Conflicting advice re: living together time required - Page 2

Go Back   Living and Working in Australia Forum With Immigration and Travel Information > Living in Australia > Visas and immigration

Visas and immigration The Australia Forum for visas, immigration and migration to Australia. Please use this section to discuss all your immigration and moving to Australia needs. Discuss visa types, time lines, submission dates, police checks and read our members' immigration success stories here.

Conflicting advice re: living together time required - Page 2


Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #11 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2010, 04:57 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
Users Flag! From australia

88 likes received
1 likes given
Hi Ems,

The PAM is updated often, and as I said, the version I looked at said that 6 months cohabitation is evidence of a genuine committment as a couple. However, I saw another post from ozmikail that this part of the PAM seems to have been removed in the newest version.

Keep in mind that as of July this year, COs were adivsed that processing times should be extended, owing to ASIO being overworked and the overall change of the governments' stance on maintaining a "small" Australia. I think DIAC is going to be going over all visas apps much, much more thoroughly, so it's best to satisfy the 12 months in my view.


Last edited by aussiegirl; 10-29-2010 at 04:59 AM.

  #12 (permalink)  
Old 10-29-2010, 06:31 AM
Wanderer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,467
Please update your flag here .

139 likes received
Quote:
Originally Posted by aussiegirl View Post
Hi Ems,

The PAM is updated often, and as I said, the version I looked at said that 6 months cohabitation is evidence of a genuine committment as a couple. However, I saw another post from ozmikail that this part of the PAM seems to have been removed in the newest version.

Keep in mind that as of July this year, COs were adivsed that processing times should be extended, owing to ASIO being overworked and the overall change of the governments' stance on maintaining a "small" Australia. I think DIAC is going to be going over all visas apps much, much more thoroughly, so it's best to satisfy the 12 months in my view.
aussiegirl,
Do you recall the context of the clauses that you saw six months mentioned and whether there was reference to other clauses/conditions etc.
Reason I ask and why I have said I'll stay tuned with interest is that it is possible there could be sections of PAM that do mention six months and yes going back some years the length of relationship was six months.
Exactly when it was changed I have no idea.
Other reasons could be that six months may be what they are guided by for TR visa defacto applications or it could be a minimum period where a temporary separation has occurred, though CAQ example given is an 8/4 split, it could be where separation reason is rock solid and possibly other conditions applying a 6/6 may be acceptable.





  #13 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2010, 11:41 AM
Moderator
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Posts: 895
Users Flag! From australia

88 likes received
1 likes given
OK,

I've combed the part of the PAM that I have and found the mention of 6 months cohabitation. Mind you, this version looks like it's from Feb 2000, so a lot of changes could have happened since then.

6 months living together is metioned in relation to Regulation 1.5A!1A)(b)(ii) - the assessment of a 'genuine and continuing relationship'. Here's a quote from the PAM:

"If 2 persons have been living together at the same address for 6 months or longer, that fact is to be taken to be strong evidence that the relationship is genuine and continuing, but a relationship of shorter duration is not to be taken to not to be genuine and continuing only for that reason"

Regulation 1.15A is the definition of "spouse" as used in Immigation Law, and is spells out the criteria used to assess spouse relationships for the purposes of granting or refusing visas.

So, it seems COs used to see 6 months living together as a good indication of a serious relationship. But, it's only mentioned in regard to the assessment of a genuine relationship, since the PAM also mentions that de facto couples must have been in a committed, genuine and continuing relationship for the 12 months directly prior to lodgement.


Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
  #14 (permalink)  
Old 10-31-2010, 12:32 PM
Wanderer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,467
Please update your flag here .

139 likes received
The period I know of when for a defacto, six months was sufficient was before 2000.
Even with no change possible since 2000, there's one key word there not to be overlooked -
Quote:
Regulation 1.15A is the definition of "spouse"
And it is not surprising to see a differentiation for spouse.

And with
Quote:
but a relationship of shorter duration is not to be taken to not to be genuine and continuing only for that reason"
To me that in effect means if a married couple have been together for six months, that is evidence to suggest a bonafide relationship but less than six months will not alone mean that a relationship is not considered bonafide and that is reasonable given people may apply for a spouse partner visa in being married but a short time but have other evidence of a longer term relationship.

The main clarification for most people asking the question where they have not been married is
Quote:
since the PAM also mentions that de facto couples must have been in a committed, genuine and continuing relationship for the 12 months directly prior to lodgement.




  #15 (permalink)  
Old 11-01-2010, 09:01 AM
Active Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2010
Posts: 5
Please update your flag here .

Quote:
Originally Posted by bretto View Post
Hi,

I am an aussie citizen, wanting to sponsor my girlfriend for an onshore partner visa (she is currently on student visa until end of 2011). We have been together for approx 9 months, although due to existing leases are not currently living together. We plan to move together quite soon. My question is regarding the cohabitation requirement.

We have had a consultation with a migration law firm who provided us with the following advice – “As discussed in our consultation, we recommend that you apply for your visa once you are able to evidence 6 months cohabitation." This came as a surprise to us as from the little research we had done it seemed 12mths cohabitation was required. The migration agent was adamant that this correct and that 6mths cohabitation is required, if we have already been in an exclusive relationship living apart for 9mths.

Today I waited in line at the IMMI to get an extremely rude young guy brush me off half way through my question with (loudly in front of 50 other people in line) – “You need to live together for 12mths to the day and if you have a problem with it just get married. NEXXXT”.

Reading the IMMI documentation it is not conclusive either way. Wording is –
- “Show that you and you partner have been in a de facto relationship for the entire 12 months immediately prior to lodging your application”
- “Show that you and you partner are living together or, if not, that any separation is only temporary”


Can anyone shed some light on this? I was inclined to organise the application myself but if I am going to have to deal with such unprofessionalism from IMMI the whole way through I would rather let the migration agent deal with it.

Thanks.


I thought I'd tell you about my situation in the hope it might answer your questions.

My partner and I have been together 5 years but at the time of lodging our application we had only been living together 3 days short of 12 months. Our case officer told us there and then that she wouldn't accept our application until we had lived together exactly 12 months so we had to alter our dates by 3 days so she would take our application.

She was very firm on this so I would suggest you don't take the risk!


  #16 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2010, 01:38 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Gold Coast/New York State
Posts: 67
Users Flag! From usa

17 likes received
3 likes given
Quote:
Originally Posted by bretto View Post
Hi,

I am an aussie citizen, wanting to sponsor my girlfriend for an onshore partner visa (she is currently on student visa until end of 2011). We have been together for approx 9 months, although due to existing leases are not currently living together. We plan to move together quite soon. My question is regarding the cohabitation requirement.

Can anyone shed some light on this? I was inclined to organise the application myself but if I am going to have to deal with such unprofessionalism from IMMI the whole way through I would rather let the migration agent deal with it.

Thanks.
Hi. I agree it is ambiguous, and some of the "requirement" interpretation is left to the Immigration Officer.

My case: I am a US citizen living in Hong Kong. My de facto partner lives outside of Brisbane. We had known each other for several years (having communicated first by email, and then via Skype) before meeting face-to-face. When we finally met in person, we decided to become a couple.

I am an Asia Pacific rep for my company, and the AP regional office is based in Hong Kong. I cannot do my job and live in Australia at the moment. My partner works for the QLD government, so of course, must stay in Oz.

We established "cohabitation" in several ways. I opened a bank account with a nice chunk of change, got an Aussie credit card, got a QLD driver's license and bought part of my partner's house. We have both our names on the title (and the rates!).

We fulfilled all of the requirements for the first part - being in a bona fide relationship, with evidence, for greater than one year.

I was granted the de facto temporary residence, but when the Immigration Officer gave me the visa, she told me quietly that it was clear we were in a loving and enduring relationship, but we really didn't satisfy the "living together" arrangement. She was correct. We did not have a six-month both-in-the-same-house relationship, even though it was clear, from my passport, that I was flying to Brisbane a LOT and that my partner had come to Hong Kong twice in that first year.

It helped that I was on the deed to the house. It shows permanence. I think the immigration department really wants to see a joint financial commitment, for which a lease, or a deed usually provides confirmation.

We are a mobile society these days, and all of our immigration laws are getting tougher (remember, I'm from the US!). Just be thankful Australia allows for de facto couples!

Susan in HK


  #17 (permalink)  
Old 11-06-2010, 02:49 AM
Wanderer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,467
Please update your flag here .

139 likes received
Quote:
Originally Posted by sbjapan View Post
Hi. I agree it is ambiguous, and some of the "requirement" interpretation is left to the Immigration Officer.

My case: I am a US citizen living in Hong Kong. My de facto partner lives outside of Brisbane. We had known each other for several years (having communicated first by email, and then via Skype) before meeting face-to-face. When we finally met in person, we decided to become a couple.

I am an Asia Pacific rep for my company, and the AP regional office is based in Hong Kong. I cannot do my job and live in Australia at the moment. My partner works for the QLD government, so of course, must stay in Oz.

We established "cohabitation" in several ways. I opened a bank account with a nice chunk of change, got an Aussie credit card, got a QLD driver's license and bought part of my partner's house. We have both our names on the title (and the rates!).

We fulfilled all of the requirements for the first part - being in a bona fide relationship, with evidence, for greater than one year.

I was granted the de facto temporary residence, but when the Immigration Officer gave me the visa, she told me quietly that it was clear we were in a loving and enduring relationship, but we really didn't satisfy the "living together" arrangement. She was correct. We did not have a six-month both-in-the-same-house relationship, even though it was clear, from my passport, that I was flying to Brisbane a LOT and that my partner had come to Hong Kong twice in that first year.

It helped that I was on the deed to the house. It shows permanence. I think the immigration department really wants to see a joint financial commitment, for which a lease, or a deed usually provides confirmation.

We are a mobile society these days, and all of our immigration laws are getting tougher (remember, I'm from the US!). Just be thankful Australia allows for de facto couples!

Susan in HK
On first glance it could be suggested Susan that what you have described is not so much ambiguity and more good luck in finding a CO and their supervision who has been prepared to not just stretch the regulations but some may say they have been prepared to break them, especially if their own interpretation was that you didn't meet the full relationship requirement.
It is btw not just six months for defacto relationships but twelve.

Where the variation may be acceptable is if there is some valid reasoning and in your case the CAQ gives an example re employment, even if separation in that example is for just four months of twelve.
That you have the property purchase, licence etc. to support your application would have helped also.





  #18 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2010, 01:13 AM
Active Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6
Please update your flag here .

Hey Bretto,

I feel you must be confused and it's never easy dealing with the immi they have this kind of reputation now.

Anyway, my partner and I are also going for spouse de factand almost ready to apply. I'd say have evidence of living 12 months together. A lease would be secured evidence in my opinion but there are other ways to demonstrate you have been living at the same residential address in a de facto relationship through your stat decs of friends and family who have visited you at that place and letters sent either in both your names or separate but showing same address for the time you have lived at the same address with your partner.

Maybe when you are writing your stat dec about your relationship with your partner include a reason to why you moved out together and not for the reason of obtaining evidence but rather that both of you wanted to live in a better place or a more private place together.

Hey, I know you are genuine and just starting this mind staking task but grit your teeth when immi are rude because they see it as guilty until proven innocent whereas lawyers believe innocent until proven guilty (I think).

Move out together knowing that it is for your relationship and it's something you both want to do as a couple and present this idea to immi. Living on the lease together for 12 months as evidence will definitely help though in my opinion because immi is not living with you how do they know how you really feel about each other in an application? So this is why you need to be official in the way you present your evidence as they are official in the way they examine your relationship. This is just in my opinion.

Hope it helps


  #19 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2010, 02:05 AM
Wanderer's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Posts: 7,467
Please update your flag here .

139 likes received
Quote:
Originally Posted by beckym View Post
Hey Bretto,

I feel you must be confused and it's never easy dealing with the immi they have this kind of reputation now.

Anyway, my partner and I are also going for spouse de factand almost ready to apply. I'd say have evidence of living 12 months together. A lease would be secured evidence in my opinion but there are other ways to demonstrate you have been living at the same residential address in a de facto relationship through your stat decs of friends and family who have visited you at that place and letters sent either in both your names or separate but showing same address for the time you have lived at the same address with your partner.

Maybe when you are writing your stat dec about your relationship with your partner include a reason to why you moved out together and not for the reason of obtaining evidence but rather that both of you wanted to live in a better place or a more private place together.

Hey, I know you are genuine and just starting this mind staking task but grit your teeth when immi are rude because they see it as guilty until proven innocent whereas lawyers believe innocent until proven guilty (I think).

Move out together knowing that it is for your relationship and it's something you both want to do as a couple and present this idea to immi. Living on the lease together for 12 months as evidence will definitely help though in my opinion because immi is not living with you how do they know how you really feel about each other in an application? So this is why you need to be official in the way you present your evidence as they are official in the way they examine your relationship. This is just in my opinion.

Hope it helps
Becky, people need a clear idea of what Immigration regulations are about and posting a mixed message does nothing for clarity.

First of all, lets take Bretto's case and I do not deny that he may have been confused but it would not seem to have been Immi's advice that did it.
They do not have six months mentioned for defactos.
Bretto claims the site wording is inconclusive re:
Quote:
Reading the IMMI documentation it is not conclusive either way. Wording is –
- “Show that you and you partner have been in a de facto relationship for the entire 12 months immediately prior to lodging your application”
- “Show that you and you partner are living together or, if not, that any separation is only temporary”
The Immi site even gives an example for a temporary separation.

Bretto posted more because of what some lawyer or whomever told him and he considers an Immi counter jockey got up his nose because he didn't want to waste time with someone who wanted to question what is stated quite clearly.

Now to your post and why it does not help as much as it could.
First.
Immi have regulations legislated as they are dealing with thousands of applications weekly in many different locations and obviously different people assessing and so they need regulations so as at least to get close to some uniformity.
As for
Quote:
how do they know how you really feel about each other in an application?
They cannot fully and that is why they ask about commitment and do interviews but what is more important is hard factual evidence.
Quote:
So this is why you need to be official in the way you present your evidence as they are official in the way they examine your relationship
And that is a reasonable opinion, far better than what you opened with, ie.
Quote:
but there are other ways to demonstrate you have been living at the same residential address in a de facto relationship through your stat decs of friends and family who have visited you at that place
Statutory declarations can be questionable in the absence of hard factual evidence such as leases, bills in joint names and other dated correspondence to a common address.

Putting an opening like
Quote:
I feel you must be confused and it's never easy dealing with the immi they have this kind of reputation now.
I do question where you get that view from for if people accept that there are regulations to be complied with to have eligibility, they may have a better chance rather than taking the approach that maybe they will understand why we do not fully meet the regulations and accept that.

There are many people who have posted on this forum and used the approach of accepting the regulations who have been successful in attaining visas and also many who have found Immi quite helpful.
I have contact with Immi myself from time to time, both verbal and written and though there can be times when something more could have been hoped for in response communicated, they are minimal.

So unless you have sound grounds for stating something like
Quote:
they have this kind of reputation now.
I would suggest that is very much out of place.





  #20 (permalink)  
Old 11-07-2010, 07:55 AM
Active Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 6
Please update your flag here .

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wanderer View Post
Becky, people need a clear idea of what Immigration regulations are about and posting a mixed message does nothing for clarity.

First of all, lets take Bretto's case and I do not deny that he may have been confused but it would not seem to have been Immi's advice that did it.
They do not have six months mentioned for defactos.
Bretto claims the site wording is inconclusive re:

The Immi site even gives an example for a temporary separation.

Bretto posted more because of what some lawyer or whomever told him and he considers an Immi counter jockey got up his nose because he didn't want to waste time with someone who wanted to question what is stated quite clearly.

Now to your post and why it does not help as much as it could.
First.
Immi have regulations legislated as they are dealing with thousands of applications weekly in many different locations and obviously different people assessing and so they need regulations so as at least to get close to some uniformity.
As for
They cannot fully and that is why they ask about commitment and do interviews but what is more important is hard factual evidence.

And that is a reasonable opinion, far better than what you opened with, ie.

Statutory declarations can be questionable in the absence of hard factual evidence such as leases, bills in joint names and other dated correspondence to a common address.

Putting an opening like

I do question where you get that view from for if people accept that there are regulations to be complied with to have eligibility, they may have a better chance rather than taking the approach that maybe they will understand why we do not fully meet the regulations and accept that.

There are many people who have posted on this forum and used the approach of accepting the regulations who have been successful in attaining visas and also many who have found Immi quite helpful.
I have contact with Immi myself from time to time, both verbal and written and though there can be times when something more could have been hoped for in response communicated, they are minimal.

So unless you have sound grounds for stating something like

I would suggest that is very much out of place.
It's better I not post or contribute anything to this forum taken your response


Closed Thread

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Same sex defacto visa advice required UKdefacto Visas and immigration 3 10-25-2011 05:59 AM
300 visa prospective marriage advice - time spent apart damo86 Visas and immigration 3 06-07-2010 12:25 AM
De facto 12 month living requirement - How strict are they?? Any advice appreciated! Ems Visas and immigration 1 02-25-2010 01:29 PM
Victoria SS - time required rangola1 Visas and immigration 3 09-24-2009 05:03 AM
309 Visa - time required in Australia after approval halfnine Visas and immigration 3 08-05-2009 12:00 AM

LEGAL NOTICE
By using this Website, you agree to abide by our Terms and Conditions (the "Terms"). This notice does not replace our Terms, which you must read in full as they contain important information. You must not post any defamatory, unlawful or undesirable content, or any content copied from a third party, on the Website. You must not copy material from the Website except in accordance with the Terms. This Website gives users an opportunity to share information only and is not intended to contain any advice which you should rely upon. It does not replace the need to take professional or other advice. We have no liability to you or any other person in respect of any content on this Website.


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:32 PM.




Powered by vBulletin®
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
SEO by vBSEO
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
AustraliaForum.com