데,

이런 경우 여지없이 AAT에 넘어가도 인정을 해주지 않는 반면에

이 케이스는 이민성의 손을 들어주지 않고 재심을 요청한 사람의 손을 들어 줍니다.

그 이유가 있습니다. 그 이유를 정리하자면,

1. 남편이 시드니에서 다양한 비지니스를 통해 많은 사람들을 고용한 것은 물론 고용하고 있다.
2. 그녀가 비록 가짜 영어성적을 제공했지만 무려 세곳의 대학을 다녔고 호주에 오래 거주했으며 그래서 competen English 정도는 충분히 될 것이라고 믿었다.
3. 그 뒤로 다시는 이런 불미스러운 짓을 하지 않았다 (최소한 재심을 하는 그당시까지는)
4. 호주 사회에 지대한 영향을 줬다
5. 두 사람 사이에 자녀 (호주에서 태어남) 가 시민권자라는 사실 그리고 자녀가 유치원에 다니고 있다.
6. 엄마가 그 유치원에서 많은 일을 하고 해왔다

하여 만약에 이사람들의 비자를 취소할 경우 호주를 떠나야 하고 그로 인해 피해를 볼 사람들이 한둘이 아니라는 사실에 큰 무게를 줬습니다.

2024년 6월 5일 판결된 케이스로 최근 케이스이고 공부를 하는 차원에서도 좋은 케이스였습니다. 더불어 재심을 요청한 분은 매우 운이 좋았다 케이스가 아닐 수 없습니다.

PS 이 케이스는 결국은 Happy Ending으로 끝나기는 했으나 호주비자 신청시 가짜 정보를 제공하여 비자가 그란트되더라도 이렇게 비자 취소가 될 수 있음에 잊지 않아야 합니다.

케이스 전문 보기

Last update: 2024년 10월 9일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

호주군 채용관련하여 호주에 호주영주권자로 최소 12개월 거주를 했고 최근 외국에 군복무를 하지 않은 호주영주권자에게  호주군에 채용하는 것을 허용한다는 내용입니다.

해당 발표내용은 2024년 6월 4일.

그전에는 호주군입대는 호주시민권자가 기타 나이 및 신원조회 신체검사 (physical) 등을 받고 지원 신청서를 제출할 수 있었는데 반에 아래 내용처럼 NZ 출신은 물론 호주영주권자들도 신청이 가능하도록 한다는 내용입니다.

2024년 7월 부터 변경된 조건하에 호주에 거주하는 NZ 출신 (444 비자 소지자)에게 채용을 허용하며

추가적으로, UK, USA 그리고 카나다 출신의 호주영주권자는 2025년 1월 부터 ADF에 지원할 수 있다고 함.

지원자들은 호주에 반드시 영주권자로 최소 1년을 거주했어야 하며 신청전 2년 동안 타국의 군대에 복무하지 않았어야 한다는 조건도 있음.

결론적으로 군입대는 최소 NZ시민권자이면서 444비자를 소지한 자 그리고 UK, USA 그리고 카나다 출신 호주영주권자이면서 최소 12개월 거주했고 지난 2년간 타국군대 복무하지 않았어야 지원 자격중에 하나를 만족한다는 점에서 그외 국적을 가진 심지어 그외 국가의 호주 영주권자는 군대 채용에 있어서 어려움이 있을 것으로 보여집니다.

아래 내용은 관련 자료이며 https://www.minister.defence.gov.au/media-releases/2024-06-04/australian-defence-force-opens-recruitment-non-australian-citizens  에서 발췌함.