Anyone landed in a city other than sponsored state??

[ponnuvarun]

Hi,

 

We got our 176 Visas and there is no specific condition mentioned in our visas. The visa does not says that we should stay in the sponsored state for the first 2 years etc etc... I was just wondering whether anybody landed and settled in a city other than the sponsored state???

 

I know that there is no legal commitment to stay in the sponsored state and the applicant is having a moral commitment to the state. If the applicant gets a job offer in other state, whether he can move there?? If we can move, what we should do.. like just inform the State and go??

 

We plan to land during Nov this year and would like to get views of our members... ( We applied during Sept 09 and got our 176 visa during March ''11. My friend applied during same time during Sept '09 also got his 175 visa during April '11. Which means no benefit for applying under State Sponsorship!!!)

 

Satish

[Guest amer]

I believe the major benefit of State Sponsorship pre July 2010 was the 100 points vs 120point required by 175.

 

Post July 2010, your application get higher priority processing if you are under SMP. Those who applied under SMP in 2011 have already been assigned CO.

[ali]

I think it's a moral obligation (although at some point DIAC have to tighten this I would think), but you used to get sent something to fill in every 6 months or so saying where you live. For me personally, I'd probably want to give something back to the state that sponsored me, even for a little while.

[ponnuvarun]

Hi,

 

But if the applicant got a job offer from other state and he is not getting a satisfactory job in the sponsored state, what he will do? The Visa he got is "Australian PR Visa" and not a particular state visa..

 

Satish

[PissLUR]

remember the agreement that you HAD with the state when you REQUESTED for their sponsorship.

 

its such a shame that people in this situation even think about not fullfilling what is being asked of them.

[Guest jak2503]

Hi,

 

But if the applicant got a job offer from other state and he is not getting a satisfactory job in the sponsored state, what he will do? The Visa he got is "Australian PR Visa" and not a particular state visa..

 

Satish

you should do a search on the subject, its been done over and over and over, as i see it the obligation is moral only, not legal, and as you said your visa says perm residant, i was all set to stay in victoria when i got here, however when the money runs low and the jobs dont happen you have to think about your family, we left vic after 3 months and headed where the work was, loads of people will say "you should have brought enough money for a year or " i would never possibly leave the state" or even " thats disgusting im still in blighty waiting for my visa and it should have gone to someone like me who would stay there" well unlucky for them you have it and you have got in however you could, if you speak to the state when you arrive they will just say you should stay and do your two years, i tried to speak to them but got nowhere so i left and never heard from them again, good luck with your life in aus.

[Stephen]

Hi there.. My family and I had exactly the same dilemma. We were sponsored by WA, had every intention of going to WA, had our 176 PR visas granted and THEN got a job offer in QLD. We too wrestled with the "Do we, Dont we" question, but after speaking to a lawyer, the obligation is purely a moral one. At the end of the day, my objective was to get my family to Australia AND to be able to work and provide for them and at no point did I get a job offer or even any interest from WA. The visa is for Permanent Residency, NOT state residency, therefore you are free to travel anywhere you wish at any point WITHOUT having to notify anyone. Just the same as any Australian can. As this is the case, I am sure there are just as many people who leave QLD to head to WA are there are vice versa, so considering the numbers that this "dilemma" involves, it isnt as big an issue as what your conscience is making it. We have been in QLD since last October and at NO point have we been asked to fill any forms out, even after applying for Medicare, Drivers Licenses etc.

 

Im sure the moral brigade will say otherwise, but i am working, paying taxes and paying into the Australian economy.......Conscience Clear..!!!

 

Good Luck in your descision...and Good luck in whatever state you land..!!

[Guest jojaks]

Spot on Stephen !

 

While there is a moral obligation to the state that sponsored us (thank you very much SA) , I have to say that my Moral Obligation to provide for my family is a damn sight higher up the list importance !!

 

I intend to go to SA and stay for the required period or longer , but if i cant find work ill be off like a shot !!!

[Guest TKB]

Spot on Stephen !

 

While there is a moral obligation to the state that sponsored us (thank you very much SA) , I have to say that my Moral Obligation to provide for my family is a damn sight higher up the list importance !!

 

I intend to go to SA and stay for the required period or longer , but if i cant find work ill be off like a shot !!!

 

...Perfect answer...to those who says this. Family always comes first...and everyone understands this...even SA and Rest of Australia...

[DisillusionedScot]

remember the agreement that you HAD with the state when you REQUESTED for their sponsorship.

 

its such a shame that people in this situation even think about not fullfilling what is being asked of them.

 

With all due respect. Eh, crap. And I apologise for that, but it is.

[DisillusionedScot]

No legal obligation whatsoever. It's a trap to get you to where they want you to go. Ignore it. I *so* wish we'd listened to our agent who told us repeatedly - *Don't go to Perth!!! Go where you want to go to*.

 

It's purely a moral obligation *nothing* more. Fact.

[littlefoot]

While there is a moral obligation to the state that sponsored us (thank you very much SA) , I have to say that my Moral Obligation to provide for my family is a damn sight higher up the list importance !!

 

Perhaps that's something that you should have thought about before using the sponsorship place of somebody who might have been a little more honourable in their undertaking? If the only way you can provide for your family is by breaking an agreement that got you your visa, did the thought cross your mind that it may not be the best choice to migrate at all? Or that you may not be eligible to apply if you were to hold up your end of the bargain?

 

 

No legal obligation whatsoever. It's a trap to get you to where they want you to go. Ignore it.

 

That's nonsense. It's not a "trap". It's a system used by the government of the country you want to live in to bring people with skills in most demand to the parts of Australia that need them the most. It's also a system abused by people who care about their own wants ahead of the country they want to migrate to. It may not be a legal obligation but there are plenty of us who will do good by the state that enabled us to get our visa, and are embarrassed by migrants who blatantly flout the loophole. Australia is literally better off without people who take the course of action you're cheer-leading.

Edited September 27, 2012 by littlefoot

[DisillusionedScot]

...Perfect answer...to those who says this. Family always comes first...and everyone understands this...even SA and Rest of Australia...

 

Well said

[DisillusionedScot]

Perhaps that's something that you should have thought about before using the sponsorship place of somebody who might have been a little more honourable in their undertaking? If the only way you can provide for your family is by breaking an agreement that got you your visa, did the thought cross your mind that it may not be the best choice to migrate at all? Or that you may not be eligible to apply if you were to hold up your end of the bargain?

 

 

 

 

That's nonsense. It's not a "trap". It's a system used by the government of the country you want to live in to bring people with skills in most demand to the parts of Australia that need them the most. It's also a system abused by people who care about their own wants ahead of the country they want to migrate to. It may not be a legal obligation but there are plenty of us who will do good by the state that enabled us to get our visa, and are embarrassed by migrants who blatantly flout the loophole. Australia is literally better off without people who take the course of action you're cheer-leading.

 

Get off your moral high horse and try having a grasp at reality.

[Guest ichtar]

My 2 cents.

 

Everybody (even Australian government) know that SS is a loophole.

If government is not happy with that they just have to had a clause to PR (gained through 190 visa) with an obligation to stay in the state they have been sponsored by.

Another solution could also be that state stop sponsoring people they have no job for.

 

It is so simple than that.

[littlefoot]

Get off your moral high horse and try having a grasp at reality.

 

Right back atchya, Jimmy. The "reality" is that you're encouraging people to sign up to an agreement they have every intention of breaking to take advantage of a loophole that goes completely against the Australian spirit of a 'fair go'. Isn't the 'moral high horse' actually to use family as an excuse to break the rules? You haven't made an argument based on finance or employment, just some daft conspiracy theory about the Australian government trying to 'trap' people.

 

There are thousands of applicants who would have honoured their non-legal obligation to stay in the state who are backing their occupation but won't be able to because some Del Boy who thinks he's found a way around the system snatches their sponsorship place from them then moves somewhere completely different for no better reason than they can't be caught for it.

 

You can call me moralistic if you like, but tell me which part of that isn't true. I'll say it again: if an applicant cares about their family, they'll stay put and make the best of it unless they can qualify for a visa legitimately, without abusing the application system. If they can't, they shouldn't expect any sympathy from those of us who applied fair and square and respected the system that got us our visas.

Edited September 28, 2012 by littlefoot

[Guest jojaks]

Perhaps that's something that you should have thought about before using the sponsorship place of somebody who might have been a little more honourable in their undertaking? If the only way you can provide for your family is by breaking an agreement that got you your visa, did the thought cross your mind that it may not be the best choice to migrate at all? Or that you may not be eligible to apply if you were to hold up your end of the bargain?

 

 

 

Seriously !! your going to attack me on a post that is 18 months old ?

 

First of all, I am an Honorable person. We wanted QLD and went for QLD then the monkeys at DIAC decide to move the goal posts just as we are ready to lodge and take my occupation off the list. Where is the "FAIR GO" in that. So my moral goal posts also moved, I don't appreciate almost getting my visa and having the carpet pulled from under me - I BITE BACK.

 

Yes I broke my agreement with SA, I fully intended to and couldn't care less. I am in Australia !! the best move we ever made. We have been here a year and love it, we have heaps of friends all of whom know how we got here and the circumstances in which we got our visa. All of them without exception say " good on ya mate, its bloody shite down there anyhow, have another cold one " those are the opinions that matter, yours on the other hand does not.

 

To answer your question, NO not migrating was never in my thoughts, getting to Aus despite DIAC changing the rules every five minutes was. We moved to get away from a place we no longer liked and people like yourself we no longer wanted to be associated with.

 

And as for us taking the sponsorship place of some one else, I can only hope that it was your place we took in which case we are delighted to have saved SA from having another "WHINGING POM" turn up and give us decent poms a bad name.

 

And to finish, a piece of advise for all the guys trying to get here and struggling with moral dilemmas. Do what is necessary to get your dream. Do not let these over opinionated morons affect you. DIAC will at every turn try to change the rules so you have to spend more of your hard earned cash getting your dream to come true. It is well worth the trip, we live in a tropical paradise and smile everyday.

 

Do we feel guilty for breaking our agreement with SA ,..................................... Er , what do you rekon ?

Edited October 2, 2012 by jojaks
forum rules

[Guest ronkhu]

Right back atchya, Jimmy. The "reality" is that you're encouraging people to sign up to an agreement they have every intention of breaking to take advantage of a loophole that goes completely against the Australian spirit of a 'fair go'. Isn't the 'moral high horse' actually to use family as an excuse to break the rules? You haven't made an argument based on finance or employment, just some daft conspiracy theory about the Australian government trying to 'trap' people.

 

There are thousands of applicants who would have honoured their non-legal obligation to stay in the state who are backing their occupation but won't be able to because some Del Boy who thinks he's found a way around the system snatches their sponsorship place from them then moves somewhere completely different for no better reason than they can't be caught for it.

 

You can call me moralistic if you like, but tell me which part of that isn't true. I'll say it again: if an applicant cares about their family, they'll stay put and make the best of it unless they can qualify for a visa legitimately, without abusing the application system. If they can't, they shouldn't expect any sympathy from those of us who applied fair and square and respected the system that got us our visas.

 

I appreciate your morality and respect the same as well but trust me - It I were to choose between morality and bread in situation where i might not have a source to earn my bread, I would definitely overlook morality. We can retain morality only we have a daily bread but with empty stomach of your own and your family, I would definitely give a **** to morality.

 

I would still stand with you on the fact that if people who directly go to other states without even landing to the Sponsored state then definitely they should give it a though and first try to get a job in the state which sponsored the visa but if you still dont get it, then its still OK to move on to a different state but the I definitely would recommend giving it a sincere try first.

[littlefoot]

Hi jojaks. First of all, I've removed the hostility from your reply. There's really no need or benefit in being so aggressive and I won't take the bait. I do want to address some of what you say, however...

 

We wanted QLD and went for QLD then the monkeys at DIAC decide to move the goal posts just as we are ready to lodge and take my occupation off the list. Where is the "FAIR GO" in that. So my moral goal posts also moved

 

Not quite. The system under which you applied was amended. All applicants know and agree to accept that possibility when they apply so it does feel like a bit of an excuse to bring it up when it suits you. It also feels a bit unfair when plenty of other applicants are spending two years in a state out of respect of the same system that people in your position are taking for a ride. That's abusing the immigration system no matter how you try and explain it. I'm sure you have opinions on people who come to the UK and do the same thing. How does it feel being in the same boat?

 

Yes I broke my agreement with SA, I fully intended to and couldn't care less.

 

So what would you say to people who'd rather not live in South Australia but are honouring the agreement they made? Those who respect the system, stick by their word and do right by those they've committed to? More to the point, how would you feel speaking to an applicant who is unable to move to Australia because somebody took a sponsorship place that could have been theirs without any intention of ever following through on it? Personally speaking, I'd have a tough time with that. Maybe your conscience is a little more blunted.

 

I can only hope that it was your place we took in which case we are delighted to have saved SA from having another "WHINGING POM" turn up and give us decent poms a bad name.

 

I don't think "decent poms" would set out to commit to agreeing to fulfil an economic need of a country in order to gain a visa, with no intention of ever meeting that agreement. I think the description you have of yourself as 'decent' is pretty far wide of the mark, as far as this goes.

 

And to finish, a piece of advise for all the guys trying to get here and struggling with moral dilemmas. Do what is necessary to get your dream. Do not let these over opinionated morons affect you. DIAC will at every turn try to change the rules so you have to spend more of your hard earned cash getting your dream to come true.

 

This is tin-hat conspiracy territory. The Australian government is no different from any other country in the world in adjusting and amending their immigration system to ensure the right influx of people get to call Australia their home. At any point they do this, there will inevitably some applicants caught in the mix. Migrating is a privilege and you're lucky to have done it. The dismissive, self-righteous way you shoot down the system that allowed you to move in the first place is pretty repellent. Surely the reality is you should count yourself lucky.

 

I'm not "whinging" about anything other than your self-confessed abuse of the system. I think that's fair game. I appreciate you don't like being called out on it, but your reply to me speaks for itself. In terms of who will most benefit Australia, let's take somebody who has agreed to honour an agreement to fulfil an economic need, and someone who uses and abuses the system not for any gain to the country but for a gain to themselves. Now, who do you think Australia is better off with? Not much thinking involved with this one.

Edited October 2, 2012 by noworriesmate
quoted edited post

[Gareth 666]

I'm not sure exactly where I stand on this subject, I need SS but would love to go to a state whose list I'm not on. On the one hand I'd like to go where I want but on the other I'd feel slightly guilty if I abused the trust of my sponsoring state.

Part of me thinks I've never lived in Oz so even going where I don't 'think' I want to be might turn out to be the ideal place.

For what it's worth, my take the sponsorship is that it's the state that decides what skills it needs, not DIAC. Therefore if I got sponsored by a state and then there were no jobs for me there, then surely THEY have already broken the moral agreement and so if a job is available in another state then I should be able to take it.

I'm not saying this is necessarily this route I'd take but I thought I'd throw it in as a different angle.

[dazzmatazz]

I have state sponsorship for Western Australia and intend on taking it simply as I have a support system there. There are a fair number of Jobs and I pray I get one of them quickly after landing early in 2013. My take on it is simple.

 

If the state has sponsored you it is for a particular vocation (job type). The state believes that there is a shortage of that particular job but it is tough to track something like that even though they do try really hard they don't always get the supply vs demand thing right. So if there is not actually a shortage and you stick it out and wait, like maybe 6 months to find a job and eventually get one you are actually doing a dis-service to an Australian citizen who could have got that limited job. They may have gone to a uni in that area studied etc and then you come along and take the job. So if you get an easy job offer in a state where there are actually jobs available and there really is a short supply in that state then you are not disadvantaging an Australian rather doing a good thing for the country. So if you move to another state due to lack versus availability of jobs in your vocation then well done to you. If you used the state sponsorship to simply get int OZ and then moved on without even looking for a job then Shame on you.

 

my 2c any way.

[Stephen]

Hi jojaks. First of all, I've removed the hostility from your reply. There's really no need or benefit in being so aggressive and I won't take the bait. I do want to address some of what you say, however...

 

 

 

Not quite. The system under which you applied was amended. All applicants know and agree to accept that possibility when they apply so it does feel like a bit of an excuse to bring it up when it suits you. It also feels a bit unfair when plenty of other applicants are spending two years in a state out of respect of the same system that people in your position are taking for a ride. That's abusing the immigration system no matter how you try and explain it. I'm sure you have opinions on people who come to the UK and do the same thing. How does it feel being in the same boat?

 

 

 

So what would you say to people who'd rather not live in South Australia but are honouring the agreement they made? Those who respect the system, stick by their word and do right by those they've committed to? More to the point, how would you feel speaking to an applicant who is unable to move to Australia because somebody took a sponsorship place that could have been theirs without any intention of ever following through on it? Personally speaking, I'd have a tough time with that. Maybe your conscience is a little more blunted.

 

 

 

I don't think "decent poms" would set out to commit to agreeing to fulfil an economic need of a country in order to gain a visa, with no intention of ever meeting that agreement. I think the description you have of yourself as 'decent' is pretty far wide of the mark, as far as this goes.

 

 

 

This is tin-hat conspiracy territory. The Australian government is no different from any other country in the world in adjusting and amending their immigration system to ensure the right influx of people get to call Australia their home. At any point they do this, there will inevitably some applicants caught in the mix. Migrating is a privilege and you're lucky to have done it. The dismissive, self-righteous way you shoot down the system that allowed you to move in the first place is pretty repellent. Surely the reality is you should count yourself lucky.

 

I'm not "whinging" about anything other than your self-confessed abuse of the system. I think that's fair game. I appreciate you don't like being called out on it, but your reply to me speaks for itself. In terms of who will most benefit Australia, let's take somebody who has agreed to honour an agreement to fulfil an economic need, and someone who uses and abuses the system not for any gain to the country but for a gain to themselves. Now, who do you think Australia is better off with? Not much thinking involved with this one.

 

I fail to see how you can comment that the state (WA in my case) were trying to fulfil an economic need by offering me SS... My skills are within the Gas Pipeline Industry, WA sponsored me, I'm very grateful for that.....!!...YET... there is at present probably the biggest Pipeline construction initiative going on within QLD..??, (where i was offered a job...Very Quickly...Not one job offer from WA...!!) So i'm not sure what econmic need they are trying to fulfill by offering me SS..when they obviously are not in a position to offer jobs within that sector... and believe me I did apply...for lots..!!! How is that being morally sound on their part...by inviting, (which is all SS really is) a family half way around the world with no real chance of providing work...???

[Dream Runner]

Hi all,

 

Thanks for your replies so far.

Please help me in handling below situation:

 

I have got my 190 PR Visa for SA, actually I was planning to go in Adelaide-SA on my own and was about to search a job there.

But my current employer is one of the Indian service based company is not willing to let me resign and go.

They are giving me an option of going to Sydney for a 6 months project, I requested them a project in Adelaide...but right now they have only opening in Sydney.

I do not want to miss this chance as it is the safest way to go to Australia, as my risk of going jobless there will be reduced to 100 %.

 

My questions are:

1) What should I do in such a case? My consultant is saying that I should send a mail to my SA case officer and rather SA and tell them that I am going to Sydney on an Internal company transfer project, so please allow me.

2) If SA allows me or did not create any major problems, then I am planning to go to Sydney instead of Adelaide, but when my project will end after 6 months, at that time if I am not getting a job in Adelaide and getting a job in Sydney/Melbourne, then can I go there after resigning my Indian company? or will SA will create some problems?

3) I will make my best efforts to search a job in SA after my project in Sydney, but if I am not getting any internal project in Adelaide and if I never get a chance to go to SA (because of not getting job in SA and getting job elsewhere) then will I get any problems in getting a citizenship?

4) I heard that if you are going in Australia with a job in hand or internal transfer in my case…then even if you have SA state sponsorship you will not get any problem…because you are sincerely letting that know to SA

 

Please reply...I am in a dilemma

[Dream Runner]

Please reply to my above query...appriciate your reply...thanks

[Dream Runner]

please reply