Liam13 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Hi guys We all know that 190 visa comes with a moral obligation to stay in that state or territory for a minimum time. My question is... if you moved state before the agreed time could this effect a citizenship application in the future.. its something that could mean the difference of me sitting a pearson test and gaining extra points now and doing a 189 rather than the extra 5 points we would have from the 190.. also not worrying about breaching that "moral" agreement for peace of mind when it came to applying for citizenship Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Isabelj28 Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 I don't know the answer to your question, about whether they would take it into account, but I would say that there is a way of checking this at citizenship stage as they ask you to list your residential addresses for the last 5 years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NicF Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 No it will not effect your citizenship application or anything else. The NT have become so fed up with 190 visa holders moving early, or never even living in the NT that they are only giving state sponsorship for 190 visas to people with strong ties to the state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CaptainC Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 As NicF says.....it has no bearing whatsoever on your citizenship application Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenfrapin Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 Want to add to the previous two points, there is no legal bearing on the 2 year moral/gentlemen's agreement to live in the sponsoring state and it has no bearing on your citizenship later down the line I want to add that the state does allow people to move for genuine reasons. For example, you tried to look for work for 3 or 6 months with no luck, you now have family in another state and need their support etc etc. Have read many posts from people with genuine (or as genuine as they made it to be) reasons to move and state just agreed (it's an email request and an email reply back stating its fine to move to another state) In short, you wont be breaking any legal rules that will impact your lives in the future KnK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickyNook Posted February 12, 2016 Share Posted February 12, 2016 But the more people who ignore their 'moral' obligation, the greater the probability that more states will follow the Northern Territory's example and only offer temporary 489 visas to those people who don't have any other ties to their state. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raul Senise Posted February 14, 2016 Share Posted February 14, 2016 But the more people who ignore their 'moral' obligation, the greater the probability that more states will follow the Northern Territory's example and only offer temporary 489 visas to those people who don't have any other ties to their state. This has already happened as all States have already tightened their requirements. For many occupations you you will not gain state sponsorship, unless you live there already, have studied there or have a job offer. Due to the blatant abuse of the State Sponsorship scheme, the rules will only get tougher. Currently breaching the "moral obligation" does not hinder Citizenship, however, I would not be surprised if this also changes as the requirements for Citizenship continue to be tightened. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reza Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Hi Guys Just wondering anyone with discussed situation has obtained citizenship ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 Hi GuysJust wondering anyone with discussed situation has obtained citizenship ? It doesn't affect citizenship. Its a moral obligation only and over the years loads of people have obtained citizenship without ever setting foot in their sponsoring state. The post above yours is from an agent and he says the same. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itegoa Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 We were in a similar situation a couple of years ago. We could have applied for a 190 there and then, or waited approx 9 months (to get a bit more work experience) and go for the 189. I was well aware that I could just ignore the moral obligations of the 190 visa, but 9 months wasn't long to wait for us (in fact, we wanted to leave it a little while anyway). So 189 made more sense to us. If we'd have had no chance of getting the 189, we'd have gone for the 190. It depends on your personal circumstances. Go for the 190 now (and risk possible changes to rules/laws in the future), or just do the extra bit of work needed to get the 189. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reza Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 We were in a similar situation a couple of years ago. We could have applied for a 190 there and then, or waited approx 9 months (to get a bit more work experience) and go for the 189. I was well aware that I could just ignore the moral obligations of the 190 visa, but 9 months wasn't long to wait for us (in fact, we wanted to leave it a little while anyway). So 189 made more sense to us. If we'd have had no chance of getting the 189, we'd have gone for the 190. It depends on your personal circumstances. Go for the 190 now (and risk possible changes to rules/laws in the future), or just do the extra bit of work needed to get the 189. I reckon the changes will not affect the persons who already been granted a 190 visa. Please correct me if I am wrong Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raul Senise Posted March 29, 2016 Share Posted March 29, 2016 It doesn't affect citizenship.Its a moral obligation only and over the years loads of people have obtained citizenship without ever setting foot in their sponsoring state. The post above yours is from an agent and he says the same. I wrote that "Currently breaching the "moral obligation" does not hinder Citizenship, however, I would not be surprised if this also changes as the requirements for Citizenship continue to be tightened." The potential issue that I can see is Immigration starting to refuse Citizenship due to the "Good Character" criteria of the Citizenship requirements. We have seen Immigration getting stricter on the "Good Character" criteria and this is likely to continue. In regards to Citizenship the term “good character” is not defined in the Act. As such Policy specifically instructs case officers to assess "Good Character" against: "characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time distinguishing right from wrong behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society This broad definition means that a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes." You may have a hard time arguing the last two points if you have knowingly and systematically ignored the "moral obligation" which you attested and signed up for with an Australian State or Territory Government. There is no secret that the States, Territories and Immigration Department are not happy with the blatant abuse of the State Sponsorship program and withholding Citizenship may be one method of curbing the continued rort of the system. I understand that this is not a popular opinion, but this is based on my observed increased scrutiny of Citizenship applications. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
itegoa Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I reckon the changes will not affect the persons who already been granted a 190 visa. Please correct me if I am wrong I don't know who's right or wrong. Governments all over the world change their minds on things. It's up to the person applying for the visa, whether they think it's worth the risk applying for a 190 subclass visa (with the intention of ignoring the moral obligation) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenfrapin Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I've also read posts from people who had genuine problems in finding work living in the sponsored state. They stayed for 3 to 6 months going for interviews but no luck. they contacted the relevant department, explained the situation and said they had to move to try their luck in other states Pretty much all of these folks got a positive response from the state and said it was fine for them to leave, so if you are genuinely facing a problem, need to move and contact the state then I doubt they will force you to stay back on the dole or suffer! KnK 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nemesis Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 I wrote that "Currently breaching the "moral obligation" does not hinder Citizenship, however, I would not be surprised if this also changes as the requirements for Citizenship continue to be tightened."The potential issue that I can see is Immigration starting to refuse Citizenship due to the "Good Character" criteria of the Citizenship requirements. We have seen Immigration getting stricter on the "Good Character" criteria and this is likely to continue. In regards to Citizenship the term “good character” is not defined in the Act. As such Policy specifically instructs case officers to assess "Good Character" against: "characteristics which have been demonstrated over a very long period of time distinguishing right from wrong behaving in an ethical manner, conforming to the rules and values of Australian society This broad definition means that a decision maker can be satisfied that an applicant is of good character if the applicant has demonstrated good enduring/lasting moral qualities that are evident before their visa application and throughout their migration and citizenship processes." You may have a hard time arguing the last two points if you have knowingly and systematically ignored the "moral obligation" which you attested and signed up for with an Australian State or Territory Government. There is no secret that the States, Territories and Immigration Department are not happy with the blatant abuse of the State Sponsorship program and withholding Citizenship may be one method of curbing the continued rort of the system. I understand that this is not a popular opinion, but this is based on my observed increased scrutiny of Citizenship applications. fair enough, thats all hopefully in the future, its about time the loophole got closed. But at present there is no evidence of anyone being refused citizenship for breaking the moral agreement, is there? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
reza Posted March 30, 2016 Share Posted March 30, 2016 (edited) fair enough, thats all hopefully in the future, its about time the loophole got closed. But at present there is no evidence of anyone being refused citizenship for breaking the moral agreement, is there? i know someone who claims his citizenship has been put on hold for this issue. Frankly speaking i cant believe him as he does not give much details as to what DIBP has told him. He just says they dont let him do the test. The other day, I inquired the same from 4 different states by email and was told that it wont have any implications on citizenship or RRV applications. They all said you can live any where in Australia. Called DIBP twice and was told it has nothing to do with citizenship application and as long as you satisfy residence requirements you are elligible to apply. Have two close friends who were on student visa and got sponsorship from WA and never put feet on WA and had their citizenship applications approved recently. In my opinion if DIBP gas any problem with this issue, they can simply put a condition on 190 visa to restrict people from moving state. Edited March 30, 2016 by reza Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenfrapin Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 fair enough, thats all hopefully in the future, its about time the loophole got closed. But at present there is no evidence of anyone being refused citizenship for breaking the moral agreement, is there? That's right, at present I havent read on any forum that people who broke the state clause, irrespective at what point in time, have had issues with getting their citizenship. A quick call to DIBP and they too confirm that the 2 year requirement is only a soft/moral agreement and not binding in anyway to affect one's citizenship KnK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Berry Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 I've also read posts from people who had genuine problems in finding work living in the sponsored state. They stayed for 3 to 6 months going for interviews but no luck.they contacted the relevant department, explained the situation and said they had to move to try their luck in other states Pretty much all of these folks got a positive response from the state and said it was fine for them to leave, so if you are genuinely facing a problem, need to move and contact the state then I doubt they will force you to stay back on the dole or suffer! KnK This is a difficult one, because I think it is misleading to migrants who believe that because they are on a skills list which implies there is a shortage for the job/skill (which often is not the case) they will get a job easily/quickly, but on the other hand I am always surprised that people seem to be shocked that it takes time to get a job. If my situation was reversed and I was to return to my UK home town, I wouldn't expect to get a job straight away, as the process takes time. When I lived in the UK, for example council/Government jobs used to have a standard line saying 'if you haven't heard within 6 weeks' indicating that this is how long the process could take. One of my previous postings regarding statistics on how long it takes to find a job in Australia.... http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/jobs-careers/242095-statistics-time-takes-find-job.html Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Kenfrapin Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 This is a difficult one, because I think it is misleading to migrants who believe that because they are on a skills list which implies there is a shortage for the job/skill (which often is not the case) they will get a job easily/quickly, but on the other hand I am always surprised that people seem to be shocked that it takes time to get a job. If my situation was reversed and I was to return to my UK home town, I wouldn't expect to get a job straight away, as the process takes time. When I lived in the UK, for example council/Government jobs used to have a standard line saying 'if you haven't heard within 6 weeks' indicating that this is how long the process could take. One of my previous postings regarding statistics on how long it takes to find a job in Australia.... http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/jobs-careers/242095-statistics-time-takes-find-job.html Totally agree with you Jessica, when we move we are keeping a 6 to 8 month window to get a job in our line of work. Many tend to think if a skill is still on the list means they can land in Oz and walk into a job (within a few months) I was merely repeating what I read in forums of people who gave their experience of having lived in the sponsored state and then having no option but to move out to another state. I also recollect one post where the person managed to secure a job in another state and sent all his details as part of his request to leave the state, to which they again agreed because they did not want him to not take that job and continue living in the state jobless It's not longer a cake walk getting a job these days. The list exists for people to apply and have a shot at living in Australia but most of the folks I know took at least 3 months to get into their line of work, some did not mind a step down just to start working and they managed to get jobs within a month, but that's very rare these days KnK Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jessica Berry Posted March 31, 2016 Share Posted March 31, 2016 (edited) Sounds like a good approach. I met a couple once over on a reccie in Adelaide and they kept talking about earning $100k each and I asked them where they had got that figure from. Apparently they had been to an Expo in the UK and an 'expert' had advised them that they would both earn $100k each in Adelaide and they would be able to find work straight away. They had asked for my honest opinion and I said I totally disagreed with that advice. One worked in a dying industry in Adelaide and would struggle to find a job at the same level/salary as they had in the UK and the other one would probably earn half the quoted figure and there was a lot of competition in their line of work. If people are given this kind of advice, no wonder they struggle or have unrealistic expectations when they arrive. Edited March 31, 2016 by Jessica Berry Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.