Jump to content

has anyone ever broken their moral obligation to stay in the state..what are the consequences?


boom

Recommended Posts

I recently got the 190 visa (WA state sponsorship) but lost my job a few days later. I have been in Perth for 2.5 years now (1 month on my PR and the remainder on 457). Its not hard finding work but I kind of want to leave Perth an am thinking of going Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne however I know I have a moral obligation to stay in Perth for 2 years. Has anyone ever broken there moral obligation and what consequences has this had?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

also one more question; as i have been in perth 2 years already (but before my pr was granted) have i already meet the conditions of staying in the state or is the 2 years counted only after pr has been granted. i just re-checked the grant email an has no conditions attached

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I recently got the 190 visa (WA state sponsorship) but lost my job a few days later. I have been in Perth for 2.5 years now (1 month on my PR and the remainder on 457). Its not hard finding work but I kind of want to leave Perth an am thinking of going Brisbane, Sydney or Melbourne however I know I have a moral obligation to stay in Perth for 2 years. Has anyone ever broken there moral obligation and what consequences has this had?

 

Hi

 

Im sure I saw something on the TV in the UK with a couple who had been living out of there sponsored area and caused them a lot of hassle not sure what come of it but I would certainly have a good look into it.

 

​Pete

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi Im sure I saw something on the TV in the UK with a couple who had been living out of there sponsored area and caused them a lot of hassle not sure what come of it but I would certainly have a good look into it. ​Pete

They were on the two year temporary sponsored visa, where you can apply for pr after living in designated areas for two years. They hasn't lived in the right area.

​The permanent visa straight off it is just a moral obligation.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi

 

Im sure I saw something on the TV in the UK with a couple who had been living out of there sponsored area and caused them a lot of hassle not sure what come of it but I would certainly have a good look into it.

 

​Pete

 

The couple you speak about had a condition on their visa that stated that they must live in Regional Part of Australia, and they were on a provisional visa, they broke their visa conditions by not living and working in Regional Australia, therefore their application for PR was refused.

 

There are NO conditions on a 190 or 176 visa state Sponsored/Nominated visa that state that you must live and work in the the state that has sponsored you.

 

And this does not affect citizenship, since the requirements for citizenship are completely different. I.e. 4 years living in Australia and only the final year as a PR.

 

The OP would be eligible for citizenship in 1.5 years, therefore terminating the 2 year obligation before it had finished anyway.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

We were advised by Dept. of Immigration officials to apply for South Australia state sponsorship, when I said we didn't want to live in South Australia he said that once you have PR you can live wherever you like! I must admit at the time I was shocked and would not have been comfortable taking that route.

 

If you have given Perth a fair go though and want to leave, legally you probably can.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info guys... I actually don't want to work in my profession anymore. I want to return to uni and do another masters. The reason for moving state is just because I want to try living somewhere a bit more lively and fun and not because of work but if I am required to (and if it can cause potential problems for citizenship/immigration) i am happy to stay in perth for 2 more years...

I guess reading from the above post it shouldn't really have an impact right?

Edited by boom
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally wouldn't make decisions which could impact my future based on the opinions of random strangers on forums... At the least you should be getting professional advice from a migration lawyer but as far as I know it would have no impact on citizenship but bear in mind the rules can change.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I got similar issue to what you mentioned. I consulted a migration agent and he said it is ok to move as long as you dont have problem with employer or contract binding. He also said it wont impact applying for citizenship as the main criteria is on residence requirement not work history. Anyway, it is more like an obligations that one should honor. But if you are not happy with the situation, then legally nothing can hold you back as your are PR already which mean you can live or work anywhere you want.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest guest76088

If the migrant simply ignore his obligations then in my view there should be consequences. You may have taken the place of someone willing to contribute to the area.

 

BigD

 

A moral obligation that can be questioned when applying for Citizenship? Wouldn't such an act be considered as being "not a good character"?
Link to comment
Share on other sites

If the migrant simply ignore his obligations then in my view there should be consequences. You may have taken the place of someone willing to contribute to the area.

 

BigD

 

I completely agree. I'm amazed that 190

Visas don't come with restrictions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Thanks for all the info guys... I actually don't want to work in my profession anymore. I want to return to uni and do another masters. The reason for moving state is just because I want to try living somewhere a bit more lively and fun and not because of work but if I am required to (and if it can cause potential problems for citizenship/immigration) i am happy to stay in perth for 2 more years...

I guess reading from the above post it shouldn't really have an impact right?

 

Why did you apply for SS in WA if you didn't want to: (1) stay in your chosen occupation; and (2) stay in WA? :huh:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why did you apply for SS in WA if you didn't want to: (1) stay in your chosen occupation; and (2) stay in WA? :huh:

 

er...because i wanted to live in Australia Sherlock (why else would anyone apply for PR if not for that reason) and 190 WA SS was my only option... I didn't realise applying for the 190 meant I had to work in the occupation even if I didn't want to, surely this can't be true - I don't remember reading this on the agreement.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

er...because i wanted to live in Australia Sherlock (why else would anyone apply for PR if not for that reason) and 190 WA SS was my only option... I didn't realise applying for the 190 meant I had to work in the occupation even if I didn't want to, surely this can't be true - I don't remember reading this on the agreement.

No, there is no requirement to work in that job. All they ask of you is that you live in that state.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

But he already worked for years in Perth so you cannot really say that he hadn't contributed to that state's welfare. And it is not that he is not willing to work in Perth for longer. He was simply asking a hypothetical question.

 

And it is not like by getting a Subclass 190 guarantees you work in the profession you get approved for. Search the forums and you'll find people who stated that they got 190 visas but cannot or couldn't find work in the occupation and in the state they got approval from. Should one exhaust all of their financial reserves that would likely to shatter their dreams?

 

While I think YES YOU SHOULD honour your obligation to the state, but if you are unable to do so what then? Anyhow, he should ask DIAC for their opinion if they say he could go and try to make his life better in a different state and through which he could make AUSTRALIA richer, why not? It is one country after all.

 

And no offense (even if this will alienate some people) but Subclass 189 visa holders should not but in just because they were lucky that their profession wasn't on the Consolidated List the year they applied. problems starts, where people think they are more superior or better than others. God save us all from that....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 

And no offense (even if this will alienate some people) but Subclass 189 visa holders should not but in just because they were lucky that their profession wasn't on the Consolidated List the year they applied. problems starts, where people think they are more superior or better than others. God save us all from that....

It is a forum, ANYBODY can reply, no matter what visa they are on. Most of the people of this site offering valuable insite to people are not on the same visa. If we followed your thinking the site would die very quickly. I'm not on either of those visas, can I not reply? I don't think so sunshine.

​The only person who appears to think they are superior to others here is you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It is a forum, ANYBODY can reply, no matter what visa they are on. Most of the people of this site offering valuable insite to people are not on the same visa. If we followed your thinking the site would die very quickly. I'm not on either of those visas, can I not reply? I don't think so sunshine.

​The only person who appears to think they are superior to others here is you.

 

exactly as the point made: people will get offended for no reason and that quote if you have read that follow ups, clearly wasn't meant for you or anyone voicing an opinion. Opinion and judgement is two different cup of tea and clearly some comments here, including yours, are not opinions but judgments based on assumptions. And there is nothing to say more, no reasons to waste anyone's time on meaningless arguments. No offense meant and no offense taken. Peace out

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said people on that visa should not butt in. You didn't say should judge, you said butt in. To me that means any reply at all. With that attitude there would be no forum. And until you came along, where was I judging in this thread?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You said people on that visa should not butt in. You didn't say should judge, you said butt in. To me that means any reply at all. With that attitude there would be no forum. And until you came along, where was I judging in this thread?

 

and the question is was it the egg or the chicken that came first.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

er...because i wanted to live in Australia Sherlock (why else would anyone apply for PR if not for that reason) and 190 WA SS was my only option... I didn't realise applying for the 190 meant I had to work in the occupation even if I didn't want to, surely this can't be true - I don't remember reading this on the agreement.

 

Like someone else has said, I think there should be restrictions on jumping ship only one month after you have been granted SS. State jumping is really bad form IMO and probably affects the occupation ceilings. The whole point of state sponsorship is that it is for people who really want to live and work there. What is the point in the state sponsoring someone if they are going to bugger off after a few weeks ? The requirement of your visa clearly states you must:

 

 

 

  • stay in that state or territory that nominated you for at least two years

  • keep the state or territory informed of any changes to your address

  • complete surveys and provide information when asked.

 

 

 

If you leave, do you intend to inform your sponsoring state as you are obliged to do?

 

I would also contact them and ask to be released from your moral obligation before leaving.

Edited by Red Rose
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I used to be of the opinion that these moral obligations ought to be honoured

 

The more I see of the Australian visa system, the more cynical I am about it. So these days I tend towards thinking people should feel free to play a bit more quickly and loosely with the "rules" - the government is quite happy to do so

 

In the case of the OP, it's not like they haven't given it a go, nor that they haven't contributed to the local economy/taxes/society. So in their shoes I'd feel no compunction to honour the commitment. The compunction would have ended for me when the job did

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...