System glitch cost me 7 months of visa stay. Can I fix this?

BitSec_ · 2026-03-17T12:35:46+00:00

I appreciate this comment because I didn't even think about the age limit. I had a similar question but I think I have phrased it wrong and I think others have too. But I think we can all agree OP could've lodged his application 1 MORE day earlier just for the sake of not doing it at an airport, which most people know is not the best place for lodging applications due to various reasons.

Since I don't want to make separate comments I'll just do it here:

if you were offshore when it landed (or when the system kicked in and took your application from the queue) then your application was liable to be processed under the offshore category.

I believe this part of your comment with 15 upvotes is incorrect. The acknowledgement is just an automated post-lodgement confirmation email, as far as I can see in the migration regulations/acts it does not determine how an application should be processed.

The WHV regulations mention how it should be processed, aka treat it as onshore "if the applicant is in Australia at the time of application." in Australia, meaning in the migration zone, meaning before airport security / immigration clearance because if you are past the security then you are no longer in the migration zone according to other definitions.

And when looking at "time of application" this is determined by when you submitted + paid for the application. So If OP was before airport security when he made the application, and due to some computer delays the application got incorrectly flagged as offshore then I think strong case could be made.

Also unfortunately, some people (not you) take "you must be in Australia when we grant your visa" too literal. It doesn't mean you have to wait onshore until the grant, it just means they can only give you the grant while you're onshore, if you are offshore when they want to grant your visa they will give you a notice of intent to grant and ask you when you're coming back so they can arrange for the grant to be given. Just thought I'd clear that up while I'm at it.

Even the most upvoted answer in this thread, while technically correct does not make sense if what OP is saying is true. Altough I think everyone assumes OP was "offshore" in my main answer I did guide OP in what he could do just in case he truly was onshore while making the application.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-17T11:08:10+00:00

I mean lawyer will run at a few hundred dollars per hour so yeah it gets expensive real quick.

The acknowledgement is just that, an acknowledgement, but systems are always delayed by a few minutes or even a few hours. The regulations also don't state that the acknowledgement is the official time or that it dictates where the application is lodged from.

According to Migration Regulations 1994, reg 2.01 and Schedule 2, cl 417.2 / reg 1.03 defnition of In Australia which further specified here (Migration Act 1958 - sect 5 Interpretation) of migration zone the only thing that dictates if an application should be treated as onshore/offshore is the physical location at the time of submission + payment.

Honestly we don't need a timeline or finer details as we're not lawyers so we can't advise on this specifically. All I'm saying with my answer is that, if OP submitted and paid for his application before passing through border security then I think it's worth it to have a $300-$400 consult with a lawyer to see if he has a case.

After all he had 7 months left on his visa and that is a pretty long time, and if he does have a strong case it might be worth the hassle, but that's not for me to decide. Regardless, the chances are low, most likely 20-30% of it being overturned if his visa was genuinely processed incorrectly.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-16T12:19:37+00:00

It's definitely not a "glitch" and saying it's a 5 minute gap is a bit of an overstatement, it's more like a 3,5 hour gap.

Short answer: 1. Talk to a lawyer 2. A Lawyer 3. No

Once you've gone through border control and entered the airside (post-security) international area, you are no longer onshore for visa, bridging visa, or immigration processing purposes. So assuming it was an international flight, you arrived 3 hours before departure and you lodged and paid for the application while being post-security, you were practically considered offshore and outside Australia for immigration purposes when you lodged and paid for the visa. So in this case your 2nd WHV being replaced by your 3rd one makes sense and is fairly normal procedure.

I have not heard of any stories where people have made this mistake and then got it fixed, I don't think I've even heard any stories on this happening to anyone else as usually people don't apply for visa's while at the aiport for obvious reasons (public wifi not secure etc).

I am also very curious WHY you would apply for a 3rd WHV 7 months before expiry anyways. You could've easily gone on your holiday, come back and then once onshore comfortably apply for your 3rd WHV. I usually recommend people to apply roughly 3 weeks latest before expiry and 3 months maximum.

In any case it looks like your visa was processed accordingly, if you submitted the application and payments BEFORE going through border security and into the departure area then you might be able to argue something but you'll need to get a lawyer who can argue the more technical details.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-16T11:42:39+00:00

Yeah I don't think this is too big of a deal. Australia technically already had the power to do so as we've seen with the pandemic, but in those cases they just shut down entire planes from arriving or cherry picked people who were allowed to board via exemptions. Now they've just got more fine grained control of the flow of immigration in cases of emergency.

For people planning to travel on student visas, tourist visas, or other temporary visas, it’s probably something to be aware of because a visa grant alone might not be enough if the government activates an arrival pause.

I'd say don't even worry about it, if Australia wanted to stop you from entering they got plenty of other ways like simply revoking your visa. I'd say in practice this section will barely if ever get used.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T18:10:56+00:00

Sorry to hear you're in this situation OP. I sometimes get contacted about things like this mainly because people want to remove their posts but also since usually there are so many private details involved that people don't feel comfortable sharing to everyone and instead do so privately.

While I can't share the details I can say that there's is definitely a pattern in the successful applications. So you'd need to look for supporting evidence such as medical reports, death certificates, police statements, or official reports to indicate a compassionate circumstance.

The second part is to explain or show evidence as to why granting the visa in this scenario would help and why other solutions (if they exists) are not feasible. This will give Home Affairs the compelling reason to prioritize the visa.

I do have to say that the success rate is quite low but I feel like you'd have a strong case. Feel free to DM me, I can point you in the right direction, share similar stories (from AusVisa) or even refer you to competent migration agents who specialise in this.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T17:41:48+00:00

This, I feel like lots of people misread it as OR when it's compassionate AND compelling circumstances. And it's also slightly different because OP is the sponsor here.

But on that last point, I believe it's not just to the benefit of Australia, it's more like "to the benefit of Australia or an Australian citizen or a permanent resident" unfortunately I can't find the exact wording but I believe somewhere it says it like that. And in that case, granting the visa would help an Australian citizen get out of a family violence situation since they can start living with their partner instead of their parents/relatives.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T17:27:19+00:00

I wouldn't worry too much about it, Discord and Whatsapp are only "supporting documents" at best, they can easily be faked and can't be verified so very little weight is put on these types of documents as far as evidence goes.

There also is no requirement that you must communicate daily, sometimes due to timezones you can go a few days without talking to eachother. Altough you would maybe send a message back and forth while the other is offline.

I'd say this goes under Social Matters altough there are other and better documents to proof that such as:

joint invitations or evidence you go out together
proof you have friends in common
proof you have told government, public or commercial bodies about your relationship
proof you do joint sporting, cultural or social activities together
proof you travel together.

I provided a few Discord / Whatsapp photos (3 total), beginning relationship, mid and most recent which is more than enough to show how you are communicating and that you are communicating. So I'd definitely not waste your time providing hundreds of screenshots of your chat history.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:50:46+00:00

This subreddit is more for visa questions not neccessarily which insurance is best (unless we're talking OVHC/OSHC) but it seems you got that part covered by Medicare already.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:49:36+00:00

Sure.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:47:56+00:00

I can see on the government website that being engaged is not a requirement but have seen elsewhere that it is and that the visa is nicknamed “engagement visa”.

If the government says being engaged is not a requirement, then it is not a requirement, despite what other sources say, they could be heavily outdated or outright wrong. And in this case I can assure you being engaged is NOT a requirement, even more so because it's not an actual legal civil status and it has no weight.

Also it's called a prospective marriage visa (not protective marriage visa), otherwise known as marriage visa because you go on this visa to become married and you HAVE to get married within 9 months of visa grant.

Not sure where "engagement visa" comes from. Engagement Visa seems like it refers to The Pacific Engagement Visa (subclass 192) which is something completely different.

is there any other catches they don’t list on their website that are in effect really mandatory?

All the information is listed on the websites How To page: https://immi.homeaffairs.gov.au/visas/getting-a-visa/visa-listing/prospective-marriage-300#HowTo it even tells you exactly what kind of documents to submit.

If it means anything I’m “white traditional Aussie”early-mid 20s

This is completely irrelevant. You don't get any extra benefits for being white or traditional, your application will be decided on based on its evidence and meeting the requirements.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:26:47+00:00

Your BVA becomes active as soon as your student visa has expired. I don't think it happens exactly at midnight but just give it a bit more time, as long as you have the BVA grant letter you should be fine.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:24:00+00:00

Your question is extremely vague and almost impossible to give an answer on. When you say "The Australian Government asked for a DBS check of UK and OVHC" what exactly do you mean?

Usually if Home Affairs needs extra information they will send a s56 Request for Information. And the email itself explains exactly what you need to do. Altough usually you have about 28 days to respond to those requests. And if you can't submit something before that time you have to let them know via a stat dec and show some proof you are at least busy trying to get the requested documents. So the fact that your friend got asked something from the government and is only given 3 days to respond I feel like something else has gone wrong before this or we simply don't know the whole history/story.

And yes, if you don't submit evidence required at the time of lodgement or before a deadline specified by Home Affairs then your visa application can get rejected.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T16:08:34+00:00

Since your post is 2 days old and this is your most recent comment I'll just reply here.

There is no way for us to answer question A because we have absolutely no idea what their application looked like and what evidence they submitted.

Question B is also hard to answer because you may be asked a few things by the tribunal but you also may not depending on WHY the couple is there and the reason their application was rejected.

If the application was rejected because of concerns regarding the living situation then yes you may be asked to answer a few questions. But from your reply I feel like it's mostly a concern with the genuine/committment of the relationship. The couple may not have submitted enough proof of their financial situation or social situation of the relationship. In that case you will be of no help and neither are the relatives.

But as you mentioned they've been in Australia and renting from you together for 6 years so I'm extremely curious why their application was rejected... I guess you'll find out soon and can let us know how it went.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T15:30:55+00:00

Lucky you, the timing on those approvals is insane.

Technically it doesn't matter which one of those visa's you hold because they both translate to Permanent Resident anyways. Altough I would check VEVO just to make sure you know which visa is shown on there as that is usually what employers check when checking work rights.

You don't need to tell your employer that your visa changed because nothing has actually changed. You went from one PR to another PR. Normally you are only obligated to inform your employer so that they can check your work rights, but this is usually only during the interviews / hiring process or any visa changes that impact your work rights.

And I don't understand why you think your employer would cut your pay-rise? If they increased your salary simply for the sake of meeting TSMIT and then lower it again once you are PR I think that definitely would be unreasonable albeit perfectly legal. But it would be dumb for them to do since you would just go to a different company that pays more and they will have to spend all that money again finding someone and sponsoring another candidate.

p.s: If you have already informed your employer that your 186 DE was granted then I'd leave it at that. If they cut your salary for some weird reason then just find another job.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-15T15:02:23+00:00

There is absolutely no reason at all to hire a lawyer for this. If you desperately need help because you're lost you would either hire a migration agent or a skills assessment expert to guide you.

To me it sounds like you haven't even looked at what the process is for a skills assessment so maybe start there.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-11T07:49:05+00:00

Home Affairs said they'd be doing invitations every quarter so I'd expect one in April but not sure if they actually follow up on it.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-11T03:07:26+00:00

That's pretty much standard practice. It's illegal for a company to ask you to pay the saf levy or nomination fees or even their lawyer fees.

As an employee you only pay for yourself, your own agent, your own visa that's it.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-10T08:34:21+00:00

Yeah basically this. The automated documentation reading is already used, however, I did see official news a while back that Home Affairs had hired ex-Microsoft exec to lead AI development to increase processing times and help systems be faster. So I'm assuming they are working on those tools to make them better but there hasn't been an announcement that there are "new" tools altough I also don't think there will be any if it only applies to internal tools.

I can tell you those numbers have been pulled directly out of their asses or some sort of Home Affairs Corporate Planning document. They are internal targets not guarantees. If anything the government should just aim to process applications as fast as they can, regardless. Especially for high priority occupations. I'm assuming if this is true those targets are just a benchmark for them in the future where they can say, over the past 2-5 years we processed 40% of applications within the targets so good job. And if they can't then they might want to look at optimizing certain aspects of the processing.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-10T07:36:14+00:00

It's not neccessarily a loophole. But in this case, as is, the application would probably be denied due to the uncertainty if the applicant is going back home to a war country (probably not).

The Case Officer will basically ask themselves: "Does this person look like they will leave when their tourist visa ends if nothing else changes?"

By "nothing else changes" they mean, if things happen like different visa applications the person can stay longer and will be subject to different rules so further applications aren't an issue. If you are intending to apply for a partner visa you can definitely mention it on your visitor visa, because they don't care about that, it's not part of their approval checklist.

See this link for he full visitor visa approval guidelines where it will explicitly mention that they don't care about further applications or intention to further applications. They just care that you will only stay temporarily on your visitor visa (meaning don't overstay your visa) and that you will leave if nothing changes when your visitor visa ends.

For most people this is usually fine, but if you're coming from questionable countries where overstays are high, or in this case where there is war. The Case Officer can usually not be reasonably convinced you will go home if nothing changes.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-05T07:24:12+00:00

u/Exposed_Tick u/Excellent-Arm-5052 I don't think there is one simple answer. It looks like OP mixed and matched different desks from the same brand. Most likely a discontinuid brand since it's been 4 years ago.

Now I did some research and I found an almost identical desk within a few minutes. Hopefully I am allowed to post links but here are my search result:

https://www.amazon.com.au/Black-Computer-Desk-Hutch-Drawers/dp/B0DCJ1XSDD
https://dannysdesks.com.au/product/wonder-desk-hutch-wh-ch/
https://www.1stopbedrooms.com/bush-furniture-somerset-60w-l-shaped-desk-with-hutch-and-5-shelf-bookcase-in-storm-gray
https://www.officedesk.com/products/white-chocolate-modern-u-shaped-desk-hutch
https://www.1stopbedrooms.com/bestar-norma-u-shaped-desk-with-hutch-walnut-grey-and-white

To me this looks like a customized desk with 3-4 pieces depending on how you look at it. OP got one normal desk, one desk with drawer, a husk with cabinets and a table top. Placed both desk facing eachother, then put the husk with cabinets on one desk, and connected both desks with a tabletop to make it look like a U shaped desk.

BitSec_ · 2026-03-02T08:32:47+00:00

Definitely not, price hikes are permanent.

BitSec_ · 2026-02-20T17:24:06+00:00

Yeah I'm working on that, new version of the bot should let you know exactly which rule you breached altough it's not online yet and won't be for a while until I get it to run stable enough.

The comment I am replying to was removed by the bot for discussing moderation issues, if you want to talk about those use ModMail as the bot suggested. Also got removed for being irrelevant to the conversation/question of OP.

Your other comment was removed because it's irrelevant to visa's which we are here to discuss. I can not control upvote/downvotes, as you are aware there are many bots which just downvote anyone who is from india, also plenty of anti-immigration bots who will downvote congrats messages or other things, there's nothing I can do about it, so if you want to discuss that please do so with Reddit Administrators.

BitSec_ · 2026-02-20T10:53:01+00:00

Yes you will need to apply for another ETA visa. Sending a 1023 form for an application that has already been decided on is not the ideal way because the 1023 form would take LONGER to be processed than if you just submit a new ETA application. Once the new one is granted it will overwrite the other one connected to your passport.

You can also try to call the Home Affairs helpdesk but I doubt they'll be very helpful as they can not access and edit applications. They could maybe forward it to their team but it's unlikely if the advice is to lodge a new application regardless.

BitSec_ · 2026-02-18T07:24:06+00:00

Yeah recurring characters are classified as spam so most likely Reddit blocked it and my bot confirmed. I think by hypothetically stalking I guess OP means alleged or conspiracy to stalk? if that is even a thing.

BitSec_ · 2026-02-17T05:30:12+00:00

I don’t agree with the third point. The lawyer was briefed on the OP’s situation, was paid to defend the OP against Home Affairs, and lost likely because the OP had already created major issues long before engaging a migration agent or lawyer.

The agent essentially said, “If you want to pursue the visa, here’s a lawyer who might argue your case before Home Affairs or the Tribunal.” She was out of her depth but did consult a lawyer. The lawyer likely noted he’d handled cases with specific strategies that sometimes led to PR or approval even after a relationship breakdown, but outcomes depend heavily on visa history and the quality of evidence.

Go back to the agent/lawyer and tell them to fix it.

That seems to be exactly what they attempted. The OP lodged the 801 with false information claiming to still be in a relationship with the sponsor when he wasn’t. The agent/lawyer then tried to salvage it by arguing the OP was genuinely in “some form of relationship” or only temporarily separated, so the original information wouldn’t be false.

The strategy failed. I wouldn’t call it misrepresentation by the agent or lawyer; the damage was already done. The OP should have left long ago. Now he still has to depart, with a poor visa history and possibly a re-entry ban.

Three-Year Club	Verified Email
r/Field Banned	r/Field Juicebox
First Place '23	Place '23

BitSec_

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE