for the victim of 475 applicants
Can anybody tell me what will DIAC do with the pipeline applicants of 475?
I have submitted my application in DIAC with the state government sponsorship of South Australia in 4th September 2009. and still waiting for a response............
why don't they clarify their position for 475 applicants. I am not in CSL.
But I thing DIAC should be responsible and their service should be faster.
please if anyone have any news about my class help me to understand my status.
if any one of non-csl got any response from DIAC write on this blog.
thank you
Munira
Dhaka
BAngladesh
I have submitted my application in DIAC with the state government sponsorship of South Australia in 4th September 2009. and still waiting for a response............
why don't they clarify their position for 475 applicants. I am not in CSL.
But I thing DIAC should be responsible and their service should be faster.
please if anyone have any news about my class help me to understand my status.
if any one of non-csl got any response from DIAC write on this blog.
thank you
Munira
Dhaka
BAngladesh
Views: 65
Replies to This Discussion
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Wareham McGrath on -
Hi Munira
The Minister made an announcement on 8 February which included updated processing priorities - here's a link to one of the information sheets. http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/priori.... That document has links to a range of other information sheets at the end of the last page.
If you look at question 2, it clarifies the fact that state sponsored, non-CSL applications (including subclass 475s) are in processing Category 5.
DIAC's most recent advice about that category is that applicants should not expect their applications to be finalised before late 2012 BUT don't forget that no-one knows yet which occupations will be on the new State Migration Plans, which are Category 2, second only to employer sponsored applications.
Because DIAC has to sign off on the State Migration Plans, industry expectations are that the CSL occupations will be transferred across. If State Sponsored, non-CSL occupations are also transferred, subclass 475 applicants could be at a strategic advantage.
If not, the late 2012 deadline is all we can work on at the moment.
I hope the above info helps to clarify the situation.
Best regards
Susan
-
Permalink Reply by Serajum Munira on -
Thanks to Susan and Zaman
-
Permalink Reply by Serajum Munira on
-
Dear Susan
Can u tell me when will the DIAC will work on our case of 475 state sponsorship holder application and when the state government of SA will announce their list of occupation as a SMP????????????
Munira
DHAKA
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Wareham McGrath on
-
Neither do I, Zaman. Not polite ones, anyway.
Best regards
Susan
-
Permalink Reply by Susan Wareham McGrath on
-
Hi Serajum
The following information from DIAC's Client Service Charter refers to subclass 475, 119, 121, 175,176, 495 and 496 visa applications:
- For applications nominated under an SMP, DIAC's estimate of visa processing time is 12 months from the time the application is lodged.
- For applications that are not under an SMP, but are on the SOL, DIAC's estimate of processing time is that applications lodged before 1 July 2010 will be finalised by 31 December 2011; and on or after 1 July 2010 will be finalised between I January and 30 June 2012.
- For applications that are not under an SMP or on the SOL, processing will not commence until all other applications are finalised.
Re South Australia's SMP, all SMPs were scheduled to be announced before the end of this year.
Best regards
Susan
-
Permalink Reply by Zaman on -
Hi Munira,
You have to wait till 2013 to know the fate of cat5 applicants.
Do anyone have any idea if I change my job? Will it affect my application as I applied to DIAC as a Community worker. There is a possibility for me to get a better job to other field. My life has been totally halted.
Hope for the best
Zaman
-
Permalink Reply by Zaman on
-
Thank u Westly. It means I cannot move anywhere until 2013!!!!!
Regards
Zaman
-
Permalink Reply by Gollywobbler on
-
"Brian"
What you are really saying is that if you, personally, got half a chance, you would also con people out of millions of AUD between them. Evidently you think it is perfectly OK to shift the goalposts on people after you have had the use of their money indefinitely. Evidently you agree that it is perfectly acceptable to swindle thousands of people into giving you an interest free loan.
Very, very few right-thinking Australians would behave as disgracefully as you evidently would if you got half a chance.
Shame on you that you would behave in such a diagraceful fashion, chum.
Gill
-
Permalink Reply by Gollywobbler on
-
"Brian"
The UK presently has a Bill before Parliament called the Immigration Bill. In theory the Bill has bitten the dust because a General Election has been called for 6th May 2010 and so Parliament has been prorogued for the time being. The Labour Government introduced the Immigration Bill, so if they are re-elected I imagine that they will re-introduce the Bill pretty promptly. I gather that the UK needs a new, up-to-date Immigration Act because the present one is the Immigration Act 1971, which despite amendments over the years must be seriously out of date by now I imagine.
Therefore we might as well ignore the UK for the time being because the whole situation will change before long over here anyway. I don't know whether the UK Border Agency demands 100% of the application fees up front.
New Zealand does not copy its Australian neighbour in demanding 100% of the application fee up front. Neither does Australia's neighbour Canada on the other side of the Pacific.
NZ holds a ballot regularly. Only if an applicant is successful in the ballot is he invited to do everything necessary for his visa application and it is only at that stage that he starts to spend serious amounts of money, secure in the knowledge that the NZ Government is managed by people of honour who would never take his money and then renege on NZ's promise to progress the guy's visa application.
Canada also does not start asking the applicant to spend any significant sums of money until he reaches the head of the queue of people who are simply waiting in line in the queue.
Australia is the odd man out. Australia demands that the applicant spends almost every penny of the other costs up front before he submits his visa application. Historically, Australia has demanded this large expenditure up front because there has always been an implied promise from the Aussie Government that they would behave every bit as honourably as their cousins in NZ and Canada.
See Fact Sheet 21:
http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/21managing.htm
According to DIAC - which speaks on behalf of the Aussie Government - the Cap & Kill provision has only ever been used once before, in the Humanitarian Stream. As I understand it, applicants for Refugee or Asylum Seeker visas for Oz are not required to pay any money to the Australian Government for the privilege.
Tony Coates is now a migration agent but he used to work for DIAC during the 1980s and early 1990s, whilst he was in Australia (nowadays he lives in the Republic of Ireland.) Tony says that DIAC's recent corporate memory is mistaken. He agrees that the Cap & Kill provision has only ever been used once before but he insists that it was used in relation to Working Holiday makers. Tony thinks that this was sometime in the early 1990s.
Even Working Holiday makers have never had to prove their skills or their English Language ability up-front to DIAC, so they do not incur costs on those elements and DIAC only charge a nominal sum of about $190 AUD for their visas even now.
However DIAC charge $2,525 for a skilled visa application at present and they insist that almost all of the other money must be spent first. I queried all this at the meeting with DIAC in London in November 2009. We did not discuss Cap & Kill at that meeting. DIAC's Regional Director for Europe might or might not have been told about the fact that the Minister was evidently planning to use the Cap & Kill provision within a couple of months but the Poms in Oz team had not been told this, so we were talking about refunds if the visa applicants should change their minds about the new and inordinate delays that DIAC now promises.
I asked the Director - Mr Wilden - why Australia demands that a skilled visa applicant should have to spend a load of money on a skills assessment etc up front and then he has to spend 100% of the visa application fees up front as well?
Mr Wilden said that there is no point in DIAC accepting an application for a skilled visa if the application would fail later because the applicant cannot get a skills assessment or he cannot do well enough in the IELTS. I agree with Mr Wilden. Common sense is not to accept a visa application until the rest has been done first - albeit that this involves spending the rest of the money first as well.
What about the £2,525 itself, though? Why does DIAC demand the whole of that up front? Mr Wilden said that the reason is because once the Aussie Government has accepted that the application is valid, the Aussie Government will - eventually - process and finalise the application.
Mr Wilden remarked that the current Minister does not like the present system. On the one hand the Minister can understand that Australia has demanded that - in order to suit Australia's convenience alone - everything else must be done before the visa application is submitted and that once it is submitted, the Australian Government will not rat on its obligation to process the visa application and finalise it - either by a visa grant or by a visa refusal because something is wrong with the application.
However the Minister has told DIAC that he considers that it is morally wrong for him to accept 100% of the money if he is not then prepared to do 100% of his own end of the work reasonably promptly. He had asked DIAC about the possibility of changing the Law so that there is more flexibility on both sides? Apparently the Minister wants the visa applicant only to pay a token, nominal fee up front - just a registration-of-interest fee, in other words.
Mr Wilden said that DIAC had told the Minister that whilst this is a nice idea, they can see where he is coming from etc, allowing the visa applicant to submit an incomplete visa application and/or to change his mind later and so to demand a refund of the full visa application fee later is not an idea that Australia favours. It is inconvenient for the Australian Government to allow visa applicants an opportunity of changing their minds or the chance that the applicant might not be able to prove his skills or his IELTS ability later. Hence the Policy that we were wrestling with at the meeting - ie that the applicant can withdraw his application if he feels that the delay has become inordinate but he cannot demand any of his $2,525 back in that event.
Apparently your Minister himself considers that the stance which you are so eager to defend is unreasonable and that it is wrong. No doubt the arrangements did seem to be reasonable when the Policy also insisted that applications would be dealt with in "first come, first served" order and so they would be processed pretty quickly.
The guts of the problem here is that the Minister has chosen to alter the current Policies but he has not also chosen to alter the legislation so that it reflects his new priority processing policies. You can't change the Policy unless you change the relevant legislation at the same time. DIAC insist that the Minister has not tried - and is not trying - to alter the legislation itself.
So we have a situation where the Aussie Government is - by the Minister for Immi's own admission - behaving thoroughly illogically, unreasonably and inconsistently. The Minister cannot demand the power to cherry-pick if he also demands 100% of the expenditure for things like skiills assessments up-front when the Minister is not even able - legally - to pay a refund of DIAC' s 100% fees, let alone a penny of anybody else's fees as well.
What you end up with is a straightforward swindle. Aussies remain in jobs - processing the skills assessments etc. The applicant pays to keep those Aussies in jobs. But the Minister for Immi actually wants skilled visa applications to become a Lottery instead from the applicants' point of view..
He can't have this one both ways and hope to retain any vestige of a reputation for honour and integrity as well in the process. Neither can you.
Gill
-
Permalink Reply by Gollywobbler on
-
Hi Munira
Quite a few applications for sc 475 visas have been processed since late November 2009. I describe applications where the nominated occupation is not on the CSL but the visa applicant is sponsored by one of the States. This is the current visa processing priority Category 5. It is definitely happening, as a look at www.pomsinoz.com will confirm.
It sounds like you are a visa applicant from what the Aussie Government is pleased to describe as a High Risk country. Where a HR application is involved, historically it has always taken DIAC significantly longer to process the application than it usually takes them to process a LR application where all the other facts are essentially the same.
When the Minister for Immi first embarked on "reforming" the process in Decenber 2008, he was asked whether HR applications would continue to take longer to process under his new regime than they used to take under the old one? The Minister insisted that henceforward, LR and HR applications would take the same length of time to be processed.
For a while (during the first half of 2009) that promise was kept. There was no difference in the speed of processing.
However that promise has quietly been abandoned since September 2009......
It is now taking longer than ever to process the applications from HR applicants.
One of the Government agencies involved in processing the HR applications is ASIO:
http://www.asio.gov.au/
About 8 weeks ago, the boss of ASIO complained to the Aussie newspapers. One of ASIO's jobs is to do some of the checking for "unauthorised boat arrivals." These are the people who claim refugee status and are automatically detained, either on Christmas Island or in mainland Australia, whilst their claims are processed. Because the people involved have been imprisoned without charge, trial or sentence by the Aussie Government, obviously processing their claims must receive a very high priority.
The boss of ASIO said that whilst his staff are busy dealing with the high priority claims on their attention, they cannot also be processing the checks for HR applicants for skilled visas. Consequently the backlog of those claims for processing is growing longer, leading to a high number of formal complaints about ASIO's performance, apparently. I don't know whether the boss of ASIO complained to the newspapers in order to pressurise the Aussie Government to allow him to hire extra staff or whether he was moaning simply because Aussies whinge just as much as Britons are historically fabled to do.
Cheers
Gill
-
Permalink Reply by Tapan Pandya on
-
Hello Munira,
I understand your disappointment, we are sailing in a same boat, but as per me DIAC takes every step after lot of thoughts. One of these may be that this dept. doesn't want to make us unemployed after granting a visa.
They are thinking big, and in a regular interval. let's keep hope and patience.
Tapan
Advertise your jobs for free!
- You can reach hundreds of jobseekers every day
- There is no sign-up process required
- Posting your job takes seconds and is completely FREE!
- You will receive applicants' CVs and covering letters directly to your email
© 2012 Created by Oliver Gosling.
