No Aussie PR visa for couple
Tribunal rejects appeal as they had stayed in Australia for only weeks on earlier 5-year visas
By K.C. Vijayan, Law Correspondent
Sorry, mate, you don’t seem to seriously want to call Australia home.
Australian permanent residents are initially granted a five-year visa. Upon its expiry, they have to apply for a resident return visa (RRV) if they wish to depart Australia and return as permanent residents.
That was in effect what an Australian immigration tribunal told a Singaporean couple when it turned down their appeal to secure fresh five-year permanent resident visas.
The rejection came even though two of the couple’s three children, both teens, are already Australian citizens by birth.
The tribunal noted that the couple – dentist Chan Toong Sing and his wife Doreen Tan – had not lived for at least two years in Australia in the preceding five years as required. The couple stayed only 25 days on the last two such visas granted from 1999 and several weeks longer on the first issued in 1994.
The Australian High Commission here had told them last December of the rejection of their new bid. The couple then appealed to the Migration Review Tribunal of Australia (MRTA) which also said ‘no’ last month.
The MRTA hears scores of appeals every month, but Singaporeans rarely feature in such cases. Still, this is the second rejection of a Singaporean’s visa bid within the same month. The other case involved a businessman, who had been there since 1999 but was found to have used illegal workers for his business.
The MRTA scrutinises visa request appeals. Australian five-year visas are granted subject to conditions, which include having to remain in Australia for at least two years of the previous five-year permanent residence period.
If an applicant remains outside Australia, evidence has to be shown of substantial business, cultural, employment or personal ties with Australia which benefit both the country and the applicant.
Such absence can even extend to all five years of the preceding period, but compelling reasons must be submitted.
In the couple’s case, the MRTA gave its reasons for rejecting their bid in its written judgment published last month. The wife, Ms Tan, had appeared before the tribunal in Sydney on June 4 to present her case.
The couple’s 14-year-old son enrolled in a New South Wales school in February. Their 17-year-old daughter, also an Australian citizen, is a Singapore student. Their eldest son, 21, completed national service here earlier this year.
Dr Chan is a practising dentist here with more than 20 years’ experience. He worked in Sydney between 1991 and 1993 before returning to Singapore.
When the couple first arrived in Sydney in 1990, Dr Chan had passed the Australia Dental Examining Council exams and subsequently worked at Sydney University’s United Dental Hospital.
Ms Tan, a realtor, said after their last five-year visa expired last December, she had to enter Australia on a short-term visitor or tourist visa to see her son.
She told the tribunal in her submissions that the family’s plan was to progressively return to Australia and settle there over the next two years. She felt that the five-year visa gave the family peace of mind in keeping the family together and showed their two teens Australia cares for them.
But at last month’s MRTA hearing, Ms Tan agreed that ‘more of her family lived in Singapore than one son presently in Australia’.
When quizzed on what her strong business, cultural or personal ties to Australia were, she said her ties were her Australian-born children.
She said several compelling reasons had kept the family away from Australia in the past. Among other things, the family had to remain close to her mother and mother- in-law, both living here.
The tribunal suggested her stronger ties were in Singapore rather than Australia.
It noted that when the first five-year visa was granted in January 1994 and valid till 1999, she entered Australia in December 1994 and left in February 1995. Her 14-year-old son was born during this time.
The family had not been long-time residents in Australia and Ms Tan did not participate in the local community for the past 15 years, the MRTA added.
It said Ms Tan did not suggest that she regards Australia as home, and provided no evidence her husband would sell his practice here and return to Australia.
In response, she said the family had to remain in Singapore to clear mortgage debts. These have since been resolved.
But the tribunal was unmoved.
‘I do not accept that mortgage debts to purchase two properties are compelling reasons to remain in Singapore,’ wrote tribunal member Lilly Mojsin.
An Australian High Commission spokesman here said ‘visa holders do not keep their permanent resident status indefinitely if they are not resident in Australia for lengthy periods’.
She added that ‘only people who have an ongoing commitment to residing in Australia, or who are contributing to Australia’s well-being, maintain a right to return and remain permanently’.
A child – who is a settled Australian citizen, Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen – may, however, seek to sponsor his parent via the Parent Visa route. If the child is under 18, a close relative or guardian of the child or a community organisation may provide sponsorship.
vijayan@sph.com.sg
Related posts:
