|
기본적으로 아래 3가지 조건을 모두 만족해야 한다.
두번이상 결혼/사실혼/약혼인으로서 스폰서쉽을 줄 수 없다. (특별한 사유가 없지 않은 이상)
이전 비자를 위해 스폰서쉽을 주었던 때 부터 현 비자가 그란트/거절 사이의 기간이 5년 또는 그 이상이 되어야 한다.
만약 현 스폰서가 이전에 스폰서 또는 노미네이션을 받은 경우 당시 본인의 비자신청서 신청날짜부터 현재 스폰서쉽의 승인 / 거부된 날과의 기간이 5년 또는 그 이상이 되어야 한다.
6 Calculating the 5 years (5년 계산방법)
6.1 Date of original visa application is important (최소 비자 신청 날짜가 중요하다)
If a sponsor has sponsored/nominated another person, the 5 year period between the first sponsorship/nomination and the current sponsorship is calculated from the date on which the first visa application was made to the date of approval/refusal of the current sponsorship. (스폰서가 다른 사람을 스폰서 또는 노미네이션을 해 줄 때, 최초 스폰서/노미네이션과 현 스폰서쉽 사이의 5년은 처음 비자 신청서가 제출된 날짜와 현 스폰서쉽의 승인 / 거절된 날짜로부터 계산된다. )
If the sponsor has been sponsored/nominated, the 5 year period is calculated from the date the sponsor’s own visa application was made to the date of approval/refusal of the current sponsorship. (만약 스폰서가 이전에 스폰서쉽 또는 노미네이션을 받은 경우, 그 5년은 스폰서 자신의 비자 신청서가 제출된 날과 현 스폰서쉽의 승인 / 거절된 날짜로부터 계산된다.)
6.2 Date of sponsorship decision is the critical date (스폰서쉽 결정날짜가 매우 중요한 날짜)
Approval/refusal of the sponsorship is a time of decision criteria. Although a sponsorship must be held at time of application, it is only at time of decision that the sponsorship must have been approved. (스폰서쉽의 승인 / 거절은 최종 의사결정할때의 시간임. 비록 스폰서쉽이 신청시에 만들어졌다 할지라도, 그 스폰서쉽이 승인되어져야 할 때만 적용된다)
| Example
An Australian citizen has previously sponsored a spouse; the spouse application was made on 1/1/94; the sponsorship was approved and a BC-100 visa was granted. (호주 시민권자가 배우자를 스폰서했었다. 배우자신청서는 94년 1월 1일 제출. 스폰서쉽이 승인되고 비자가 그란트되었다)
The marriage has now broken down and the Australian citizen sponsors another partner, this time for a Prospective Marriage visa (TO-300); the application was made on 1/10/98 (that is, 4 years 9 months between the first and second applications). (결혼은 파혼상태이고 그 시민권자 다른 파트너를 스폰서하려고 하고 이번에는 약혼비자를 위해서. 98년 10월 1일 비자신청이 되었다 (즉, 처음과 두번째 신청서 사이의 기간은 4년 9개월)
Processing takes 6 months to complete; the final decision is made on 1/3/99; as 5 years has now elapsed since the first application was made, the current sponsorship may be approved. (처리 시간은 6개월이 소요되고 마지막 결정은 99년 3월 1일 됨. 따라서 처음신청서가 만들어진 이후 5년이 막 지났다. 그래서 현 스폰서쉽은 그란트 될 것이다.) |
7 The reg 1.20J(2) waiver provision (두번 이상 스폰서쉽을 줄 수 있는 예외 상황)
7.1 About the waiver
Regulation 1.20J(2) allows officers to approve a sponsorship that would otherwise fail to meet regulation 1.20J(1) requirements if there are ‘compelling circumstances’ affecting the sponsor. As a matter of law, all cases must be assessed against the provisions of regulation 1.20J(2).
7.2 Compelling circumstances affecting the interests of the sponsor
Under policy, compelling circumstances affecting the interests of the sponsor include instances where:
- the applicant and their sponsor have a dependent child who is dependent on each of them or (신청인과 스폰서 사이에 자녀가 있거나)
- the death of the previous partner or (이전 파트너가 사망했거나)
- the previous spouse abandoning the sponsor and there are children dependent on the sponsor requiring care and support or (스폰서를 포기한 이전의 배우자가 있고 그 스폰서의 자녀들을 돌보며 지원해 줘야 하거나)
- the new relationship is longstanding. (새로운 관계가 아주 오래된 경우)
These examples are not exhaustive. The purpose of the sponsorship limitation is to prevent abuse of the partner/fiancé migration provisions and this should be kept in mind when deciding whether to exercise the waiver. (이 예제가 모든 것을 의미하지 않고 다양한 각도와 내용을 참고하게 됨)
Every aspect of the sponsor’s circumstances is relevant to the existence of compelling circumstances. Although no definitive list can be given, some general aspects that may be particularly important are:
- the nature of the hardship/detriment that would be suffered (by the sponsor) if the sponsorship were not approved.
- the extent and importance of the ties the sponsor has to Australia, and the consequent hardship/detriment that would be suffered if the sponsorship were not approved and the sponsor were to feel compelled to leave Australia to maintain their relationship with the applicant.
| Example
There have recently been a number of claims relating to so called ‘innocent sponsors’. These sponsors claim that their intentions towards the original relationship were genuine, that they were blameless in the failure of the relationship and that because of this, the waiver should be exercised. In some of these cases, the person they sponsored/nominated has left Australia and no immigration advantage was gained. The sponsors claim that they would be unreasonably disadvantaged if the waiver was not exercised as their new relationship is clearly genuine.
It is open to decision makers to decide whether this situation would meet the criteria of compelling circumstances. However, this would depend on the individual circumstances of each case such as whether it is possible to establish the bona fides of the original relationship or whether the first sponsorship was ‘careless’ (sponsored with the expectation that if things didn’t work out, they would be free to try again). Although the first relationship may not necessarily be bogus, this scenario may still represent a misuse of the migration provisions. |
Last update: 2018년 1월 5일
물맑은 호주이민닷컴
이민법무사 (0208335)
신순철
|
