무료 상담란에 문의한 것을 답변을 공유합니다.

호주에서 1st WHM 비자를 받고 거의  365일 – 2일 거주했다고 합니다.

그리고 그저 일만했기에 출국전에 600 비자 신청하여 관광비자로 여행을 하고 싶다는 분입니다.

관련하여 아래에 관광비자법이 있습니다.

3.8. If total stay will exceed 12 consecutive months – clause 600.215
Exceptional circumstances must exist if an applicant’s period of stay in Australia would exceed 12 consecutive months, as the holder of one or more of the following visas:

one or more visitor visas (Subclass 600, 601 and 651 visas);
a Subclass 417 (Working Holiday) visa;
a Subclass 462 (Work and Holiday) visa;
a bridging visa.

즉, 이미 위에 언급된 비자를 소지하고 12개월 초과하면서 거주를 할 경우는 특별한 사유가 있어야 한다는 것입니다.

특별한 상황이란?

신청시점에서 특별한 상황 (신청자의 호주인 가족의 사망, 중대 교통사고 등) 또는 불가항력적 일이 발생하여 호주를 떠나지 못하는 경우 예를들어 한국에 전쟁이 발생, 지진으로 비행기 이착륙 불가 등. 그런 일이 아니면 12개월 거의 거주하신 분은 비자 그란트가 안된다는 점.

Exceptional circumstances are not defined in the Regulations but instead are recognised according to their ordinary dictionary meaning which may include:

an unanticipated change in an applicant’s circumstances (or the circumstances of an Australian citizen or permanent resident) that are beyond the applicant’s control and are extraordinary; or
if an applicant is required to stay in Australia to provide assistance or support due to the death, serious illness or serious medical condition of a member of the applicant’s close family in Australia.

관련된 분들에게 작은 도움이 되길 바라면서 공유합니다.

Soonchul Shin
RMA (0208335)
www.hojuemin.com

파트너와 관계가 최소 12개월 또는 그 이상이 될 때 de facto 관계의 기간을 인정해 주는데 있어서 이 기간을 면제 받는데 방법이 바로 Relationship Registration 을 신청인이 거주하는 해당 주에 등록을 하는 것입니다.

Eligibility (신청자격조건)

• one of you lives in NSW
• you’re both over 18 years of age
• you’re not married to each other or anyone else
• you’re not in a registered relationship in another state or territory in Australia
• you’re not in a relationship with another person
• you’re not related by family.

이때 ID 증빙자료가 필요하며 NSW 주의 경우 아래와 같습니다.

Proof of identity (POI) documents

There are 3 POI categories and you need to provide one document from each category.

If you cannot provide a POI document from category 1, you’ll need to provide at least one document from Category 2 and 2 documents from Category 3.

Category 1 (카타고리 1에 보면 한국인 국적을 가진 분은 해당이 없지요. 그래서 안되나? 가 아니라 위의 적색으로 표시한 것을 살펴 보면 케테고리 1에 제출할 자료가 없으면 카테고리 2에서 한개 카테고리 3에서 2개를 제출하면 된다는 문구가 있어요)

• Australian birth certificate
• Australian citizenship certificate
• New Zealand citizenship certificate
• New Zealand birth certificate
• ImmiCard
• Certificate of Registration by Descent

Category 2 (아래 blue 중에 하나)

• ​Australian driver licence (호주 운전면허증)
• Australian passport
• Australian firearms licence
• overseas passport containing a current visa (현 비자를 가지고 있는 한국 여권)
• proof of age card, or photocard issued by an Australian state or territory

Category 3 (학생인 경우 아래 blue로 표기한 것을 소지하고 있을 것입니다)

• ​Medicare card (거의 해당무)
• Private health care card (사보험카드)
• Centrelink pensioner concession card, or other entitlement card (임시 비자 소지자분들 해당무)
• Australian Department of Veterans’ Affairs card (호주 군인출신들)
• Security licence (호주영주권자 / 시민권자에게만 오픈되어 있음)
• Student or tertiary education ID card (학생증)

Proof of address (거주지 증빙 자료)

If you live in NSW you may also need to provide a document confirming your residential address if none of the POI documents you used shows your address.

Examples of documents could include, but are not limited to:

• an electricity, water or gas bill issued within the last 3 months (3개월 이내의 공과금)
• a lease agreement (집계약서)
• a council rates notice issued within the last 12 months. (지난 12개월내의 카운슬 비용지불내용)

이상과 같이 살펴본 결과 학생비자를 소지한 분들은 NSW주에 Relationship Registration 을 등록할 수 있겠습니다.

Last update: 2025년 3월 18일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

www.hojuemin.com

호주에 외국인 노동자들을 필요로 하는 산업계가 건설업계인 것 같습니다. 집이 부족해서 집구하기가 쉽지 않다는 기사를 매일 보고 있습니다. 하여 정부는 외국인 건설업계 외국인 노동자를 호주로 유입시키려고 노력하고 있습니다.

호주 기술이민을 하고자 할 때 기술심사를 정부가 지정한 곳에서 통과를 해야 합니다. 이때 기능직 종사자들의 기술심사의 유형이 몇가지 있습니다. OSAP 라는 기술심사가 있고 MSA 라는 기술심사가 있습니다. MSA 라는 기술심사는 OSAP와 비교할 수 없을 만큼 간단한 절차를 갖습니다.

이와 관련 2024년 7월 31일 이후 부터 주택건설업계에 일하는 기능직 종사자들이 MSA 기술심사 과정을 통해 경력심사를 받을 수 있도록 바뀌었습니다. 쉽게 해당 관문을 열어 둔 것입니다. 

여기에 영어가 모국어가 아닌 한국인들 넘어야 하는 관문이  하나 더 있습니다. 바로 영어능력입니다. 최소한 IELTS 기준 6.0 를 확보할 때 호주 영주비자 (189, 190) 또는 임시비자 (491) 또는 고용주스폰서쉽 영주비자 (186) 신청하는 중요한 서류가 됩니다.

한국에서 고등학교를 졸업하고 주택건설현장에서 기능직으로 일을 하신 분들 중에 언어 능력이 되고 만 30세 이내에 해당하는 분들이 이 글을 보신 다면 무료온라인상담실 에 비밀글로 질문을 하실 수 있고 20여년간 호주 비자업무를 담당해 온 신순철 이민법무사인 제가 직접 상담드립니다. 

아래 내용은 Office of MARA 라고 하여 이민법무사 등록 기관에서 지난 주 이민법무사들에게 보내온 메일내용으로 함께 공유해 드립니다.

Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) Skills Assessment Update

As part of the Australian Government measure to assist with meeting the demands of the housing construction sector, Trades Recognition Australia (TRA) changed Offshore Skills Assessment Program (OSAP) eligibility requirements for a number of housing construction occupations.

From 31 July 2024, applicants working in eligible housing construction occupations now have the option of having their skills assessed through the Migration Skills Assessment (MSA) program.

We recommend that where an applicant is eligible that they are directed to the MSA program as this program provides applicants with a much cheaper and quicker pathway for skills assessments. Over December/January, approximately 85 per cent of MSA applications in a housing construction occupation are being finalised within 25 days.

A complete list of eligible occupations assessed by TRA and relevant assessment pathways are available on the Trades Recognition Australia website.

For MSA enquiries please contact tramsaandmpa@dewr.gov.au or for OSAP enquiries please contact traoutsourcedprograms@dewr.gov.au.

직업에 귀천이 없는 호주에서 보다 질적인 삶과 보다 공정과 상식이 통하는 호주라는 국가에서 생활해 보는 기회를 얻을 수 있길 바라는 마음에서 이 내용을 올립니다.

호주에 오는 길이 반드시 White colour 직업군만 있는 것이 아니라는 점과 그리고 blue colour 종사자들이 오히려 돈을 번다는 차원에서 몸쓰면서 (운동도하고) 돈도 버는 좋은 사회임을 또한 알려드리고 싶습니다.

직업에 귀천이 없는 사회에서 생활하시는 기회를!

Last update: 2025년 2월 24일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

섭쓰리 마라토너 (sub 3 marathoner)

신순철

쉐프 (Chef), 자동차 정비사 (Motor Mechanic) 그리고 등록된 간호사 (Enrolled Nurse) 등 3가지 직업군은 그동안 남호주 (South Australia) 전례없는 신청자들이 ROI 신청서 제출함에 따라 그 할당된 수요를 넘쳤다고 합니다. 아래 내용은 남호주의 홈페이지에서 발췌한 내용으로 이 3가지 직업군으로 주정부스폰서쉽을 고려하는 분들은 다른 비자 옵션을 알아 보거나 또는 다른 주 또는 2025년 7월 부터 새로운 회계년도에 기회를 엿봐야 할지도 모르겠습니다. 자신의 비자 상황에 따라 적절한 또는 가장 알맞는 옵션을 이민법무사들과 상의를 해야 할 것 같습니다. 

South Australia’s 2024-2025 General Skilled Migration Program has experienced unprecedented levels of Registration of Interest (ROI) applications for the following occupations:

• Chef 
• Motor Mechanic (General) 
• Enrolled Nurse 

With interest so high, Skilled & Business Migration (SBM) is advising current and prospective applicants for these occupations to consider exploring alternative visa options, such as SBM’s DAMA Program. Clients can discuss visa options with their current employer and migration agent.

Currently, the number of ROI’s submitted exceeds the quota available to SBM.

SBM will continue to send invitations to clients living and working in South Australia on a weekly basis across all available occupations. (그외 직업군에 대해서는 남호주에 거주하고 일하는 분들에게 초대를 계속 보낼 것이라고)

이와 같이 어떤 특정 직업군이 좋다 하면 전세계 사람들이 다 눈여겨 보기 때문에 예를 들어 해당 주에 공부를 마치고 기술심사 통과하고 나면 영주권이 반드시(?) 나온다 내지는 받는다 는 그런 보장성 (100% 보장)한다는 것은 사실상 없다는 점을 숙지하셔야 합니다. 왜냐하면 언제나 노미네이션은 한정되어 있기 때문이니다. 

발췌 링크 : https://www.migration.sa.gov.au/skilled-migrants/nomination-options/south-australian-graduates 

Last update: 2025년 1월 8일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

한국에서 전기기술자 학력 졸업자가 아님에도 불구하고

만 6년 경력을 소지하신 분 (급여자료, 은행 급여 내용 및 세무소에서 발행하는 Certificate of Income 그리고 연금지불내역 등이 있었음) 이 OSAP 기술심사를 1차 관문을 통과했음을 알려드립니다. 

OSAP 기술심사는 호주 기술이민심사 중에 까다로운 기술심사중에 하나입니다.

저는 agent로서 신청자는 일과 워홀 준비를 하시면서 약 3개월 정도를 힘들게 준비하셔서 최종적으로 1차 관문을 잘 통과하셨습니다.

2차 평가는 실제적인 실습과 기술적 인터뷰입니다. 당연히 영어로 듣고 말하고 답할 수 있어야 하지만 영어시험은 아닙니다. 전기분야의 (전문용어)를 주로 사용하게 됩니다. 그래서 일반 general english 보다 오히려 쉽게 느껴질 수도 있습니다.

이글을 읽는 분들이 한국에서 전기일을 고등학교 전기과 출신이면서 최소 만 4년 또는 관련전공이 아니라도 전기분야로 일한 경력이 만 6년이라면 TRA에서 요구하는 기술심사 조건을 만족함에 따라 서류 전형부터 시작해 볼 수 있음을 안내드립니다.

전기기술자 (electrician)으로 호주에서 비자를 받고자 할 경우 – 코스와 필수경력기간

차후에 이분의 케이스가 진행되는 과정을 또 업데이트해드리겠습니다.

한국에서 전기기술자로 일하시는 분들도 많은 관심 갖아 주세요.

호주에서 전기기술자로 영주권받기 일해보기를 위해서 제가 지원할 수 있는 것은 도와드리겠습니다. 관심있는 분들은 카톡 또는 메일로 연락주십시오.

감사합니다.

Last update: 2024년 12월 12일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

2024년 12월 7일 부터 기존 Temporary Shortage Skills (TSS) Subclass 482 비자를 대체할 Skills in Demand (SID) Subclass 482 Visa 세가지 방법중에 하나에 해당하는 Core Skills Pathway (CSP) 를 위한  직업군 목록인 Core Skills Occupation List (CSOL) 전체 목록입니다.

Last update: 2024년 12월 6일

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

안녕하세요.

아래 내용은 제 실제 고객님의 케이스입니다.

저를 통해서 의사로서 영주비자를 최근에 받으셨습니다.

그 과정을 간단히 소개해 드립니다.

1. Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) Full-time  학생으로서 6년 소요
2. Medical Board of Australia 에 의사로서 임시 등록을 하고 병원에서 1년간 인턴 일을 함
3. 만 1년후 Medical Board of Australia 에 정식 Medical Practitioner로 등록함
4. EOI제출
5. 주정부스폰서쉽 초대
6. 주정부스폰서쉽 획득
7. EOI 초대
8. 비자 190 신청
9. 비자 190 그란트

4번부터 9번까지 일사천리로 진행되었습니다.

예를들어 5-7번까지 2주도 소요되지 않았고 8-9번 과정이 또한 2주도 소요되지 않음.

저랑 업무 계약을 5번 단계에서 하시고 진행하여 1.5개월도 안되어 모든 과정이 완료된 케이스입니다.

추가자료 요청도 없을 정도로 신청서와 서류 준비를 완벽하게 했었습니다.

현재 Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) 를 공부중이시거나 또는 Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) 를 공부를 마치고 인턴 생활 또는 향후 Bachelor of Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery (MBBS) 를 공부하실 분들에게 도움이 되길 바랍니다.

감사합니다.

물맑은 호주이민닷컴

이민법무사 (0208335)

신순철

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