westwoodwizard

1. 8 month backlog even on 65? Well for my spouse it is going to be anywhere from 60-70 depending on the English test and how her work experience is assessed. I am concerned though if 60 points has no chance. 2. I understand that the assessing bodies like to offer an additional service of assessing skilled employment and that they offer it for of course the obvious reason of making money. But, I was told DIBP will assess the work experience and make the final determination so should my spouse just have a resume prepared with the appropriate evidence of employment to submit to DIBP? So, any reason to pay CA to do this as well? Is their determination accepted by DIBP when it comes to assessing skilled employment. 3. It appears you were able to get five additional points for NSW? Was Management Accountant on their skills in demand list? So I guess you can file the EOI for multiple visas? 4. I read accountants are flagged for removal but various accounting bodies in Australia/NZ are lobbying that they be kept on the list for next year. Are you concerned accountants are going to be off the list during the next fiscal year?

1. Does anybody know in general whether the Bachelor of Commerce from major universities in India such as Sydenham College end up being positively assessed by CA? 2. Does 60 points nominating General Accountant as the skilled occupation have a chance of an invitation? I have read many people saying that 65 is a struggle and that you really need 70?

That was very helpful. I will only know once I apply but before shelling out the money I at least wanted to have some belief that I can pull this off. I am a former GSM Family Sponsored 176 applicant from back in 2009 and with the Cap and Cease 2015 and now the realities of age as a factor in points, well...my options are very limited...I have this small ray of hope with getting in as a secondary maths teacher....

It was the latter...the work experience. I do know that AITSL has to do the skills assessment. Interesting...DIBP does it...in fact that is very interesting... AITSL also provides the service so I assumed they had to do it.

According to AITSL, they will only assess overseas candidates who present three years of post qualification experience. However, there are visas such as 489 which require two years including from overseas candidates. Well, if AITSL will not provide the skilled employment assessment then who can I go to? Also, I did receive an initial certification to teach in the United States. I taught for three years and during those three years I obtained my Master of Arts in Teaching. I get the sense that AITSL will only consider work experience obtained after my Master of Arts in Teaching. I still have to check if the 489 visa has the same criteria in terms of the work experience being post qualification or not. So, I guess I will summarize my questions: 1. Who exactly other than AITSL can assess skilled employment since they will not do it for less than three years and yet there are visas for which 2 years will satisfy? 2. Any chance of me convincing them that my initial teacher certification was an initial qualification to teach?

I did look at the 190 but I hit a wall because of my work experience not meeting the post qualification guidelines for that visa. However, as a result of your message, I went back again to see if there were any other visas. There is the 457 Temporary Work Visa and it apparently does not have a post qualification work requirement. It does require an employer sponsor. I have been on Google and believe it or not I am not able to come across what I am looking for... And that is...are there Australian schools who might consider sponsoring a math teacher for a temporary work visa? In my case, at least I know I have the experience even if it was before my MAT but I was certified by the state and all of my performance reviews were fine. If anybody can point me to a starting point in seeking out schools that might consider sponsoring a teacher on the 457 I would appreciate it. I have not come across any websites yet. Thanks...

I have the BSc in Math along with the Masters in Arts in Teaching. Did not participate in Teach for America but indeed they were and still appear to be quite popular in luring young and eager graduates into the teaching profession. As you know, the program is targeted towards schools with underachieving student populations who also tend to be low income as well. Different school districts have tried different things including Teacher for America. Mine was a little different in that mine led to the MAT. When you see the salaries of teachers in America and the general attitude towards them historically, you will see why Math and Science teachers are not as qualified as their peers in the rest of the world. In terms of the two year work requirement post qualification, indeed it is a simple one....except....when you are desperate..because...of age... I am one of those applicants to the 176 Family Sponsored GSM stream back in 2009 whose application got impacted by changes first by priority processing and then the final hammer of Cap and Cease 8 months ago. We all age of course but for some of us that meant a change from ours 30's to 40's and thus a narrowing of visa options due to a reduction in points due to age... Hence...I saw a ray of light with the 489 visa and my skills as a secondary teacher. If I had a crystal ball to predict the future, I would have made sure that I had the two years post my Master in Arts in Teaching but migration laws are in flux so one day coming as a teacher is possible and the next day it is not. I instead waited for my 176 application hoping it would get allocated to a case officer...it never did of course. So, basically, my 489 visa hopes hinges on meeting the work requirement and due to my age I am in my last year of being able to apply for it and still make the 60 points. I do not even have time to fulfill the two year requirement if indeed my MAT is the "initial teacher qualification". Do I believe in spirit I have met the two year work requirement absolutely...but in terms of timeline...no...I got my MAT awarded during my third of teaching. There is nothing in Australia including the regional areas that compares to teaching in a low income/high need school in urban America. By the way, this is a sample of what I have read from the Australian media... http://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-04-01/lack-of-maths-and-science-teachers-queensland-principals/7292224 It maybe over but it was worth a try...

Here is the issue. For pretty much any visa I am interested in as a teacher including the 489 there is a work experience requirement. AITSL seems stuck on an outdated definition that the work experience must be post initial qualification which they define as the traditional education/teaching diploma/degree. Yet, in Australia there is a demand for Maths/Science teachers. Well, in the United States starting a few years ago, the same shortage of Maths/Science teachers was addressed by actually hiring people who have actual degrees in those content fields so for example I have a BSc in Mathematics which in addition to some testing requirements allowed me to teach secondary Maths and I did so for three years. During those three years, I did complete a Masters Degree in Teaching and it is this degree that AITSL apparently considers to be an initial teacher qualification. Guys, I am running into walls everywhere. This is my only hope for Oz right now. The 489 pathway for Regional Queensland requires two years of post qualification teaching experience. Well, then I do not meet it if they will not consider my three years of teaching which was after earning my BSc in Maths but prior to the completion of my teaching diploma and for many American schools this was done so that they could actually hire people who have actual content knowledge in Maths and Sciences and meet the demand. Does anybody have any ideas? Should I first speak to the Queensland Migration people or AITSL? Is there a way around this because it is almost seems that they have not considered that the traditional idea of a teaching degree is not the only pathway to being a teacher in fields that are in shortage such as Maths/Science and how can they possibly not consider a BSc in Maths as an initial teacher qualification when in fact it is more of a qualification than somebody with a teaching degree and deficient or little math knowledge. Help!!

wrussell: That is interesting. I read the post in question courtesy of the link provided by CaptainC. I am not sure we are discussing the same thing. By retroactive application of changes, I am referring to the priority processing scheme that was implemented that replaced the system that was in place when many of the applications in questions were filed and that is applications processed by date of lodgement. Here is the link to an article you have probably read where a researcher on migration Peter Mares is quoted as saying: "Before this system was introduced, people had their visa applications processed in order. The Government made a decision to do things differently."That's reasonable to a point but I think it becomes unreasonable to expect people to wait four, five, six years when they've paid money up front." http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-19/skilled-migrants-waiting-years-for-permanent-residency/6481916 The only way I can reconcile what you say and what I have read is that the rules and regulations always gave the government flexibility as to how applications would be processed whether by date or by other means and in that case I understand when you say the issue of applying laws retroactively does not arise in this matter.

Thank you CaptainC for the link.

I used a few key words to search for that post within all of your posts on this forum. You have had many posts in this forum. Do you recall any key words from the previous post you have referenced about the laws being applied inconsistently but not retroactively? I would be very interested in reading it. I searched on "priority 5" and "category 5" so far. Thanks.

You can lose even more money. Thus, it does become an issue of circumstances. Some people are screwed across the board whether it is too old to apply under the current scheme because of the points lost or not having a skill on the current list or not having the money to pursue another application or not having the money to pursue legal action. If you have the money comfortably (personally, I would not pursue a lawsuit at all costs including bankrupting myself now or in the future, spending the college savings, retirement savings, etc.) then by all means I hope you pursue a legal challenge and win it.

wrussell: I am on record in this forum saying that any legal challenge has to go beyond cap and cease since all that does is return to the status quo of painfully slow processing. The Minister in question can continue to set ridiculously low caps...why not just 1 visa per year for the offshore family sponsored applicants. They could have done that anyway. So the legal challenge has to go after the legality of the retroactive application of the changes made in 2012 to applications that had already been filed under one set of rules. What I would like to know from you as an RMA is did you and/or any of your colleagues seek a legal opinion as to the legality of the retroactiva application of new laws to already filed applications?

Celeste...unfortunately I have a classic no-answer of "unsure" because all of the references to lawyers and legal action never have specifics. Who are the lawyers and what have they said, what do they think can be accomplished which in this case has to be immediate allocation of applications for processing and a decision, how much time and of course how much money. The people who say they have spoken to a lawyer and are seeking class action...please be specific! Finally, like many, I have long ago moved on. I was still interested in having my application processed and approved but not at all costs of time and money. I need to be convinced that a lawyer has at least a fair chance at accomplishing the prime objective. If somebody just tells me they have a class action going to reverse the cap and cease...I am not interested in joining such an action.

Wrong...move forward all you wish...but pursue an outcome that makes sense..not just a reversal of cap and cease...you have to go after the entire priority processing scheme as well that was implemented retroactively. Your goal should be to force DIBP to immediately allocated all outstanding applications to a case officer for processing and a final decision one way or the other. If you just win a reversal of cap and cease, DIBP will just continue with priority processing and set some ridiculously low cap...in which you and most others will be waiting for another 20 or 30 years.

Celeste..if you do decide to challenge this. Please ensure that you at least make it clear to whoever you hire what your goals are. Do not limit your action to the cap and cease. The cap and cease is just more evidence of bad faith. Go after the whole problem of priority processing which was retroactively applied to your applications (as it was many others including mine). In other words, the resolution you need is one in which your applications are reinstated and immediately allocated to case officers as the entire process was unconscionable and flies in the face of public policy and what any reasonable or objective person would have believed when they filed their applications. Settling for a reversal of cap and cease should not be good enough because you will just go back to the situation as it existed last week which is a snail's pace of processing and caps which can be set so low as to practically mean applications will not get processed for another 30 years or so. In other words, go after a solution that yields the result you actually want which is your application to be processed and a decision made one way or the other.

I am not in the position to study either after the last 6 years. Could I do it? Sure...but...as you describe the ground realities, going as a student is better suited for somebody who is single and preferably young.

Agreed...desperate times call for desperate measures. However, I have actually mentioned one option but nobody comments on it. Attend a degree program at an Australian University. It is the quickest way to get there and to be able stay there for at least a few years. Student visas are non-immigrant visas of course but maybe by the time the person graduates they will have found a job with an employer sponsored visa or another way to stay. I know it is a costly way because of tuition and fees but it would at least afford the person a chance at their dream of moving to and possibly settling down in Australia (and for that matter any country that a person so chooses to want to move to...going as a student is always the quickest and easiest way to live in another country). What do you think?

No offense was ever taken. I was just understanding what you or others believe the legal outcomes would be and the practical impact. There is of course the reality that some will not qualify under the current visa subclass options and then there is the lost time of course which is difficult to put a value on so a legal option is a last desperate attempt to keep the applications alive. But, I would restate that legal action would have made a bigger difference when the changes were first implemented and retroactively applied. Good luck...

Well..you are aware that this thread is in reference to visa subclasses that are no longer in existence and that the applications in question go back to 5 or 6 years ago? You are a new applicant and from what I understand people who are applying are satisfied with the process. What we had to deal with is that new laws were retroactively applied to our applications which were submitted under different rules in existence at the time. History can repeat itself but I do not expect that you will have that kind of issue.

So then why did you and others not pursue a legal option at least three years ago if not 5 years ago whenever it became clear to everybody that new laws were being applied retroactively? How is now the time? Even if you successfully challenge the cap and cease, you simply revert back to priority processing and most people impacted the most were 176 FS offshore which were not getting processed at all during the last 6 years until only maybe recently. At that pace, it might have been another 10 years, 20 years...who knows... The cap and cease at least allows for a possible recovery of fees paid for an application that the Australian government had no sincere interest in processing anyway prior to the cap and cease announcement. I understand the desire for legal action in this matter..but not because of cap and cease but rather the whole concept of applications not being processed under the law as it existed at the time.

In other words, the offer of a refund is not sincere. First, not everybody uses an RMA. I filed my application online by myself without assistance. Second, as stated, what are they serious about? That six years later it would be reasonable to assume that a person has a photocopy of the card in question? If they are serious about that one, then they are not serious about the refund. The RMA may have kept a photocopy of the card but an individual applicant is unlikely to have kept one at all and certainly not for six years. If I absolutely need to, I can always track down the entire credit number but the photocopy of the card used six years ago..absolutely not. Banks in most countries discourage their customers from such practices and they certainly do not want their customers holding on to old cards...they ask them to destroy their old cards...numbers are changed every few years as a security measure as well. I guess in a sense you did answer my question...the refund scheme is insincere...

I would be laughing but for the fact that what you say is probably true...this is sort of like somebody who apologizes for doing something wrong but does not really mean it...the offer of a refund seems to have similar logic...

With respect to Cap and Cease refund application, the following instruction appears which applies to online applications: "...if your application was lodged over the internet, a bank statement clearly listing the name on the account, the card number and the payment must be provided, along with a photocopy of the credit card used." Will somebody explain to me are they serious? You mean that applicants from more than 5 years have to somehow photocopy a credit card and remember the number that was used for an account that no longer exists? People change credit cards and banks often change card numbers anyway as a security measure and people do not normally nor is it reasonable to expect that they would actually save the old credit card...in fact banks ask that those cards be shredded as a security measure. They cannot be serious...

You are so correct. It is not that simple now to apply under a new category for everybody because not everybody will even qualify. That said, as stated many times before...there is a way and it is always the quickest and easiest way to migrate...go as a full time degree seeking student. Yes it is a costly option but you can pretty much take your whole family but it is obviously a different category and you will not be permanent residents but it does allow you to be with your family members and will allow your children to attend school and spouse to work in some capacity. And during that time as a student, you might figure out how to stay permanently or at least buy some time until you graduate and maybe by then will have found a job. There will be some struggle involved but it is an option that might lead to permanent settlement but obviously no guarantees.