Rob Breumelhof
Active Member
Ik zie regelmatig een vraag staan over wat er gebeurt als de uiterste inreisdatum om het visum geldig te maken dicht tegen de datum van visumafgifte aanligt, waardoor het erg krap gaat worden om de emigratie te gaan regelen.
De interne richtlijnen van DIAC zeggen hierover het volgende:
21 DETERMINING THE 'FIRST ENTRY' DATE
21.1 Policy requirements
All the offshore (migrant) visas are subject to the condition that ‘First entry must be made before a date specified by the Minister for the purpose’, see clause 6 in the relevant Schedule 2 Part. In deciding this date, officers are to have regard to the following policy.
22 FOR CASES NOT SUBJECT TO S85 CAPPING
22.1 Single applicants
Subject to any other clause 6 policy listed in the relevant PAM3: Sch2Visa instruction, for single applicants not subject to s85 capping, the “first entry date” should be whichever is the earliest of the validity under policy of:
• the MOC’s opinion on the applicant’s last radiological examination - see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007
• the MOC’s opinion on the applicant’s last medical examination - see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007
• the applicant’s police clearance for current residence - see PAM3: Sch4/4001
• the applicant’s security clearance - see PAM3: Sch4/4002
• the assurance of support in favour of the applicant - see PAM3: Div1.2/reg1.03 - Assurance of support
• the form 40 sponsorship (if applicable) in favour of the applicant - see PAM3: Div1.4.
22.2 Family units
For a family unit not subject to s85 capping, establish the earliest date for each person in accordance with the list immediately above. The (one) “first entry date” for all persons should correspond to the earliest of all those dates.
22.3 General considerations
It is emphasised that the above is policy. In all cases before visas are granted, officers should consider whether the specified date as determined above would allow the visa holder a reasonable period in which to settle their affairs (eg sell property, arrange travel) and travel to Australia.
22.4 “Extending” the first entry date
If the proposed first entry date (calculated with the relevant policy above) would not allow reasonable time for the applicant to settle their affairs and travel to Australia, officers may consider making the first entry date up to 3 months beyond that proposed first entry date.
This “extension” should be considered only if the circumstances were reasonably beyond the applicant’s control (eg a death in the applicant’s family, difficulty in obtaining flight bookings or significant delays in assessment procedures).
In all cases, an “extension” should not be considered if it might undermine principles underlying public interest criteria (in particular, health and character requirements).
For example, under policy, generally no extension should be considered if the applicant is subject to a health undertaking (however, first see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007 for policy and procedures).
By law, an “extension” cannot be considered after the decision to grant the visa has been made (ie the visa has been granted), regardless of whether the visa has been evidenced.
De 'Case Officer' kan zelf dus besluiten om maximaal drie maanden verlenging te geven, maar is niet verplicht om dit te doen en ook niet verplicht om een visumaanvrager vooraf te vragen of de uiterste inreisdatum hem voldoende tijd geeft om naar Australie te reizen. Mijn advies is om - als de uiterste inreisdatum erg dichtbij begint te komen - contact op te nemen met de 'Case Officer' (of het betreffende DIAC-kantoor als er nog geen 'Case Officer' bekend is) en te vragen om de beslissing over de visumaanvraag op te schorten tot nieuwe politieverklaringen en/of 'medicals' zijn verstrekt.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Rob Breumelhof
Adelaide
De interne richtlijnen van DIAC zeggen hierover het volgende:
21 DETERMINING THE 'FIRST ENTRY' DATE
21.1 Policy requirements
All the offshore (migrant) visas are subject to the condition that ‘First entry must be made before a date specified by the Minister for the purpose’, see clause 6 in the relevant Schedule 2 Part. In deciding this date, officers are to have regard to the following policy.
22 FOR CASES NOT SUBJECT TO S85 CAPPING
22.1 Single applicants
Subject to any other clause 6 policy listed in the relevant PAM3: Sch2Visa instruction, for single applicants not subject to s85 capping, the “first entry date” should be whichever is the earliest of the validity under policy of:
• the MOC’s opinion on the applicant’s last radiological examination - see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007
• the MOC’s opinion on the applicant’s last medical examination - see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007
• the applicant’s police clearance for current residence - see PAM3: Sch4/4001
• the applicant’s security clearance - see PAM3: Sch4/4002
• the assurance of support in favour of the applicant - see PAM3: Div1.2/reg1.03 - Assurance of support
• the form 40 sponsorship (if applicable) in favour of the applicant - see PAM3: Div1.4.
22.2 Family units
For a family unit not subject to s85 capping, establish the earliest date for each person in accordance with the list immediately above. The (one) “first entry date” for all persons should correspond to the earliest of all those dates.
22.3 General considerations
It is emphasised that the above is policy. In all cases before visas are granted, officers should consider whether the specified date as determined above would allow the visa holder a reasonable period in which to settle their affairs (eg sell property, arrange travel) and travel to Australia.
22.4 “Extending” the first entry date
If the proposed first entry date (calculated with the relevant policy above) would not allow reasonable time for the applicant to settle their affairs and travel to Australia, officers may consider making the first entry date up to 3 months beyond that proposed first entry date.
This “extension” should be considered only if the circumstances were reasonably beyond the applicant’s control (eg a death in the applicant’s family, difficulty in obtaining flight bookings or significant delays in assessment procedures).
In all cases, an “extension” should not be considered if it might undermine principles underlying public interest criteria (in particular, health and character requirements).
For example, under policy, generally no extension should be considered if the applicant is subject to a health undertaking (however, first see PAM3: Sch4/4005-4007 for policy and procedures).
By law, an “extension” cannot be considered after the decision to grant the visa has been made (ie the visa has been granted), regardless of whether the visa has been evidenced.
De 'Case Officer' kan zelf dus besluiten om maximaal drie maanden verlenging te geven, maar is niet verplicht om dit te doen en ook niet verplicht om een visumaanvrager vooraf te vragen of de uiterste inreisdatum hem voldoende tijd geeft om naar Australie te reizen. Mijn advies is om - als de uiterste inreisdatum erg dichtbij begint te komen - contact op te nemen met de 'Case Officer' (of het betreffende DIAC-kantoor als er nog geen 'Case Officer' bekend is) en te vragen om de beslissing over de visumaanvraag op te schorten tot nieuwe politieverklaringen en/of 'medicals' zijn verstrekt.
Met vriendelijke groeten,
Rob Breumelhof
Adelaide