Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) Visa (New Zealand) with Previous Refusal
CASE TYPE
The Applicant lodged an application for Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) Visa (New Zealand) including secondary applicants, his wife and his son from previous marriage who were in overseas at the time of application. The Applicant’s son did not meet the health requirements subsequently the Public Interest Criteria (PIC) 4007 and therefore the group application was refused.
The Applicant has lived in Australia for over 10 years and is an owner of a property and business. The Applicant had substantial financial capacity to support his son’s medical treatment and other related expenses. The Applicant’s wife who he married overseas had never been to Australia therefore the Applicant was also required to evidence genuine and continuing relationship with his wife.
The main strategy for the new application included to hold off the son’s applicant until further reasonable evidence was available for PIC 4007 waiver that includes that the significant cost of medical identified is outweighed by mitigating factors and/or compassionate and compelling circumstances.
CASE BACKGROUND
The Applicant failed to disclose the son’s (secondary applicant) health condition which subsequently didn’t meet the PIC 4007 Criteria which has to be met by the Applicant and subsequent entrants. The Applicant was awarded an opportunity to respond to the adverse information via detailed assessment by a Medical Officer of the Commonwealth (MOC) however unfortunately as the Applicant’s son didn’t meet the criteria for the health waiver, the Department were not satisfied that the significant cost identified is outweighed by mitigating factors or compassionate and compelling circumstances. Hence the group application was refused.
The Applicant moving forward wanted to reunite with his partner who had been trapped overseas in the midst of Covid-19 lockdown. In the second Visa application, we had to ensure that the history of refusal outweighed against the strong evidence the Applicant had to present for the grant of the new visa. We had to ensure we demonstrated the Applicant’s relevant documentary evidence required for the grant of Visa. Additionally, we also had to evidence that the Applicant and his wife overseas were in a genuine and continuing relationship.
CASE STRATEGY
We demonstrated the Applicant’s relevant documentary evidence required for the grant of Visa. Additionally, we also evidenced that the Applicant and his wife overseas were in a genuine and continuing relationship and did not marry for migration purposes to Australia and advised the client to provide sufficient evidence of his residency in Australia to satisfy the residency requirement. Subsequently, we addressed the Applicant’s financial, residency and business ties to Australia.
Further, for the Applicant’s partner we advised the Applicant to present 4 sets of evidence to satisfy the assessor that they were in genuine and continuing relationship, including the nature of their commitment, the financial aspects of their relationship, the nature of their household and the social aspects of their relationship. In this documentary evidence it was crucial that the Applicant was afforded an opportunity to put forward the evidence before the assessor of his genuine application and put mere weight on his history of previous visa application.
CASE OUTCOME
The Department accepted the Applicant’s documentary evidence, and the Applicant and his wife was subsequently granted a Skilled Independent (Subclass 189) (NZ stream), permanent residency in Australia, within 6 months of applying.
Or call us 1300 428 472