Leisure stay + Visa

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Hi

Ahead of my move to Sydney in February, I believe my Visa and OSHC (Overseas Health Cover) may start a couple of weeks after I need to get there. In these circumstances, I believe I can move my OSHC start date by contacting Allianz, but I'm reluctant to meddle with the Visa date as it can delay processing times.

Obviously a Visa is needed for the six-months in Sydney, but you don't need a Visa for a two week holiday in Australia... so would I be allowed to fly to Australia one or two weeks before as someone on leisure, and then after that I am a resident living with a Visa.

To clarify, I will of course double check with the Australian Home Office before doing anything, but if many of you think there's no chance this can be allowed I just won't bother, and I'll fly late.

Ta.


I wasn't sure if this was one for General Discussion (as it's about immigration and VISAs) or Trip Planning and Reports, so I had to take a guess, apologies if in wrong section.

 

[AlterEgo]

I’m not convinced this would be okay. Australia has an extremely strict immigration regime and my spidey senses tell me they want you to enter on the visa you will be using for your full stay in the country. I don’t think you can rock up and say “I’m going home in 30 weeks. My visa should start when I’m here”.

I’d definitely ask the Australian embassy though, it is likely a common question and it won’t hurt to ask.

 

[najaB]

I’m not convinced this would be okay. Australia has an extremely strict immigration regime and my spidey senses tell me they want you to enter on the visa you will be using for your full stay in the country. I don’t think you can rock up and say “I’m going home in 30 weeks. My visa should start when I’m here”.

I think the same. That said, it might be possible for the OP to leave the country and re-enter when the visa is valid (e.g. a weekend trip to Thailand/Singapore/etc).

 

[ainsworth74]

I think the same. That said, it might be possible for the OP to leave the country and re-enter when the visa is valid (e.g. a weekend trip to Thailand/Singapore/etc).

Yes I suspect they won't go for it without leaving and then re-entering.

 

[TT-ONR-NRN]

Many thanks for all three responses. I did assume it to be a long shot.

 

[busestrains]

Note you do need a visa to visit Australia regardless of length. Only citizens of Australia and New Zealand can enter without. Citizens of the UK are eligible for either an E Visitor or ETA which are simplified online visa things like the ESTA visa that the USA has. But unlike going to some other countries you can not just turn up in Australia with no visa of any sort even if it is just for a two week holiday. So you will need to make sure you apply for one of these visas too if you end up going early.

In regards to your six month visa it is certainly worth asking the embassy as others have said. If your six month visa has already been issued when you enter the country and the immigration officers can see that then i would not think it would be much of an issue. You would have proof of eligibility to stay in Australia for longer after your one or two week early period ended. I think overstaying is more what they are worried about. But definitely do check with the embassy before trying.

 

[cactustwirly]

Hi

Ahead of my move to Sydney in February, I believe my Visa and OSHC (Overseas Health Cover) may start a couple of weeks after I need to get there. In these circumstances, I believe I can move my OSHC start date by contacting Allianz, but I'm reluctant to meddle with the Visa date as it can delay processing times.

Obviously a Visa is needed for the six-months in Sydney, but you don't need a Visa for a two week holiday in Australia... so would I be allowed to fly to Australia one or two weeks before as someone on leisure, and then after that I am a resident living with a Visa.

To clarify, I will of course double check with the Australian Home Office before doing anything, but if many of you think there's no chance this can be allowed I just won't bother, and I'll fly late.

Ta.


I wasn't sure if this was one for General Discussion (as it's about immigration and VISAs) or Trip Planning and Reports, so I had to take a guess, apologies if in wrong section.

If you're claiming to be there for leisure than they'll ask you about what you plan to do, where you are staying and see your return flights.
Do you also need a visa waiver like an ESTA as well?

 

[Ediswan]

Having watched a few episodes of 'Nothing to Declare', Australian immigration do seem to be strict. You mght be sent back home, with a three year ban. Personally, I would not risk waiting until arrival to argue a non-standard case.

 

[najaB]

Having watched a few episodes of 'Nothing to Declare', Australian immigration do seem to be strict. You mght be sent back home, with a three year ban. Personally, I would not risk waiting until arrival to argue a non-standard case.

I agree that Australian border policy is rigorously applied, but beware of forming an opinion solely on the TV shows since they'll naturally choose to show the 'interesting' cases.

 

[Springs Branch]

Unless things have changed during the last few years (and highly unlikely they've become less strict), you won't get anywhere near to landing in Australia unless you have a valid visa in hand.

The Australian Government passes responsibility for an initial visa check onto the airlines authorised to fly into Australia, and you'll need to show your passport containing a valid visa at the airline check-in (e.g. at Heathrow) before you board a plane. The airlines are 'incentivised' to be rigorous in this task with hefty fines (on the airline) if they bring in a passenger who fronts up at the immigration desk saying "Need a visa for a fortnight, mate. Can you just give us one now?"

The Border Control TV programmes do lean towards presenting more 'interesting' cases, but what they show is still quite representative and AU Border Force will spot and scrutinise in detail any discrepencies or inconsistencies in your stated plans.

 

[AlterEgo]

Unless things have changed during the last few years (and highly unlikely they've become less strict), you won't get anywhere near to landing in Australia unless you have a valid visa in hand.

The Australian Government passes responsibility for an initial visa check onto the airlines authorised to fly into Australia, and you'll need to show your passport containing a valid visa at the airline check-in (e.g. at Heathrow) before you board a plane. The airlines are 'incentivised' to be rigorous in this task with hefty fines (on the airline) if they bring in a passenger who fronts up at the immigration desk saying "Need a visa for a fortnight, mate. Can you just give us one now?"

The Border Control TV programmes do lean towards presenting more 'interesting' cases, but what they show is still quite representative and AU Border Force will spot and scrutinise in detail any discrepencies or inconsistencies in your stated plans.

As a British passport holder visiting Australia as a tourist you do not need to show a visa on check in.

It is up to you, if you are a tourist, to have an ETA travel authority (which isn't a visa but rather a digital authority). This does not go into your passport, it is an authorisation held by the Australian border authorities linked to your passport number. This works very similarly to a US ESTA - you do not need to show it before travel, because the data is shared with the airline.

 

[zero]

As a British passport holder visiting Australia as a tourist you do not need to show a visa on check in.

It is up to you, if you are a tourist, to have an ETA travel authority (which isn't a visa but rather a digital authority). This does not go into your passport, it is an authorisation held by the Australian border authorities linked to your passport number. This works very similarly to a US ESTA - you do not need to show it before travel, because the data is shared with the airline.

US ESTAs are similar to Australian ETAs (Australia introduced theirs 13 years before the US), but Australia calls them visas and the US calls them visa waivers/travel authorization.

In my view if a country puts the onus on you to do something before you can travel there then it's effectively a visa no matter what they choose to call it. Then "visas on arrival" in some countries are not really visas because you don't actually need to do anything in advance, whether a country sticks/stamps your passport with a label saying it is a visa, or just a date stamp, doesn't affect this.

Australian ETAs require a payment. British citizens do not need ETAs but they do need a different visa called an eVisitor which is basically the same but free.

What the OP suggests is possible and it is not necessarily required to leave Australia when switching visas. However as often mentioned in other threads, it is illegal (in this case, under Australian law) to provide specific immigration advice unless a registered migration agent. Therefore I suggest posting this question on the pomsinoz forum where several registered migration agents will read it and hopefully provide an answer as to whether it will be permitted in the OP's circumstances.

 

[headshot119]

As a British passport holder visiting Australia as a tourist you do not need to show a visa on check in.

It is up to you, if you are a tourist, to have an ETA travel authority (which isn't a visa but rather a digital authority). This does not go into your passport, it is an authorisation held by the Australian border authorities linked to your passport number. This works very similarly to a US ESTA - you do not need to show it before travel, because the data is shared with the airline.

Sorry but this information is wrong.

As a British passport holder, be prepared to show proof of eVistor visa, or ETA when checking in at the airport, more so if you are travelling from a country outside of the UK where eVisitor visa, or ETA are not available to that countries citizens. Most ticket T&Cs allows them to refuse you boarding if you can't provide this.

The same with the US as well, no proof of ESTA etc, no travel on a lot of airlines.

 

[AlterEgo]

Sorry but this information is wrong.

As a British passport holder, be prepared to show proof of eVistor visa, or ETA when checking in at the airport

You don’t need to do this. I can assure you. Simply having it linked to the passport is sufficient. It works in an identical way to the US ESTA.

The same with the US as well, no proof of ESTA etc, no travel on a lot of airlines.

Incorrect also. As I said, the ESTA is linked to your passport and is proactively shared with the airlines. I’ve never had to “show an ESTA” or proof of Australian entry authority. I’ve been to Australia twice and the USA about 25 times.

 

[headshot119]

I've had to show proof of ESTA when checking in for a flight in Colombia as recently as last month. Until I was able to provide proof they weren't happy to allow me to checkin.

I've also had to provide proof of eVisitor visa to checkin in South Africa and Indonesia.

While you may not be asked for proof of either, airlines certainly can ask for proof, and the ticket terms and conditions cover this. If they do ask and you have no proof they won't let you board.

 

[dosxuk]

You don’t need to do this. I can assure you. Simply having it linked to the passport is sufficient. It works in an identical way to the US ESTA.


Incorrect also. As I said, the ESTA is linked to your passport and is proactively shared with the airlines. I’ve never had to “show an ESTA” or proof of Australian entry authority. I’ve been to Australia twice and the USA about 25 times.

As a passenger you have to demonstrate to the airline that you have (provisional) permission to enter Australia, be that with an actual visa in a passport, an electronic authorisation linked to your passport or some other recognised authority. Some of those methods require presenting documentation, some require that it shows on their airline's systems. I would always recommend that if you have an electronic authorisation, you have proof of that in another format, as even having a reference number easily accessible can make things move much more smoothly if there is a problem on the electronic side (there was a problem a few years back with the US ESTA system not talking to the airlines for several hours which caused chaos, particularly for those passengers who had no other evidence that they had permission to travel).

Anyway, the point being made was that you can't just hop on a flight to Australia and attempt to get a tourist visa at their immigration desk - you'll be rejected for the flight before you even board. A visa that starts a couple of weeks later will not be allowed as evidence of permission to enter the country to get you on the flight.

 

[najaB]

As a passenger you have to demonstrate to the airline that you have (provisional) permission to enter Australia, be that with an actual visa in a passport, an electronic authorisation linked to your passport or some other recognised authority.

Probably more accurate to say "be prepared to demonstrate" - most times you will be asked to provide proof but, using travel to the USA as an example, the last time I travelled there the airline check-in agent just asked "Do you have an ESTA" with no requirement to show anything at all.

 

[dosxuk]

Probably more accurate to say "be prepared to demonstrate" - most times you will be asked to provide proof but, using travel to the USA as an example, the last time I travelled there the airline check-in agent just asked "Do you have an ESTA" with no requirement to show anything at all.

As I said:

Some of those methods require presenting documentation, some require that it shows on their airline's systems.

When you confirmed you had an ESTA, they will have checked it was showing on their systems and then having seen it, moved on to actually checking you onto the flight. Had that record not been visible to them, it would start a process where they would have to find out why it isn't showing and if you actually had one. Just saying you have one is not enough to get you on the flight - they need to see evidence of such.

 

[najaB]

When you confirmed you had an ESTA, they will have checked it was showing on their systems and then having seen it, moved on to actually checking you onto the flight. Had that record not been visible to them, it would start a process where they would have to find out why it isn't showing and if you actually had one. Just saying you have one is not enough to get you on the flight - they need to see evidence of such.

Which is why "be prepared to demonstrate" is more accurate than "have to demonstrate". In many cases you won't have to demonstrate anything at all (since they'll already have the information that they need) but there will be some instances where you do have to show proof.