# Relative PR on section 27 (g)



## chidhumo (May 21, 2015)

Dear all,

I am a guy who married my wife after I already got my PR. My wife is on an accompanying spouse visa. We have been married for 2 years and we have a 1 year old baby who is a SA citizen since its a kid between a PR and a non PR. 

We have been contemplating applying for a PR for my wife but since its not yet 5 years we cant apply via the spouse route. Someone recommended that she could apply via the kid (Section 27g). I just wanted to check if technically its possible for us to use the kid (who is a citizen) so that the mum could apply for PR??

Many thanks in advance for your responses....


----------



## noriki (Jul 14, 2014)

Hi chidhumo 
yes you can apply for PR through your child but remember that the child must be able to support the applicant, which is impossible

"23 Permanent Residence
...
(7) In the case of an application contemplated in section 25(2) of the Act in respect of a permanent residence permit contemplated in sections 26(c) and (d) and 27(g) of the Act, the citizen or permanent resident shall satisfy the Director-General that he or she is able and willing to support and maintain the foreign relative making the application."


----------



## LegalMan (Dec 26, 2012)

chidhumo said:


> Dear all,
> 
> I am a guy who married my wife after I already got my PR. My wife is on an accompanying spouse visa. We have been married for 2 years and we have a 1 year old baby who is a SA citizen since its a kid between a PR and a non PR.
> 
> ...


Hi chidhumo, 

Unfortunately your wife wont qualify for permanent residency under section 27g, as your little one is only a year old. 
However, have you been living together for longer than 5 years? You don't necessarily need to be married for 5 years, it can be a combination.


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

LegalMan said:


> Hi chidhumo, Unfortunately your wife wont qualify for permanent residency under section 27g, as your little one is only a year old. However, have you been living together for longer than 5 years? You don't necessarily need to be married for 5 years, it can be a combination.


Hi Legal man

An extract from your response to the article above "However,have you been living together for longer than 5 years?You don't necessarily need to be married for 5 years,it can be a combination".Please advise what do you mean by this?


----------



## LegalMan (Dec 26, 2012)

Nomqhele said:


> Hi Legal man
> 
> An extract from your response to the article above "However,have you been living together for longer than 5 years?You don't necessarily need to be married for 5 years,it can be a combination".Please advise what do you mean by this?


Hi Nomqhele, 

If you have been living with your partner before marriage and the total amount of time that you have been together (relationship+marriage) is more than 5 years, we can apply under the category for permanent residency.


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

Dear All.

If someone intends to appeal a negative outcome of a section 27g Permanent residence permit application,are there some grounds of appealing the decision or it's a totally waste of time and money as prospects of success or of having the decision reversed are slim.

Regards 

Nomqhele


----------



## DumisaniBYO (Sep 12, 2014)

Nomqhele said:


> Dear All.
> 
> If someone intends to appeal a negative outcome of a section 27g Permanent residence permit application,are there some grounds of appealing the decision or it's a totally waste of time and money as prospects of success or of having the decision reversed are slim.
> 
> ...



Hi have you received any outcome from VFS as yet ?


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

VFS track and trace function states that my adjudicated application has been dispatched from the DHA to the VFS operation hub on 28/05/2015 @ 8:15:19 am and would be sent to the Visa Facilitation Centre shortly.


----------



## DumisaniBYO (Sep 12, 2014)

Nomqhele said:


> VFS track and trace function states that my adjudicated application has been dispatched from the DHA to the VFS operation hub on 28/05/2015 @ 8:15:19 am and would be sent to the Visa Facilitation Centre shortly.


Wow great news guess you will collect sometime this week , does not take too long from the Hub to the branch off application


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

Yes it's good news that my application has been finalized,but the fact that it was a section 27g application that is the problem,that is why l was asking the prospects of appealing the decision of an application of that type.We have seen a lot of section 27g applications coming with a negative result,that is my concern


----------



## SayansiScope (Apr 19, 2014)

Nomqhele said:


> VFS track and trace function states that my adjudicated application has been dispatched from the DHA to the VFS operation hub on 28/05/2015 @ 8:15:19 am and would be sent to the Visa Facilitation Centre shortly.


Hi Nomqhele,

Dont be too negative about the possible outcome, you will never know for sure...:fingerscrossed:

When did you apply?


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

Application submitted at VFS Johannesburg office on 25/07/2014 and received by the DHA on 02/07/2014.


----------



## 4rain (May 28, 2015)

Hi. Is your 27g also based on a minor? I applied for mine based on a 2 year old but now I hear those are all being denied. Eager to hear what your outcome was.

Also, like you just asked, it would be nice to hear from anyone who's successfully appealed a 27g rejection.


----------



## SayansiScope (Apr 19, 2014)

Nomqhele said:


> Application submitted at VFS Johannesburg office on *25/07/2014* and received by the DHA on *02/07/2014*.


I see,

Do you mean the other way around, looking at your submission dates?

Btw, strange that the VFS system gives the dates in mm/dd/yyyy format...


----------



## Nomqhele (Feb 18, 2014)

Sorry for the typo,l mean't to say application received at VFS Johannesburg office on 25/06/2014 and received by the DHA for adjudication on 02/07/2014.


----------



## LegalMan (Dec 26, 2012)

Nomqhele said:


> Sorry for the typo,l mean't to say application received at VFS Johannesburg office on 25/06/2014 and received by the DHA for adjudication on 02/07/2014.


Hi Nomqhele, 

Assuming your application was submitted on the basis of having an SA child under 18 and your application was submitted after the new regulations were introduced, there is a high chance it will be rejected. Please let me know the outcome.


----------



## 4rain (May 28, 2015)

LegalMan said:


> Nomqhele said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry for the typo,l mean't to say application received at VFS Johannesburg office on 25/06/2014 and received by the DHA for adjudication on 02/07/2014.
> ...


Hi LegalMan, 

Have you guys heard from/of anyone successfully appealing these rejections (i.e. applications based on child below 18). Is it worth the hassle of appealing or are Home Affairs rejecting appeals too?


----------



## ernal (Jul 16, 2014)

Legal Man please can you shed more light on the 5years thing , a friend of mine is being with his wife for close to 5 years but they officially got married this year, what does the Home Affair need, please be reminded that the husband has never applied for a spouse visa before since he has a valid study permit for over 5 yrs,how do they now proof the 5years existence together, what do they need to do? Please shed more light.


----------



## ernal (Jul 16, 2014)

Any advice LegalMan?


----------



## ernal (Jul 16, 2014)

Any updates guys?


----------



## Luv (Jun 19, 2015)

My prp application done according to section 27 g was rejected lastweek guys,they said i can appeal,i also wonda if its a waste of tym,coz vfs also cnt advice properly.applied july 2014


----------



## niki795 (Nov 7, 2015)

Hi
I applied for a study permit on the 22 of October 2015 and on the 23 I tracked my application and it shows application accepted at vfs and forwarded to DHA for adjudication and on the 6 November I tracked my application again and it says adjudicated application for nicholas has been dispatched to vfs hub and will be sent to visa facilition centre shortly. Does it mean my application has been accepted? And if yes how long does it take vfs hub to send it to visa facilition centre


----------



## Middy 2 (Nov 10, 2015)

Hello Niki795,
Was your permit approved? I also applied mine around the same time 23rd October 2015 and i have just received a message that the its dispatched and will be ready for collection in 1 working day. Am a bit scared and afraid because its only 2 weeks since i applied and now getting a message that its dispacthed. Am thinking it might be a rejection.


----------



## Miriam Zola (Sep 14, 2014)

Hi all, 
Can you please tell me the outcome of your application as I'm preparing for the renewal of my brother's study permit . I'm a bit confuse about the proof of sufficient financial means, how much are they looking for and how many months bank statement .


----------



## Tony1986 (Oct 23, 2015)

Miriam Zola said:


> Hi all,
> Can you please tell me the outcome of your application as I'm preparing for the renewal of my brother's study permit . I'm a bit confuse about the proof of sufficient financial means, how much are they looking for and how many months bank statement .


They want 3 months bank statements showing you have income to support yourself and your brother


----------



## Eddie-101 (May 17, 2016)

*Section 27g PR Appeals*

Hi guys,

Anyone successful on appealing rejection of PR on section 27g? Is this worth appealing? My application submitted 20 May 2014 was also rejected although the Imm amendment act was only on 25 May 2014 which was after my application.

I also saw below - not sure how to proceed:

Section 27(g) Permanent residence is perhaps one of the most controversial sections in the new immigration regime and has been the cause of much outcry. Many foreigners have cried foul at the new formulation of the Section which now restricts the granting of permanent residence under this category to applicants who are members of the immediate family, within the first step of kinship, of SA Citizens or permanent residents able to financially support the foreign relative. The impact of this section is now that those applicants with minor children are no longer able to apply for permanent residence until these children are able to financially support them. The question on the minds of many is, is this not unconstitutional? In this article we explore this and attempt to answer this question.
The starting point in answering this question is to identify what constitutional right has been affected here? The obvious one is the right of children and specifically in terms of section 28 (1)(b) of the Constitution. Every child has the right to family care or parental care or to appropriate alternative care when removed from the family and environment. Section 28(2) also provides that , A child’s best interests are of paramount importance in every matter concerning the child. It difficult to argue against the school of thought that holds that denying parents of SA Citizen children is not in the best interests of the child and arguably is a direct violation of the rights in terms of s28. This view is reinforced by the fact that the temporary residence equivalent of the Relatives Permanent residence in Section 18 of the Immigration Act does not allow the holder to conduct work. This means that a parent, while exempt from the financial assurance requirement above, may reside in the republic but cannot earn living in order to support their child . Therefore the seemingly viable route is to apply for Permanent residence and then secure employment thereafter and satisfy the parental obligation to support.
However this school of thought does not stand the scrutiny of the law. Firstly the right that is limited is not the child’s right but rather the parents right to apply for permanent residence. Whether the right of the parents to permanent residence exists is also doubtful given that it arises by an operation of law. But if for the moment we accept that the child’s right has been limited directly by section 27(g) we have to look at whether such limitation is in line with the principles of the limitations clause in section 36. Whether the limitation of section 28 of the constitution is limited by a law of general application to the extent that the limitation is reasonable and justifiable in an open and democratic society based on human dignity , equality and freedom taking into account all relevant factors…
The government is entitled to regulate who enters and remains in the Republic and moreso when and how a foreigner acquires the right to permanent residence. The government may have a legitimate reason to require more than just being a parent to a South African Citizen child before becoming a permanent resident. Other countries regulate this area and impose and age limit and additional financial requirements. In the United States, for example, the Citizen must be 21 years before the citizen can petition to bring their parents permanently to the republic. So this situation is not unique to South Africa only but is in line with international standards

What is significant however is that when parents gain temporary residency in US through their minor child they are entitled to work. This is significant as the bone of contention lies here. The argument pushed forward by protagonists who cry foul about the current formulation of the Permanent Residence Relatives category is that, if you can gain temporary residency for as long as the relative is alive you should at least be allowed to conduct work. Perhaps what is unconstitutional here is the limitation on the right to work for a parent on a relative’s temporary residence visa. Parents have a responsibility to provide for their children and children have right to family life which includes the right to support and limiting that right is certainly unconstitutional.

A similar argument was put forward in motivating for the right to work for spouses due to the obligation to support that exists between spouses. This was the basis of the amendment of the Immigration Act that gave rise to s 11(6) visa that allows spouses to conduct work, study or run their own businesses. Spouses are included in the definition of “Relative” contained in the Act and it is conceivable that the same rights can be extended to parents of minor SA citizens. There can be no prejudice to government in pursuing such a position in the relative visa.
In conclusion, it remains to be seen whether the section will remain unchanged, given the mooted review of the current regulations. It is difficult to see an change the relaxing of this rule and applicant are advised to explore other alternative to permanent residence. There have been talks of the possibility of testing the current section against the constitution but in my view such a challenge is unlikely to be successful, however proceedings in court tend to go in favour of the one with best argument supported by facts. Those seeking to challenge the rule must take time to formulate a well constructed argument before coming to court, failing to do so will certainly end in disappointment.


----------

