Subclass 475 Visa Problem

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

I am looking for feedback, please. One of our members has a problem.

 

The girl's brother has applied for a subclass 475 visa, sponsored by his sister. Following the changes on 1st January the brother obtained State Sponsorship from Tasmania for the 475 visa.

 

The ASPC allegedly claim that an applicant for a sc 475 visa is stuck with the original sponsor and so they are allegedy refusing to accept Tasmania's offer of sponsorship.

 

Nothing in the legislation for the 475 specifically says that you can switch to a different sponsor but nothing says that you can't, either. I think there are 3 possibilities:

 

1. Lack of understanding and communication between the applicant family and the ASPC;

 

2. A fundamental misunderstanding by the ASPC as to how statute law should be construed;

 

3. A deliberate decision by the ASPC to rely on lack of clarity in SS475 so as to enable them to restrain 475 applicants from switching to State Sponsorship.

 

I am wondering whether anyone has first hand experience of this scenario? If so, what has the ASPC's reaction been, please?

 

Many thanks

 

Gill

[Guest Mariana]

Hi Gill,

 

Please check the the following URL. and read the note in the end of the paragraph titled by "What are the next steps for someone affected by the changes?"

 

Changes to Critical Skills List lead to more visa processing frustration

 

I don't know the reason myself but I thought the above may help.

 

I don't know if it is also the case with 176 family sponsored to 176 state sponored?

 

Cheers,

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Mariana

 

Thanks very much indeed for the link. Somebody called Lauren, writing on behalf of Visa Bureau, says:

 

Please note: Subclass 475 (Family Sponsored) visa applicants are unable to gain higher priority by obtaining a Regional State/Territory sponsorship UNLESS they reapply and pay the application fee again.

 

 

That is what Lauren says. She does not say why she believes this is so. Without knowing her reasoning it is impossible to know whether her assertion is accurate in Law.

 

Nigel Dobbie, a seriously heavyweight solictor in this field, is helping the family I have described but sensibly, the family want to know whether anybody else has either made the switch or has been told that which Lauren is saying.

 

Certainly a lot of Agents believe that a family sponsored sc 176 application can be turned into the State Sponsored version of it. If so then I can see no reason for treating an applicant for a sc 475 visa any differently.

 

I also don't think that Parliament is interested in who sponsors the applicants for either of these visas as long as somebody does so. A lot of the Aussie migration legislation suffers from hopelessly sloppy drafting, which causes grey areas where none needed to have been allowed to creep in.

 

We shall see what will happen.....

 

Best wishes & many thanks again for your help.

 

Gill