Frequently asked questions

Three onshore subclasses

The onshore aged-parent visas ordinarily require the applicant to be an aged parent (old enough to be granted an age pension under the Social Security Act framework) [reg 1.03 def aged parent], and to be in Australia, but not in immigration clearance, at both application [Sch 1 item 1124A(3)(b)] [Sch 1 item 1130A(3)(b)] [Sch 1 item 1221A(3)(b)] and grant [cl 804.411] [cl 864.411] [cl 884.411]. The exception is an applicant who holds a substituted Subclass 600 visa at the time of application, who need only be a parent, not an aged parent [cl 804.221(b)] [cl 864.212(ab)] [cl 884.212(1)(a)(ii)]. They are: Subclass 804 (Aged Parent), non-contributory and permanent; Subclass 864 (Contributory Aged Parent), contributory and permanent; and Subclass 884 (Contributory Aged Parent (Temporary)), the contributory temporary first stage that leads to the 864.

The onshore advantage

Because these visas are lodged and granted onshore, an applicant may be eligible for a bridging visa that permits lawful stay while the parent application is processed. Valid lodgement does not by itself establish that a particular bridging visa is granted or in effect: the result depends on the applicant's current status, the applicable bridging-visa criteria and any conditions. The financial trade-off remains substantial: the 804 costs less but has the longer operational queue, while the contributory 864 (direct or through the 884) carries a large second visa application charge and has a materially shorter, though still lengthy, queue.

Who must be an aged parent

Only the primary applicant has to be an aged parent. A spouse or de facto partner can come along as a secondary applicant (a member of the family unit) without meeting the age requirement themselves [cl 804.311] [cl 864.311] [cl 884.311], so in a couple it is enough that one of them is of pension age.

Aged-parent status is judged on the facts at the time of application and cannot be acquired later: someone below pension age at lodgement does not become eligible by reaching pension age in the queue. This matters most if the primary applicant dies during the wait: a surviving spouse can only carry the application on if they too were an aged parent at lodgement, because the status had to exist then and cannot be back-filled.

Location and status

The applicant must be in Australia, but not in immigration clearance, at two points: when the application is made [Sch 1 item 1124A] [Sch 1 item 1130A] [Sch 1 item 1221A], and when the visa is granted [cl 804.411] [cl 864.411] [cl 884.411]. The test bites at those two moments, not continuously in between, but the grant-location requirement means the applicant has to be onshore when the decision comes.

The Schedule 2 status rules differ by subclass. For the 804, a person to whom section 48 applies must also meet the additional refusal/cancellation and later-aged-parent requirements in clause 804.211(1); the applicant must otherwise hold a substantive visa other than a Subclass 771, or have last held a substantive visa other than a Subclass 771, and a non-substantive-visa holder must satisfy Schedule 3 criterion 3002 [cl 804.211] [cl 804.213]. For the 864 and 884, the usual rule likewise requires a substantive visa other than a Subclass 771 or the specified former substantive-visa status plus criterion 3002 [cl 864.211(1)] [cl 884.211(1)]. That usual rule does not apply where the applicant withdraws a Subclass 804 application at the same time as making the 864 or 884 application [cl 864.211(2)] [cl 884.211(2)]. These are Schedule 2 grant criteria, not Schedule 1 validity requirements, so valid lodgement and ultimate eligibility must be analysed separately.

The bridging visa

A valid onshore application lodged while the applicant holds a substantive visa ordinarily also stands as an application for a Bridging Visa A: the substantive application engages the Class WA route unless regulation 2.07A excludes it [Sch 1 item 1301] [reg 2.07A], and a Bridging Visa A may then be granted under the Subclass 010 criteria [cl 010.211(2)]. Grant is not the same as immediate effect: a Bridging Visa A granted while the substantive visa is still in force comes into effect only when that visa ceases, and from then it permits the applicant to remain while the parent application is decided [cl 010.511]. That bridge is the mechanism behind the onshore advantage: it is what lets the parent wait in Australia for years rather than offshore. But grant, conditions and commencement are confirmed for the particular case rather than assumed, and practical matters such as work rights and Medicare access follow from that confirmation [cl 010.611].

The test

Every child of the parent is sorted into eligible or ineligible. An eligible child is an Australian citizen (wherever they live), or an Australian permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen who is usually resident in Australia; every other child is ineligible and treated as living overseas [reg 1.05(2)] [reg 1.05(2A)]. The parent passes on either of two routes: - Route 1: at least half the children are eligible: the number of eligible children is greater than or equal to the number of ineligible children [reg 1.05(2C)]. - Route 2: the eligible children outnumber the ineligible in every single overseas country: the largest group of ineligible children usually resident in any one overseas country is fewer than the number of eligible children [reg 1.05(2D)].

Worked example: a parent has two children in Australia (eligible) and three children overseas (ineligible), living one each in three different countries. Route 1 fails, because two is not at least three. Route 2 passes: the biggest group of ineligible children in any single country is one, which is fewer than the two eligible children, so the test is satisfied.

Which children count

A "child" here includes a child or step-child of the parent, and a child or step-child of the parent's current spouse or de facto partner [reg 1.05(1)(a)], so step-children are counted and the choice of primary applicant in a blended family can change the arithmetic. The test runs only once each claimed child-parent relationship is established. Some children are removed from the count entirely under the exclusion clauses [reg 1.05(3)]: broadly, a child removed from the parent's custody by court order, adoption or operation of law, a child suffering persecution or human-rights abuse with no possible reunion elsewhere, and a child registered in a refugee camp. A child of unknown whereabouts is taken to be resident in the child's last known country of usual residence [reg 1.05(1)(b)].

When it is excused

Balance of family is not required in every onshore case. A direct 804 applicant is excused only if holding a substituted Subclass 600 visa [cl 804.214]. An 864 applicant is excused if, at the time of application, they held a Subclass 884 visa or a substituted Subclass 600 visa [cl 864.214], so a parent moving up from an 884 does not re-run the test. An 884 applicant is likewise excused only on the substituted-600 basis.

What the AoS is

The assurance of support (AoS) is a migration criterion satisfied when an assurance has been accepted by the Secretary of Social Services [reg 1.03 def assurance of support]. The assurance itself is not a migration instrument: it is an assurance of support under Chapter 2C of the Social Security Act 1991, administered by Services Australia. So the migration criterion (has an assurance been accepted?) and its administration (income, bond, recovery) are two separate systems, and the parent visa is satisfied by the acceptance, not by the practitioner running the assurance.

How and when it is provided

The AoS is not lodged with the visa application. As a matter of practice, because a parent file can sit in the queue for years, the Department requests the assurance when the application is near decision, using its power to ask for further information [MA s 56], and the request may set a short deadline to respond. Once it is requested, the assurer (the sponsoring family member, or another eligible person or approved organisation) lodges the assurance with Services Australia, not the Department. Services Australia applies the income test. For an ordinary adult mandatory Parent AoS, prescribed security is required; Services Australia assesses the assurer and applies the prescribed security amount, which varies with the applicable assurance structure and number of adults, rather than deciding case by case whether security is needed [Social Security Act s 1061ZZGD(2)(b), (3)] [AoS Determination ss 18–20]. The security is refundable and held for the assurance period. Once Services Australia accepts the assurance, that acceptance is what satisfies the visa criterion. During the assurance period, recoverable social-security payments made to the parent are recovered from the security first and then from the assurer, and unused security is released at the end of the period.

Which onshore visas require it

The AoS is a mandatory criterion for the two permanent onshore visas (804 [cl 804.224] and 864 [cl 864.226]), and is not required for the temporary 884. On the 884→864 pathway the requirement therefore attaches only at the permanent 864 stage, not at the 884 stage.

Amounts move over time

Because the income and bond figures are administered separately and move over time, the assurer's position at lodgement may no longer meet the settings years later, so what matters is the current figures when the assurance is actually requested, not the figures at lodgement.

PIC 4005 and PIC 4007

The decisive distinction is between PIC 4005, which has no ministerial waiver for the significant-cost or prejudice-to-access requirement, and PIC 4007, which carries that waiver. An accepted assurance of support does not cure a health failure: the AoS answers the financial criterion, not the health one. Because health examinations expire and these queues run for years, an applicant is commonly asked to complete medicals more than once, so health should be screened early.

The primary-applicant health table

Two facts move the criterion: whether the applicant held a substituted Subclass 600 visa at the time of application, and (for the 864 only) whether they hold or have ever held a Subclass 884.

| Applicant's situation | Health criterion | |---|---| | 804 or 884, not a substituted-600 holder | PIC 4005 | | 804 or 884, substituted-600 holder | PIC 4007 | | 864, not an 884 holder, not a substituted-600 holder | PIC 4005 | | 864, not an 884 holder, substituted-600 holder, never previously held an 884 | PIC 4007 | | 864, not an 884 holder, substituted-600 holder, previously held an 884 | health checks the Minister considers appropriate | | 864, was an 884 holder at the time of applying for the 864 | health checks the Minister considers appropriate |

Anchors: [cl 804.225] [cl 884.224] [cl 864.223] [cl 864.224].

Family-member health is addressed separately for migrating and non-migrating family members [cl 804.226] [cl 804.226A] [cl 864.227] [cl 864.330] [cl 884.226] [cl 884.227].

The 864 trap

Moving up from an 884 to an 864 does not bring PIC 4007. An applicant who was an 884 holder has their health assessed as "checks the Minister considers appropriate", outside the PIC 4005/4007 frame entirely [cl 864.224]. For the applicant this is a concession, not a burden: because they already met the health criterion at the 884 stage, the permanent 864 does not re-impose the non-waivable PIC 4005 gate, so a health condition that developed or worsened after the 884 was granted does not by itself defeat the 864. The trap is only for the adviser who mislabels this as a PIC 4007 waiver case. (A substituted-600 864 applicant, by contrast, reaches PIC 4007 only if they have never previously held an 884 [cl 864.223].)

The cost

The 804 is non-contributory: only the ordinary application charges apply. The contributory 864 and 884 carry a large second visa application charge [Sch 1 item 1130A(2)(b)] [Sch 1 item 1221A(2)(b)], payable before the visa is granted [cl 864.411]. On the staged 884→864 pathway that charge is spread across the temporary and permanent stages rather than paid in a single hit. The amounts are large and move over time, and for applications made on or after 1 July 2026 the first instalment of all three visas is additionally tiered by whether the applicant holds a valid passport issued by a Pacific-regional country, a category defined in regulation 1.03 [reg 1.03 def Pacific-regional country] [F2026L00874 Sch 3 items 13, 18, 36-38], so the applicable tier and the current Schedule 1 amount have to be checked at lodgement.

The queue

Section 85 permits the Minister to set a financial-year maximum by legislative instrument, and section 86 prevents further grants when an applicable determination reaches that maximum; Parent applications that have not been granted remain queued rather than lapsing [MA s 85] [MA s 86]. LIN 26/042 set the Parent and Contributory Parent maxima for 2025–26 and repealed on 1 July 2026; as at 12 July 2026, no 2026–27 section 85 determination had been located [LIN 26/042 ss 4–6, 8]. Home Affairs nevertheless continues to administer Parent applications through cap-and-queue arrangements, so a complete, grantable application may still wait its turn in the operational queue. An applicable cap cannot block a visa for the spouse, de facto partner or dependent child of an Australian citizen, the holder of a permanent visa that is in effect, or a person who is usually resident in Australia and whose continued presence is not subject to a limitation as to time imposed by law [MA s 87(1)].

On the contributory side, the order in which applications are reached is set by a parent-processing direction: a policy instrument that orders the queue, not a visa criterion, and is replaced from time to time.

Cost versus time

The 804 costs less but has the longer queue; the contributory 864 (direct or through the 884) costs far more but has a materially shorter queue. Home Affairs estimated about 15 years for a new Contributory Parent application and about 33 years for a new Parent or Aged Parent application on 9 July 2026. Those figures are current operational estimates, not legal periods, and must be checked again when advice is given.

The 884-to-864 pathway

The 884 is the temporary first stage and the 864 is the permanent destination. Splitting the large contributory charge across two payments is the obvious reason to use it, but it carries a second, less-obvious advantage: it locks in the health position. A former 884 holder is not re-tested against the non-waivable PIC 4005 at the 864 stage: their health is only "checks the Minister considers appropriate", so a condition that develops or worsens during the temporary stage does not by itself defeat the permanent visa. For a parent whose health is fragile, going through the 884 first can be protective, not just a way to spread the fee.

The permanent stage does not require the applicant to still literally hold the 884 when the 864 is lodged. Throughout the 864, "holder of an 884" is defined to include a current holder, a person who held one at any time in the 28 days before applying, and a person the Minister accepts on compassionate and compelling grounds [cl 864.111]. But while an 884 holder is in Australia they are locked into this pathway: since last entering, they can validly lodge only a narrow set of applications: chiefly the matching contributory permanent visa, with limited exceptions such as a medical treatment or protection visa [reg 2.07AI].

The 804-to-864 conversion

A pending 804 applicant who is an aged parent and can afford the contributory charge can switch to the faster 864: lodge the 864 and withdraw the 804 at the same moment. Where the parent is on the 804-associated Bridging Visa A or Bridging Visa B, holds no substantive visa, and has not already had such a grant, two things fall into place. The 864's usual onshore-status / Schedule 3 requirement is switched off [cl 864.211], and a fresh Bridging Visa A is granted automatically with the new 864 application, without a separate bridging application, so the parent stays lawful in Australia on the new bridge [reg 2.21A]. Queue position on the conversion is handled by the processing direction rather than a standalone guarantee, so the conversion is documented carefully and the current direction checked. The same switch (withdrawing at the same time as lodging) is also available from an 804 into an 884 [cl 884.211].

Who can sponsor

The sponsor is the parent's child, but only if the child has turned 18 and is a settled Australian citizen, permanent resident or eligible New Zealand citizen. The child's cohabiting spouse or de facto partner can sponsor instead, on the same settled basis. If the child is under 18 and so cannot sponsor personally, sponsorship instead comes from the child's cohabiting spouse (if 18 or over and settled), from a specified adult relative or guardian of the child (or of the child's under-18 spouse), or from a community organisation [cl 804.212(3)] [cl 864.213(3)] [cl 884.212(3)].

"Settled" is a defined term: lawfully resident in Australia for a reasonable period [reg 1.03 def settled]. The regulation fixes no number of months or years, so it turns on genuine, established residence rather than on merely holding the right visa. A citizen or permanent-resident child who has only just arrived, or who really lives overseas, may not be settled even though their status looks right: the question is whether they have actually made their home in Australia. Policy applies a working benchmark period as guidance, but the benchmark is not the definition and should be checked.

Substitute sponsor at decision

Because the queue can last years, the sponsor's circumstances may change before the visa is decided. The onshore aged-parent subclasses allow the sponsor at decision to be a different person from the sponsor at lodgement, as long as the replacement meets the same requirements [cl 804.222] [cl 864.222] [cl 884.222]. A backup sponsor is worth identifying early, so the family is not scrambling when the Department raises a sponsor-loss issue on a short deadline.

The partner-sponsorship limit after an 864

A person granted the contributory 864 (and equally the offshore 143) cannot sponsor a partner or prospective-marriage visa for someone who was their spouse or de facto partner on or before the day the parent visa was granted, for five years after that grant [reg 1.20KA]. Narrow exceptions exist, for example compelling non-financial reasons the partner did not apply at the same time. It bites a parent who is granted the visa and later wants to bring a spouse (it does not apply to the non-contributory 804), so it is checked before the overall strategy is settled where a later partner sponsorship is in view.

Lodgement facts and decision facts

An onshore aged-parent file takes years, so it needs active management, not lodge-and-forget. Two timing rules pull in opposite directions. Aged-parent status and balance of family are fixed by the facts at lodgement, so an age change or a death in the queue can expose a weakness that was already there when the application was made. Sponsorship and the assurance of support, by contrast, must still hold at decision, so they can fail late even if they were sound at lodgement. When the primary applicant or the sponsor dies during the wait, the consequences are worked out against the specific criteria, not treated as general bad luck.

Children ageing out

An included child stays a member of the family unit only while their age tier is satisfied [reg 1.12(2)]: - under 18: qualifies on the relationship alone; - 18 to 22: must be dependent on the parent, whether through financial dependence or incapacity [reg 1.05A]; - 23 or over: qualifies only through incapacity [reg 1.05A(1)(b)], so ordinary financial dependence is no longer enough.

A child who is engaged, married or in a de facto relationship is out regardless of age. Because these tiers are tested at the time of the relevant decision, a child can age out during a long wait. The staged 884→864 pathway softens this: a child who was included in, and holds, the 884 is preserved as a member of the family unit for the 864 by an additional rule [reg 1.12(5)], even if they have since crossed an age tier, so, like the health position, the child's family-unit status is locked in at the temporary stage. It is still worth projecting each child's age against the likely timeline at the start, and getting their health examinations done before a boundary is crossed (this does not affect age-out).

Travel

The onshore advantage rests on the bridging visa that keeps the applicant lawful during processing. A Bridging Visa A permits stay but does not permit re-entry after travel [MA s 79]; departure without a Bridging Visa B can make an in-effect BVA cease [MA s 82(8)]. Whether another BVA can be obtained is then tested under the BVA criteria [cl 010.211]. Departure does not by itself withdraw or finally determine the Parent application, and it does not erase the application's assigned queue date. Separately, a no further stay condition of the kind described in s 41(2)(a) on a visa held since the applicant's last entry can block valid lodgement of another substantive-visa application unless waived [s 46(1A)] [condition 8503]. Bridging status, travel authority and the substantive Parent queue position must therefore be analysed separately.