孙大妈勇闯澳洲的故事

孙大妈丧偶后,准备来澳洲找老伴,揣着一本单身证明(free to marry certificate ) 就来到了澳洲,找到了老伴,递交了婚姻签证,谁知道好景不长,找到的这个老伴是个家暴男,孙大妈向法院Magistrates Court (MC) 申请了家暴限制令 (protection order )(PO),这个时候还没有拿到澳洲永居(PR), 孙大妈能顺利拿到PR么? 孙大妈波折的上诉路开始走起,移民局,AAT仲裁庭,Federal Circuit Court (FCC)联邦巡回法院,Federal Court of Australia(FCA) 联邦法院。一路打下来,终于峰回路转,FCA 认为 FCC,AAT 的判决都有问题,Case 发回AAT 重新审判。

短短4年孙大妈已经去过3个不同的法院,1个仲裁庭,舍得一身剐,敢把皇帝拉下马,勇闯澳大利亚。今天我们就详细和大家介绍一下孙大妈这些年和澳洲移民局,仲裁庭,各种法院过招的故事。

孙大妈,全名SUN JIANFENG 1954年生人,2013年11月来到澳洲,2014年3月和澳洲人结婚并递交了配偶签证。不得不佩服孙大妈的行动力。2个月已经搞定终生大事。这样的配偶签证申请在移民局的眼里就是有很大问题的,不出所料移民局2014年6月底给了拒签。移民局不相信大妈和澳洲人的婚姻是真实的, 孙大妈把移民局告上了仲裁庭(AAT)实际这段婚姻也问题很多,在2016年仲裁庭开庭前已经岌岌可危了,不仅如此,孙大妈还被家暴了,孙大妈报警并把家暴男告上了MC,得到了MC发的PO (protection order), 凭着这个PO,孙大妈去AAT要求获得PR,因为澳洲配偶签证有一个家暴条款,被家暴的申请人,就算关系破裂也是可以拿到澳洲PR的。所以孙大妈开庭前信心满满的认为可以拿到PR。

820.221(3)(b)(i)(A):

An applicant meets the requirements of this subclause if:
(a) the applicant would continue to meet the requirements of subclause 820.211(2), (5) or (6) except that the relationship between the applicant and the sponsoring partner has ceased; and
(b) either or both of the following circumstances applies:

(i) either or both of the following:

(A) the applicant;

has suffered family violence committed by the sponsoring partner

欲知孙大妈在AAT发生了什么事情,请听下回分解。

仲裁庭开庭后,Member 虽然认可家暴的事实,但是不认可孙大妈的婚姻是真实的。孙大妈心里可能一万匹草泥马奔腾:“老娘都被家暴了,还不是一家人?”

仲裁员是这么看这个问题的

1 两口子一个不会说中文,一个不会说英文,这个日子怎么过的? (the ability to communication is relevant factor to form a genuine relationship.)虽然这个判断仲裁员认为并不是配偶签证的法律要求。

2 关系发展太快了 (the relationship was formed with haste)

3 孙大妈说不出结婚的具体原因 (vague answer about the reason to get married)

4 孙大妈丧偶后多年未婚, 怎么一来澳洲2个月就找到真爱了?(brief period of time)

5  单身证明(free to marry certificate) 是 2013年9月份开的,孙大妈来澳洲是2013年11月,好像来之前就能预感到在澳洲能找到MR  right?

6 孙大妈共同账户在2013年11月就开了共同账户,为什么说2014年1月开始的配偶关系?

7 孙大妈也无法说出对方配偶的家庭情况。

8 孙大妈的子女提供的情况比较含糊(vague)

仲裁员认为,孙大妈一切的活动,提供的材料都是为了取得PR才炮制的(All activities were engaged in for the sole purpose of enabling her to obtain the visa)

 

一般来说case 在仲裁庭的结果就是最终的决定。仲裁庭是负责merit review, 可以对一个case 的事实进行分析,判断,最后做出决定。而法院只负责judicial  review, 只负责判断审理的程序是否违反流程。也行法官不同意仲裁员的看法,但是只要仲裁员的判断是合乎程序的,法官也无可奈何。

孙大妈收到这个结果,大大出乎她的意料之外,眼看到手的PR飞掉了,那要赶紧想办法啊。孙大妈以仲裁庭程序不合法为由,把仲裁庭告上了FCC。孙大妈的理由是

1 仲裁庭对配偶签证的要求理解不准确( misapplied and wrong interpreted the partner visa provision)

2 仲裁庭没有考虑相关证据 (failed to consider all relevant materials)

FCC 的看法是

仲裁庭对配偶签证的要求理解是正确的 是基于全部证据的判断the finding was made on the whole of the evidence.

仲裁庭考虑到了相关证据,虽然没有明说。The tribunal considered all maters without specifically stating all of them.

孙大妈虽然FCC失败了,但是这个考虑过了,但是没有明说给了孙大妈希望。这句话也可以反过来理解,没有明说,怎么知道你考虑过了?这不是官官相护么?

于是孙大妈又把FCC 告上了FCA, 这次的理由变成了一条。FCC 错误的认为 AAT 考虑到了所有相关证据。 上次李大姐2008年就是这么赢的。 成文法的条款AAT 必须考虑各方面证据无论申请人是否提交此方面证据。

根据一个Full court decision Cameron v Board of Trustees of the State Public Sector Superannuation Scheme (2003) 130 FCR 122; [2003] FCAFC 214.  The factors that a decision-maker is bound to consider in making a decision are determined by construction of the statute conferring the power to make that decision, not by the pieces of “evidence” submitted to the decision-maker by a person affected by the decision.有一种法定必须考虑的要素(critical elements requiring consideration being defined by Act or regulation)

所以李大姐的case AAT 没有考虑到所有的方面,就不符合法律要求。Li v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship (2008) 102 ALD 354; [2008] FCA 902 Undoubtedly the decision-maker is required to consider each of those components, and it is not suggested in the present case that the Tribunal did not do so.

孙大姐这次真的赢了, FCA 认为AAT  没有真正理解1.15的要求 只是 (oblique and passing reference to it) 最关键的是AAT 有一个地方理解错了。实际上,两口子不会说英文是一个可以考虑的配偶签证的法定要求。所以FCA认为AAT没有真正理解Reg 1.15的法定要求,所以孙的姐的case 要发回AAT重审。

志杰移民觉得虽然费了九牛二虎之力,推翻了AAT的决定,但是孙大妈能否拿到PR 还是一个未知数。这种胜利在英文中有一个专有词汇(Pyrrhic victory)。就算换一个仲裁员,上一个AAT仲裁员 提出的这些问题也确实很难回避的。人都已经离婚这么多年了,如何来证明在离婚前,孙大妈和配偶的关系是真实的,比证实现在和配偶存在的关系是真实的会要难上许多。

 

 

 

 

 

 

Advertisements

如何变不利为有利,一步到位拿到配偶签证的PR?

目前配偶签证的处理时间,第一阶段已经可以达到19到24个月,然后第二阶段达到16 到21个月。

许多申请人都要经历这种绝望的40个月左右等待才能拿到PR。有没有可能在24个月就拿到PR呢?

志杰移民认为,移民局这种处理速度让24个月拿到PR成为了可能。

因为820/801, 309/100 是组合签证,在递交了820或309签证的同时,就递交了801和100签证,之所有会出现先给一个临时居留的820/309 然后2年后再审理100/801, 不是因为签证官没有在820/309 阶段就给PR的权力,而是因为申请在签证官审理820/309的时候不符合100/801PR的条件。 具体来说 Reg 100.221 和 Reg 801.221 要求 … at least 2 years have passed since the application was made…

所以能不能让签证官直接给100 或801 签证呢?

答案是肯定的,如果你的签证审理时间被拖过了24个月,或者即将超过24个月,不要焦急,请联系志杰移民,变不利为有利。Turn Lemon into Lemonade. 我们帮你一步到位取得配偶签证的PR。

 

黑民有长期婚姻关系是否可以境内递交配偶签证?

The applicant also refers to having a long standing relationship with the sponsor,
stating that it existed for two years at the time of application and has now existed for
a period exceeding four years. The applicant claims that the Explanatory
Memorandum identifies a long standing relationship as a compelling reason. The
Tribunal does not accept that it is. In the Tribunal’s view, the existence of a
committed relationship, even a long standing one, constitutes the basis on which the
present application is made but no more. The length of the relationship may be
relevant in determining whether it is a genuine one but in the Tribunal’s view, it is not
sufficient to establish the existence of compelling reasons. The Tribunal is mindful
that with the delays in processing such applications by the Department and the
Tribunal practically mean that by the time the Tribunal considers the case (and
reasons up to the time of decision may be considered), most if not all relationships
would have been in existence for a period of two years or more. The Tribunal is not
convinced that it was ever the Parliamentary intention that every case involving a two
year relationship and nothing more, would give rise to the waiver of the Schedule 3
criteria

如何确定家庭成员

Federal Magistrates Court in Al Naqi[1] is relevant. The Court took the view that a ‘broad practical judgment’ is required in the circumstances of the particular case and this may require consideration of the underlying source of the support and the reasons for it. Riethmuller FM commented at [16] that ’on a broad and practical level financial support for a person’s relatives, from their spouse, can be considered support by them if their spousal relationship is an essential or substantial part of the reason that the support is provided.’

配偶移民申请难度加大

配偶移民 programme director Wendy Davenport 在移民局和移民行业的联席会议上透露。

1 目前 partner TR 的申请时间在12 到 18 个月。 partner PR的申请时间在 6 到 9个月
2 Schedule 3 case 会被重点审查 (有趋势表明,Schedule 3 的 申请造假问题比较多)
3 现在把签证审理的重点放在保护澳大利亚的安全上,所有对申请材料的要求会更高,拒签的也会更多。

雇主担保移民 programme assistant director Glen Elliot 对雇主担保客户提供RPL学历提出几点看法
1 PAM 基本上不认可RPL的学历 ( Our approach in the Pams that A qualification awarded on the basis of RPL would generally not meet relevant requirements but each case is assessed on its merits)
2 Case offer 一般对于很短时间就获得的澳洲学历可能不认可。
3 对陷入调查的RTO 发出的学历,也可能会不认可。客户会受到natural justice letter.

协议婚姻可以满足移民条件么?

如果结婚的目的就是为了拿Pr,那么移民局会给批准么?

最近Judge Driver 给了肯定的答案。令移民局,Mrt都大跌眼镜

In the case before Judge Driver there was a significant age difference between the
parties.
56. Critically, and as noted in the applicant’s submissions, the Tribunal’s
negative conclusion rested upon its reasoning at [103][64] where the Tribunal
said:
o The Tribunal is of the view that Mrs Angkawijaya and Mr
Limberiou are committed to an agreement that they have negotiated to
meet particular needs, rather than committed to a relationship with
each other. The Tribunal considers that they have agreed to exchange
services, and the Tribunal accepts that to this extent they see the
relationship as long term. Mrs Angkawijaya has agreed to stay with Mr
Limberiou for as long as he lives, and in return her expenses for her
and her children are provided for, and she secures permanent
residency for herself and her children. When the Tribunal raised this
issue stating that it appeared she was more a carer for Mr Limberiou,
than in a committed relationship with him, she stated that both were
mixed together. She loves all people. She had felt sorry for Mr
Limberiou. The Tribunal accepts that Mrs Angkawijaya has prepared
meals for Mr Limberiou, has assisted him with him medication and
treatment, and that she accompanies him at home. It accepts that their
relationship has been physically intimate. However it does not accept
that this represents or demonstrates commitment to him in a shared life
together as … partners.
57. The reality (on all of the material before the Tribunal), was that Ms
Angkawijaya and Mr Limberiou had entered into an agreement to remain
together until his death and to support each other in a personal relationship.
The elements of that relationship went well beyond a contractual agreement
to provide care services. It was unrealistic for the Tribunal, given the
circumstances of the relationship, and the age gap between the parties to it,
to expect a demonstration of romantic love and Ms Angkawijaya was honest
in not attempting falsely to assert any romantic love. What was or should have
been apparent to the Tribunal was that Ms Angkawijaya showed a genuine
commitment to a shared life with Mr Limberiou. He at least arguably had a
similar commitment to her.
58. The reasons for entering into that commitment were no doubt
calculated to obtain a personal advantage on both sides. She was to get
residency. He was to get care and support. Some may disapprove but that is
a value judgement. Mr Limberiou was honest when he told the Tribunal that if
Ms Angkawijaya were denied a visa he would find someone else. That is what
many people do when they are deprived of their partner by circumstances
beyond their control. It is neither for this Court, nor the Tribunal, to make a
value judgement on the motivation for the relationship.
59. In my opinion, the Tribunal imposed a value judgement in its
application of the criteria in regulation 1.09A for the purposes of s.5CB of the
Migration Act which led it into error. By applying a value judgement, the
Tribunal lost sight of what the Full Federal Court in Minister for Immigration v
Dhillon[65] emphatically stated was the true and only test in relation to a
partner visa: that is, whether at the time at which the matter has to be decided
it can be said that the parties have a mutual commitment to a shared life as a
husband and wife to the exclusion of all others. The reasons for entering into
that commitment are immaterial.
http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCCA/2015/450.html

配偶签证中的家庭暴力条款

澳洲配偶签证是一套组合签证,比如境外的309/100 组合,境内的820/801组合。这种签证设计是为了杜绝虚假婚姻的情况,先给2年的观察期,在2年的观察期里,如果婚姻能保持下去,那么申请人就可以获得澳洲永久居住。但是为了防止这类签证被担保人滥用,使被担保人处于不平等的地位,签证又规定了例外条件,也就是家庭暴力条款,来保护澳洲配偶的利益,让申请人可以有另一条途径获得签证。比如Clause 100.221(4)(c)(i) 规定如果因为家庭暴力,婚姻破裂是符合申请永久居留要求的。Division 1.5 规定家庭暴力可以分为有裁定的judicially determine 和没有裁定的 non judicially determine 2 种情况,一般有裁定的家庭暴力会有警察和法律援助中心介入。但由于家庭暴力发生一般比较隐秘,证据比较难搜寻,移民法也提供一种人性化的解决方案,也就是non judically determine case 的解决方案。Regulation 1.23(1A)(b)(ii) 规定 这种情况必须提供个人的一个法定声明和2个专家的对这件事的意见。 must state that, in the competent person’s opinion,
relevant family violence (within the meaning of subregulation 1.21 (1)) has been suffered by a person;
Regulation 1.23(2)(b) 定义了家庭暴力为对于受害人的人身和财产的暴力导致受害人对个人安全和福利的担心。violence against the alleged victim or his or her property that causes the alleged victim to fear for, or to be apprehensive about, the alleged victim’s well-being or safety.
这个定义可以说是相当宽松,可以理解为任何暴力,导致对方害怕就是家庭暴力。也就是是禁止担保人使用暴力,申请人可以使用,但担保人不能还手,一还手就算家暴。而这个专家的列表又是相当的宽泛,包括医生,护士,心理医生,社工等。 以志杰移民的切身经验告诉大家,一个专家不行就换另一个专家,总能找到愿意帮忙的专家的,专家也要吃饭啊。所以澳洲配偶其实不用担心签证问题,移民法已经对澳洲配偶保护的相当好了。一般女客户只要和担保人有肢体冲突,都可以用这个条款找专家鉴定,拿到PR,有部分男客户 (会困难一点)也引用家庭暴力条款拿到PR。比如有个客户的专家报告里有 “he was subject to unusual treatments and his lack of language skills, social isolation and unfamiliarity with Australian society made him acutely vulnerable to his wife’s control.” 专家甚至都不需明确的表明意见, 可以隐含的表达 convey by implication ,Meroka v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2002] FCA 482 at [34] (“Meroka”), Ryan J stated that it was not necessary that the competent person state expressly that in his or her opinion relevant domestic violence has been suffered. Ryan J stated that the requisite statement of opinion may be conveyed by implication having regard to the way in which the standard form directs the attention of the competent person to the definition of domestic violence. 这就使专家不必担心证据不足,而使报告的取得更加的容易。
从这点上可以看出,澳洲的法律安排基本上的原则是,宁可放过1千,绝不错杀1个。宁可让1000个人钻了空子,也不卡住那个真正需要帮助的人。

%d 博主赞过: