[18세이상 자녀비자필독] 802 비자 – 가짜정보 – 일한사실 – 재정적지원자료미비 – 거절확정

[18세이상 자녀비자필독] 802 비자 – 가짜정보 – 일한사실 – 재정적지원자료미비 – 거절확정
자녀 비자가 거절되고 재심에서 거절확정되는 케이스가 있어서 도대체 자녀비자가 거절되어야 하는 이유는 뭘까 솔직히 궁금했습니다. 결론적으로 말하자면 애초에 거절될 케이스였다고 보여집니다. MIGRATION – Child (Residence) (Class BT) – Subclass 802 (Child) – dependent child of sponsor – director of business – applicant undertaking work activities – false and misleading information provided – did not intentionally provided documents – information provided to assist with visa – no compelling circumstances – lack of evidence – no evidence of incapacitation – decision under review affirmed 18세 이상이면 반드시 부모의 재정적 지원을 받고 살았음을 증빙해야 합니다. 일을 한 기록이 있다면 당연히 이 부분을 만족하지 못합니다. 늘 그렇지만 이름변경이 있거나 이름을 여러개 이용하여 사용한 경우는 모두 밝혔어야 합니다. 의심받을 일은 하지 말아야 좋습니다. 예방보다 더 좋은 것은 없습니다. 고등학교를 졸업하기 전 학교 정보도 정확해야 합니다. 카나다에서 12학년을 마쳤다고 했다가 아니다 호주에 와서 마쳤다가 횡설수설하면 신뢰를 쌓는데 어렵지 않을까요? 이름은 박성호라고 하는데 나중에 이외에 2개의 이름이 더 있음을 이민성에서 발견합니다. 결국 2018년 1월 10일 자녀 비자를 신청했지만 아래와 같이 CO 비자거절을 합니다. 802.212 와 802.214를 만족하지 못한다고 하면서. On 10 January 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a dependent child of the sponsor or that he is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of his bodily or mental functions. Therefore, the applicant did not meet cl.802.212 of and cl.802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) made under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The delegate was also not satisfied that the applicant met Public Interest Criteria 4020. Therefore, he did not meet cl.802.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. 그리고 재심을 신청하지만 재심과정에서 갖가지 정보 제공한 것이며 한개 이상의 이름, 회사를 설립한 사실, Eddie Kang 이란 사람과 함께 일을 한 것. 신청인이 설립한 회사가 Public Notice 에 나와 있는 점등 재정능력을 부모로 부터 의존하지 않았다는 사실들이 밝혀지니 케이스는 자녀비자승인 거절을 확정합니다. 먼저 자녀가 부모의 재정적 지원에 의존(dependent)가 있다는 점을 만족해야 함. 1.05A (1) Subject to subregulation (2), a person (the first person) is dependent on another person if: (a) at the time when it is necessary to establish whether the first person is dependent on the other person: (i) the first person is, and has been for a substantial period immediately before that time, wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support to meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; and (ii) the first person’s reliance on the other person is greater than any reliance meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; or (b) the first person is wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support because the first person is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the first person’s bodily or mental functions. 하물며 신청인이 회사를 설립했고 (감추었다고 밝혀짐) 일을 했다고 확신하는 듯 함. 신청인이 일은 하지 않았다는 말에 재심관은 신빙성을 갖지 않음 The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant established a company one week prior to the warning of 13 December 2018. The information before the Tribunal is as follows: the applicant was appointed as the Director of Australian RSMS Visa Service Pty Ltd (ARVS) (Australian Company Number 627379588) on 8 July 2018. ARVS is an Australian Proprietary Company that is limited by shares with a principal business at Suite 401/80 Mount Street, North Sydney NSW 2060. The applicant is the sole Director and only member of the Company with all shares of the company issued to the applicant and beneficially held by the applicant. Other information is that ABF officers attended the North Sydney address on 26 September 2018 where Mr Park was located and the applicant stated that he is the Director of the company operating at the premises and that he agreed with the ASIC extract reflecting his Directorship of ARVS. Other information the subject of the certificates is relied upon because it provided detailed and exact information. That information places the applicant working out of the North Sydney premises and receiving payment for the services he provided. The notice of December 2018 issued by the NSW Government, the Fair Trade Commissioner warns against ARVS stating that the business offered immigration services to consumers, but did not deliver the service despite being paid. 재정적으로 부모로부터 지원 받았다고 주장을 하지만 객관적 자료는 거의 제공하지 못함이 좋은 결과 낳지 못함; On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the applicant has been undertaking activities that constitutes work and has been renumerated for those services. Although the applicant and the sponsor claim that the applicant has been supported financially by the sponsor, there is little independent evidence to support this. Having considered the evidence individually and as a whole and because of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that for a substantial period immediately before the time of application and the time of decision, the applicant, was wholly or substantially reliant on the sponsor or her partner for financial support to meet his basic needs for food, clothing and shelter or that his reliance on the sponsor or her partner is greater than any reliance by him on any other person, or source of support, for financial support to meet the his basic needs for food, clothing and shelter because he has not provided little independent evidence to support that claim. 그리고 제공된 자료와 모아진 정보가 가짜 및 오도할 수 있다고 봄. The Tribunal is satisfied that collectively this information is false and misleading information in a material particular at the time it was given and was provided by the applicant to assist the visa application and to meet cl.802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations. 자녀비자가 거절되어 신청인이 호주를 떠나는 것이 호주사회 호주에 남은 가족에게 어떤 인도적 차원 또는 어떤 불가항력적 힘든일이 있는지 검토를 했지만 있다고 보지 않음. This decision is a synopsis of the information before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the evidence individually and as a whole. The Tribunal accepts the following: that the death of the applicant’s father may have presented and present him with difficulties. The applicant departing Australia may offer challenges for the applicant, the sponsor, the applicant’s family and the applicant’s girlfriend and his step-father sees him as a son and believes he is an asset to Australia. The applicant may be required to fulfil military Service in Korea and that living in Korea without immediate family and the culture may be difficult for him. The Tribunal encourages the applicant and the sponsor to seek assistance from their health care professionals during any periods of separation. However, on balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it, that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or that there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justify the granting of the visa. For the reasons above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived (면죄 될 수 없고) Accordingly cl.802.223 is not met at the time of decision. (해당 조건을 만족하지 못하고) For the reasons above, the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 802 visa are not met. There have been no claims advanced in respect of the other visa subclass in Class BT (Subclass 837). (그래서 비자 거절) The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa. (결론적으로 비자거절을 확정함) 결론적으로 가짜 정보 및 오도할 수 있는 정보제공 일도 했다는 객관적 자료 재정적 지원을 했다는 객관적 자료 없음 정식적 신체적으로 병들어 일을 못한다는 점도 크게 받아들여지지 않음 결국 비자는 거절되는 것을 확정됨. AAT 케이스 원문보기 PS 이 케이스는 신청인이 스스로 DIY로 한것 같음. 에디강이라는 사람과 일을 한 것과 또 다른 사람한테 비자관련하여 배웠다는 것을 봐서는. 보통 이민법무사가 함께 representative 했다라든가 하는 말이 언급이 되는데 전혀 없음. 조금 안타깝게도 케이스에 대한 공부를 깊이 있게 하진 못한 것 같다는 느낌을 받음. 물맑은 호주이민닷컴 이민법무사 (0208335) 신순철

자녀 비자가 거절되고 재심에서 거절확정되는 케이스가 있어서 도대체 자녀비자가 거절되어야 하는 이유는 뭘까 솔직히 궁금했습니다.

결론적으로 말하자면 애초에 거절될 케이스였다고 보여집니다.

MIGRATION – Child (Residence) (Class BT) – Subclass 802 (Child) – dependent child of sponsor – director of business – applicant undertaking work activities – false and misleading information provided – did not intentionally provided documents – information provided to assist with visa – no compelling circumstances – lack of evidence – no evidence of incapacitation – decision under review affirmed

18세 이상이면 반드시 부모의 재정적 지원을 받고 살았음을 증빙해야 합니다. 일을 한 기록이 있다면 당연히 이 부분을 만족하지 못합니다.

늘 그렇지만 이름변경이 있거나 이름을 여러개 이용하여 사용한 경우는 모두 밝혔어야 합니다.

의심받을 일은 하지 말아야 좋습니다. 예방보다 더 좋은 것은 없습니다.

고등학교를 졸업하기 전 학교 정보도 정확해야 합니다. 카나다에서 12학년을 마쳤다고 했다가 아니다 호주에 와서 마쳤다가 횡설수설하면 신뢰를 쌓는데 어렵지 않을까요?

이름은 박성호라고 하는데 나중에 이외에 2개의 이름이 더 있음을 이민성에서 발견합니다.

결국 2018년 1월 10일 자녀 비자를 신청했지만 아래와 같이 CO 비자거절을 합니다. 802.212 와 802.214를 만족하지 못한다고 하면서.

On 10 January 2018, a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Border Protection refused to grant the visa. The delegate was not satisfied that the applicant is a dependent child of the sponsor or that he is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of his bodily or mental functions. Therefore, the applicant did not meet cl.802.212 of and cl.802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) made under the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). The delegate was also not satisfied that the applicant met Public Interest Criteria 4020. Therefore, he did not meet cl.802.223 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

그리고 재심을 신청하지만 재심과정에서 갖가지 정보 제공한 것이며 한개 이상의 이름, 회사를 설립한 사실, Eddie Kang 이란 사람과 함께 일을 한 것. 신청인이 설립한 회사가 Public Notice 에 나와 있는 점등 재정능력을 부모로 부터 의존하지 않았다는 사실들이 밝혀지니 케이스는 자녀비자승인 거절을 확정합니다.

먼저 자녀가 부모의 재정적 지원에 의존(dependent)가 있다는 점을 만족해야 함.

1.05A (1) Subject to subregulation (2), a person (the first person) is dependent on another person if:

(a) at the time when it is necessary to establish whether the first person is dependent on the other person:

(i) the first person is, and has been for a substantial period immediately before that time, wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support to meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; and

(ii) the first person’s reliance on the other person is greater than any reliance meet the first person’s basic needs for food, clothing and shelter; or

(b) the first person is wholly or substantially reliant on the other person for financial support because the first person is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the first person’s bodily or mental functions.

하물며 신청인이 회사를 설립했고 (감추었다고 밝혀짐) 일을 했다고 확신하는 듯 함. 신청인이 일은 하지 않았다는 말에 재심관은 신빙성을 갖지 않음

The Tribunal does not accept that the applicant established a company one week prior to the warning of 13 December 2018. The information before the Tribunal is as follows: the applicant was appointed as the Director of Australian RSMS Visa Service Pty Ltd (ARVS) (Australian Company Number 627379588) on 8 July 2018. ARVS is an Australian Proprietary Company that is limited by shares with a principal business at Suite 401/80 Mount Street, North Sydney NSW 2060. The applicant is the sole Director and only member of the Company with all shares of the company issued to the applicant and beneficially held by the applicant. Other information is that ABF officers attended the North Sydney address on 26 September 2018 where Mr Park was located and the applicant stated that he is the Director of the company operating at the premises and that he agreed with the ASIC extract reflecting his Directorship of ARVS. Other information the subject of the certificates is relied upon because it provided detailed and exact information. That information places the applicant working out of the North Sydney premises and receiving payment for the services he provided. The notice of December 2018 issued by the NSW Government, the Fair Trade Commissioner warns against ARVS stating that the business offered immigration services to consumers, but did not deliver the service despite being paid.

재정적으로 부모로부터 지원 받았다고 주장을 하지만 객관적 자료는 거의 제공하지 못함이 좋은 결과 낳지 못함;

On the evidence before the Tribunal, it is satisfied that the applicant has been undertaking activities that constitutes work and has been renumerated for those services. Although the applicant and the sponsor claim that the applicant has been supported financially by the sponsor, there is little independent evidence to support this. Having considered the evidence individually and as a whole and because of evidence to the contrary, the Tribunal is not satisfied that for a substantial period immediately before the time of application and the time of decision, the applicant, was wholly or substantially reliant on the sponsor or her partner for financial support to meet his basic needs for food, clothing and shelter or that his reliance on the sponsor or her partner is greater than any reliance by him on any other person, or source of support, for financial support to meet the his basic needs for food, clothing and shelter because he has not provided little independent evidence to support that claim.

그리고 제공된 자료와 모아진 정보가 가짜 및 오도할 수 있다고 봄.

The Tribunal is satisfied that collectively this information is false and misleading information in a material particular at the time it was given and was provided by the applicant to assist the visa application and to meet cl.802.214 of Schedule 2 to the Regulations.

자녀비자가 거절되어 신청인이 호주를 떠나는 것이 호주사회 호주에 남은 가족에게 어떤 인도적 차원 또는 어떤 불가항력적 힘든일이 있는지 검토를 했지만 있다고 보지 않음.

This decision is a synopsis of the information before the Tribunal. The Tribunal considered the evidence individually and as a whole. The Tribunal accepts the following: that the death of the applicant’s father may have presented and present him with difficulties. The applicant departing Australia may offer challenges for the applicant, the sponsor, the applicant’s family and the applicant’s girlfriend and his step-father sees him as a son and believes he is an asset to Australia. The applicant may be required to fulfil military Service in Korea and that living in Korea without immediate family and the culture may be difficult for him. The Tribunal encourages the applicant and the sponsor to seek assistance from their health care professionals during any periods of separation. However, on balance, the Tribunal is not satisfied on the evidence before it, that there are compelling circumstances that affect the interests of Australia, or that there are compassionate or compelling circumstances that affect the interests of an Australian citizen, an Australian permanent resident, or an eligible New Zealand citizen that justify the granting of the visa.

For the reasons above, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the requirements should be waived (면죄 될 수 없고)
Accordingly cl.802.223 is not met at the time of decision. (해당 조건을 만족하지 못하고)
For the reasons above, the criteria for the grant of a Subclass 802 visa are not met. There have been no claims advanced in respect of the other visa subclass in Class BT (Subclass 837). (그래서 비자 거절)
The Tribunal affirms the decision not to grant the applicant a Child (Residence) (Class BT) visa. (결론적으로 비자거절을 확정함)

결론적으로

가짜 정보 및 오도할 수 있는 정보제공
일도 했다는 객관적 자료
재정적 지원을 했다는 객관적 자료 없음
정식적 신체적으로 병들어 일을 못한다는 점도 크게 받아들여지지 않음

결국 비자는 거절되는 것을 확정됨.

AAT 케이스 원문보기

PS 이 케이스는 신청인이 스스로 DIY로 한것 같음. 에디강이라는 사람과 일을 한 것과 또 다른 사람한테 비자관련하여 배웠다는 것을 봐서는. 보통 이민법무사가 함께 representative 했다라든가 하는 말이 언급이 되는데 전혀 없음. 조금 안타깝게도 케이스에 대한 공부를 깊이 있게 하진 못한 것 같다는 느낌을 받음.

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

목록보기

최신이민정보

[18세이상 자녀비자필독] 802 비자 – 가짜정보 – 일한사실 – 재정적지원자료미비 – 거절확정