Tourist Visa Refusal – Girlfriend Refused At Aus

[dr_Pat_Pong]

De Facto relationships are recognised in Oz, 1 year of co-habitation is enough to ensure your partner can get a crack at your possesions if it goes sour.

Bronco..yes in Australia and a lot of western countries..but not for visa/immigration purposes..........

Aitch........good idea, go visit another country which will accept your wife!! I know its a bummer not to be able to see you sister...maybe you can fly her out or depending on how much you want to see her, go alone.........

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You are a bit new to be the international font of knowledge hereabouts. Australia does, in fact, recognise de facto relationships at law. For immigration purposes, they are looking at a provable stable relationship as a minimum.

[SK1972]

Lop...they showed statements for the period of 21 months......and their letters from their employers says the same....... Bank statements in joint names was opened 2 years ago.........

I have no idea why they were rejected.......it goes on a case to case basis I suppose.......

Pat Pong, read my threads after.......nothing in immigration/embassies is as clear cut as everyone thinks/reads..........once again, no consistency.

[Andrew Aitch]

My 3 Page letter to the Ambassador has received a 2 page response 48 hours after sending it. The reply was form the Principal Migration Officer who answered my complaint on the Ambassador’s request.

It’s written in a very professional and diplomatic way, of course, and the tone is polite and well-mannered. The same writing style could have been used to reject the Thai National for the Tourist Visa! An Embassy should not be a place of fear for those genuinely seeking a short trip abroad! The aggressive and bitter rejection is totally unnecessary. I’m talking about lines like:

‘I AM NOT SATISFIED THAT YOU’. and, ‘I DON’T BELIEVE THAT YOU WILL ABIDE BY THE CONDITIONS OF YOUR VISA’ also, ‘I DO NOT BELIEVE YOUR INTENTION ONLY TO VISIT AUSTRALIA IS GENUINE’.

All the above is sandwiched and guarded between legal sections this and sub clauses that….

With reference to today’s written response, the Principal Migration Officer has picked up on my quote from his colleague which read: University students are the most common offenders when it comes to not returning home to Thailand and that her ‘Student Status’ probably went against her.

His worded response is as follows:

Persons identified as having a greater risk of non compliance include:

1. Many younger applicants with no previous travel history

2. Limited funds,

3. No employment,

4. No assets

5. Lacking other incentives to return home.

Much better way of discriminating.

Having said that and replying to the above:

1. No travel History? What advice would the Embassy give to younger applicants with no previous travel history? A stamp or 2 from any country in the world other than theirs?

2. Limited funds? There were ample funds for the trip as provided by me and full details were provided in the application of my personal financial situation.

3. No Employment? She’s a full time student with a part time job and a letter from her employer to prove she’s been working. Full details were provided in the application of University and Work.

4. No Assets? Okay, if common-in-law status is not recognized then what’s mine is mine and what few bits she has do not even register

5. Lacking other incentives to return home? Completing her BA? Me? Our home in the Sky? Her family and friends? Not knowing anyone in Australia? . Also, assuming they believed I personally would be retuning to Thailand just 3 weeks after signing a 1 year contract on a nice Apartment by the river, their assumption was either I was to smuggle her in and leave her there or she was to disappear into the concrete bush the moment my back was turned.

Ok, enough said on the subject. Their decision is irreversible and unfortunately, there’s nothing I can do to change that. The 2 main gripes I had with the whole thing are:

1. They should reject someone gently and diplomatically whatever their personal beliefs or suspicions are.

2. If they had a few ‘unanswered questions’ why didn’t they simply call us both in and give us a short Mr. & Mrs. type interview? I would not have taken them 5 minutes to see that we have been a couple for quite some considerable time.

It is my assumption that the lady who declined the application is probably anti - younger Thai older Farang - type relationships and her decision was made the minute she clapped eyes on the age difference.

And finally, with reference to a previous post asking why we don’t marry, Thais at private universities cannot study if they are married. That’s right, they have to be single to be nuk seuk-sah (student). I believe Ramkhamhaeng is an exception to this rule.

Thanks everyone and I hope that if nothing else, some tips on the dos and don’ts may have been picked up for those wishing to apply for a Tourist Visa at the Australian Embassy.

Aitch

[Pink Mist]

they have to apply Oz law to every application, my oldest stepson had to do a police check, health check and even get a passport, why ???

because under Oz law he is still a dependant because of his student status, even though he goes to uni in Nhakon Phanom

[dr_Pat_Pong]

they have to apply Oz law to every application, my oldest stepson had to do a police check, health check and even get a passport, why ???

because under Oz law he is still a dependant because of his student status, even though he goes to uni in Nhakon Phanom

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Without all that, he'd be the subject of a seperate application Bronc.

[Pink Mist]

Pat he was the subject in my wife's application, Her children must go on the application regardless of their immigration status Oz law applies to all

Edited November 26, 2004 by bronco

[Pink Mist]

it sucks really

[corkscrew]

That’s it, her trip and first travel experience outside of Thailand was shattered today and our planned departure for next Thursday has to be cancelled.

Has anyone else has any similar experiences with the Australian Embassy?  Also, does anyone really have any idea what they need from 2 non Australians that would prove they’re in a ‘real’ relationship?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps if she has a couple of stamps in her passport from other countries it will help convince the Oz embassy that she does in fact return to Thailand after trips abroad. Could you take her for a quick trip to Malaysia or someplace else and leave the Australia vacation for another time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is an excellent point. A trip to Hong Kong and/or Singapore showing that she returned from both would be evidence that she comes home at the end of the day.

[chuckygobyebye]

This all sounds strangely familiar. I had the same experience in China when my girfriend was denied a tourist visa and recieved a very similar letter.

I thought she'd be a shoe-in since I'm an Austrlian citizen, she was sponsored by my parents. But there are plenty of unwritten rules and we'd broken one, the Aussie embassy won't issue a visa for more than three months (the maximum is six) and we applied for four.

If you're serious about getting an Australian visa I'd recommend employing a visa agent.

[muenwai2]

Andre Aitch,

You have still not clarified whether or not you are Australian which will have a significant bearing on your partners rejection.

Hoepefully you can clear this up for the benefit of others in a similar futrure situation.

You confirm there is an age difference. By how much? This will influence a decision. Right or wrong it does.

As previously stated elsewhere the question of common law wife status is irrelevant because you are not applying for spouse visa or a visa with the intention of marriage.

And for the good Doctors benefit (I think he may be an OZ) De facto marriages are NOT recognised in Oz law.

[samran]

And for the good Doctors benefit (I think he may be an OZ) De facto marriages are NOT recognised in Oz law.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Just a point of order Mr Speaker, for the benefit of the Rt. Hon member for 'muenwai2' I table for his benefit the relevant information the Department of Immigrations website.

http://www.immi.gov.au/migration/family/partners/spouse.htm

'De facto relationships are recognised where the partners are not legally married to each other, but live in a spouse-like relationship (sometimes known as "common law" spouses). If applying on the basis of a de facto relationship, the partners should have been in the relationship for at least 12 months at the time of application'

'Marriages made in accordance with the Marriage Act 1961. In general, migration law mirrors the Marriage Act 1961 in determining the recognition of marriages.

Whether a foreign marriage is recognised under migration law depends first on whether it is recognised as valid in the country in which it was performed.

I also submit, Mr Speaker, that these visas have been in place for many years now, is based in law which extends beyond simple immigration matters, though it is recognised indirectly and differently in all Australian states.

Edited November 26, 2004 by samran

[muenwai2]

Defacto marriages are accepted as a reason for allowing an australian to obtain a long term visa for a non australian. And fair enough.

But that is as far as it goes. It is not recognized as a legal marriage in the same way as common law marriages were or legal marriages are.

Defacto marriages have no legal status.

The term Defacto marriage is not a legal definition but a term used under regulations made by the minister as permitted in interpretation of immigration law.

I.e. it can be challenged in court, or if the minister considers that, to put it simply, the system is being abused he may prohibit the use of Defacto marriage as a reason for granting a visa without recourse to Parliament.

In practice I suggest chance of obtaining a visa for a Thai on these grounds is very rare.

[Andrew Aitch]

With reference to a previous post, I am British (English). I have family and friends who live and work in Australia, Brisbane, Sydney, Canberra, and Melbourne who are native Australian and British born.

As for the age difference, it doesn't matter by how big or small the gap as there are no official or legal rules to discriminate against this. It would be an illegal and unofficial bias if anything that would remain in the privacy of the CW head.

Rgds

Aitch

[Trevor]

If he married her properly, and registered it at the British embassy (a UK visa would help too), would Australia grant her a visa more-readily?

Must be ways of getting round the single-student rule in Thailand ... like not telling them!

[Pink Mist]

That’s it, her trip and first travel experience outside of Thailand was shattered today and our planned departure for next Thursday has to be cancelled.

Has anyone else has any similar experiences with the Australian Embassy?  Also, does anyone really have any idea what they need from 2 non Australians that would prove they’re in a ‘real’ relationship?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Perhaps if she has a couple of stamps in her passport from other countries it will help convince the Oz embassy that she does in fact return to Thailand after trips abroad. Could you take her for a quick trip to Malaysia or someplace else and leave the Australia vacation for another time?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

That is an excellent point. A trip to Hong Kong and/or Singapore showing that she returned from both would be evidence that she comes home at the end of the day.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

my wife had a 6 month visa to switzerland that showed she had returned after 5 months ad guess what??? it made not one skerrik of difference to the CW.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Defacto marriages are accepted as a reason for allowing an australian to obtain a long term visa for a non australian. And fair enough.

But that is as far as it goes. It is not recognized as a legal marriage in the same way as common law marriages were or legal marriages are.

Defacto marriages have no legal status.

The term Defacto marriage is not a legal definition but a term used under regulations made by the minister as permitted in interpretation of immigration law.

I.e. it can be challenged in court, or if the minister considers that, to put it simply, the system is being abused he may prohibit the use of Defacto marriage as a reason for granting a visa without recourse to Parliament.

In practice I suggest chance of obtaining a visa for a Thai on these grounds is very rare.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

I must again warn you to stick to FACTS. Your misinformation is unhelpful.

[Pink Mist]

as I pointed out to him before doc, i don't know where he gets his info from, but it's flawed, have even given him links to relevant Oz booklets but he still refuses to acknowledge.

[samran]

google is my friend

December 2002: New de facto relationship laws in Western Australia

The new law and its effect on existing relationships

The Family Court Amendment Bill introduced in the WA Parliament in September 2001, came into law on 1 December 2002.  It gives de facto couples substantially the same rights and remedies as married couples, enforceable through the Family Court of Western Australia.

The legislation provides de facto couples with legal rights in relation to property and maintenance. The legislation brings Western Australia substantially into line with other States, with the notable exception that the jurisdiction to deal with these matters will be vested in the Family Court of Western Australia rather than the State Supreme Courts, as is the case elsewhere.

Previously, de facto couples needed to argue their cases before the Supreme Court employing equitable principles which was often very complicated, costly, time consuming and public.  However the current legislation now allows de facto couples to use the Family Court to resolve their property disputes using the same procedures as have been available to married couples since 1975.

Definition of a de facto relationship under the new law

A de facto relationship is defined as a relationship between two persons who have lived together in a marriage-like relationship.  There are a number of factors that are to be used as indicators to determine whether a de facto relationship exists or has existed.  These include:

the length of the relationship;

living together and sexual relationship;

the degree of financial dependence or independence;

arrangements for financial support;

the way property is owned, used or acquired; and

care for and support of a child or children of the relationship.

In addition, the new legislation recognises de facto spouses both in opposite and same-sex relationships.

Other issues dealt with under the new law

Recognition of a de facto relationship applies only if either or both partners are over 18 years of age.  However, a de facto relationship may be acknowledged where both partners are over 16 years if the Court finds that the circumstances of the relationship are so exceptional and unusual to justify the application of the new law.

To ensure a sufficient connection to Western Australia, one or both of the parties must be resident in Western Australia on the day the application for relief is made.  Further, both parties must have resided in Western Australia for at least one-third of the duration of the relationship, or the person seeking relief must have made defined substantial financial contributions within the State.

The new laws do not apply to de facto relationships that ended prior to 1 December 2002.

There is a one year time limit in which to file an application, commencing from the date of the end of the de facto relationship.  The Court may, in some circumstances, extend this time.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

as I pointed out to him before doc, i don't know where he gets his info from, but it's flawed, have even given him links to relevant Oz booklets but he still refuses to acknowledge.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

He's heading for suspension of post rights. His ' advice ' is mostly absolutely wrong

[muenwai2]

Bronco. I have read the documents to which you refer. They do not help in Andrew Aitch's case.

The good Doctor appears to be upset at being contradicd.

Misinformation. Please correct me - but be specific. You ain't the font of all knowledge about Thailand and Immigration matters.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

Bronco. I have read the documents to which you refer. They do not help in Andrew Aitch's case.

The good Doctor appears to be upset at being contradicd.

Misinformation. Please correct me - but be specific. You ain't the font of all knowledge about Thailand and Immigration matters.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Do yourself a favour. Re-read your ' contributions ' and refrain from giving incorrect advice.

[muenwai2]

THANKYOU Samran. At last

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

I confess to being mischevious. My posting re the legal satus of Defacto are complete nonsense and DELIBERATELY SO.

To highlight the RUBBISH that is all too frequently posted. And that is also the view of Thai immigration. If the good Doctor doubts me see www.thaiimmigration.com.

Most topics could easily be resolved by a visit or phone call to immigration.

This site is a good and entertaining talking shop but for reliable advice look elsewhere.

How do we know contibutors have ever set foot in the country.

And for the good Doctors benefit I do know something about Thai immigration Law and have lived in Thailand for some time.

However I stand by everyhing I have said that relates to the specifics of Andrew Aich's case (except Defacto marriage which in his case was irrelevant).

[dr_Pat_Pong]

THANKYOU Samran. At last

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

I confess to being mischevious. My posting re the legal satus of Defacto are complete nonsense and DELIBERATELY SO.

To highlight the RUBBISH that is all too frequently posted. And that is also the view of Thai immigration. If the good Doctor doubts me see www.thaiimmigration.com.

Most topics could easily be resolved by a visit or phone call to immigration.

This site is a good and entertaining talking shop but for reliable advice look elsewhere.

How do we know contibutors have ever set foot in the country.

And for the good Doctors benefit I do know something about Thai immigration Law and have lived in Thailand for some time.

However I stand by everyhing I have said that relates to the specifics of Andrew Aich's case (except Defacto marriage which in his case was irrelevant).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You post mischief for fun. Try a rest from here and I'll talk to the other admins about your case. For mine, your knowledge on matters you quote is nil. You are a dangerous poster.

[dr_Pat_Pong]

THANKYOU Samran. At last

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

I confess to being mischevious. My posting re the legal satus of Defacto are complete nonsense and DELIBERATELY SO.

To highlight the RUBBISH that is all too frequently posted. And that is also the view of Thai immigration. If the good Doctor doubts me see www.thaiimmigration.com.

Most topics could easily be resolved by a visit or phone call to immigration.

This site is a good and entertaining talking shop but for reliable advice look elsewhere.

How do we know contibutors have ever set foot in the country.

And for the good Doctors benefit I do know something about Thai immigration Law and have lived in Thailand for some time.

However I stand by everyhing I have said that relates to the specifics of Andrew Aich's case (except Defacto marriage which in his case was irrelevant).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You post mischief for fun. Try a rest from here and I'll talk to the other admins about your case. For mine, your knowledge on matters you quote is nil. You are a dangerous poster.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Posting rights suspended

[samran]

THANKYOU Samran. At last

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

I confess to being mischevious. My posting re the legal satus of Defacto are complete nonsense and DELIBERATELY SO.

To highlight the RUBBISH that is all too frequently posted. And that is also the view of Thai immigration. If the good Doctor doubts me see www.thaiimmigration.com.

Most topics could easily be resolved by a visit or phone call to immigration.

This site is a good and entertaining talking shop but for reliable advice look elsewhere.

How do we know contibutors have ever set foot in the country.

And for the good Doctors benefit I do know something about Thai immigration Law and have lived in Thailand for some time.

However I stand by everyhing I have said that relates to the specifics of Andrew Aich's case (except Defacto marriage which in his case was irrelevant).

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

No, you were just uninformed and were quite content to knowingly spead garbage. A few of us called your bluff, and you try and brush it off as an experiment. Pathetic.

[Mason45]

Im an Aussie and was legally married in a Bangkok City Hall office.When I applied for a 6 months Visa for Australia, bearing in mind I passed all criteria, the darling behind the counter wasnt going to accept my wife's application because we didnt have any photos of our relationship or photos of our wedding party, when I explained we never had a reception so how could I have photos, she treated me like I was a smart arse. She tried to tell me a marriage certificate wasn't sufficient.

Recently a friend's wife who was a former worker there told me that most of them have a bad attitude because they see many ladies heading for a life that they only dream of and the poor darlings at the Australian Embassy dont qualify.

[udon]

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

That's the best line you have written out of 60+ posts.

I can hear the sighs of relief from Ozmates all over.......

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

That's the best line you have written out of 60+ posts.

I can hear the sighs of relief from Ozmates all over.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alas dear Udon. Sadly old mate has departed the forum <_<

[dr_Pat_Pong]

I don't have a clue about Australian law. Never been there, or intend to.

That's the best line you have written out of 60+ posts.

I can hear the sighs of relief from Ozmates all over.......

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Alas dear Udon. Sadly old mate has departed the forum <_<

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

And he's a lot like that banker you mentioned. Probably a Dodger.

[Pink Mist]

unfortunately mate that's a pretty standard reply, the word processor for the CW's doesn't change much.

PM me the name of the woman that the CW signed for I have been keeping a record