Adam Grey

I am a dive instructor, and my girlfriend is a customer service manager, so we have to find jobs in that role.

My main advice would be that you can be eligible for any occupation as long as it appears on the CSOL and you meet the minimum skill level for it, no point limiting yourself unless you both have a very narrow skillsets/qualifications that only relate to those two specific occupations.

There are no rates outlined past June 2014 and we continue to work on these set rates until a new enterprise bargaining agreement is settled on. When these new rates take effect we will be back paid from June 2014.

I am currently applying for a 457.

I understand that I must be paid a set Market Rate and for my nominated and previously assessed skill that is $53,900. Proving to immigration that I make that much when my current employers are negotiating an enterprise bargaining agreement is a bit challenging though.

If my nomination is refused would a repeal be possible?

The market rate is not $53,900, that's simply the threshold limit which the market rate cannot be below in the 457 program. The market rate is set by the terms and conditions that apply or would apply to an equivalent Australian worker and you must be paid equal to or greater than the market rate. This is to try and prevent foreign workers being used as cheap labour at the expense of Australian workers. In your case it sounds like employment arrangements come under an industry/company award rather than individual agreements so the award will set the market rate as that's what every comparable worker will be paid.

Only guaranteed earnings are relevant when stating how much you get paid. Doesn't matter if you get a bonus, commission, site adjustment, travel allowance etc. All you state is your base salary and then how much you are guaranteed to earn per annum as per your contract. For example travel allowances can be included if the amount is guaranteed i.e. if the contract specifies something like "You are required to travel reasonable distances to remote sites as part of this job and you will receive a minimum travel allowance of $2,000 pa", that $2,000 can be included as a guaranteed earning. In contrast if the contract says something like "You will be paid a travel allowance of $0.25 per km" it's not acceptable as there's no way of guaranteeing the amount you'll receive.

This is a matter for the nomination anyway which is the company's responsibility, and a company with 100's of employees really should engage the services of a Registered Migration Agent or failing that at least have a dedicated HR professional with experience of the system.

Even though a statement of career history should be in your husband's own words the agent should be able to provide you an example of the type of information that is required. Essentially what you're trying to do in these statements is explain in technical detail that the work performed, training provided corresponds with the core knowledge areas that would be required for the respective Australian qualification. For example one knowledge area for bricklayers is "carry out cavity brick construction", so you'd look to show an example of when you've performed that particular work, what tools were used, go into technical detail about how you did it etc. The statement should cover everything from the time he began training to the present day.

Just want to point out one important note though, I think you should go back to your agent and clarify eligibility for the 489 visa with QLD because the state government specify that applicants must hold a valid licence with the QLD Building and Construction Commission to be eligible to apply for nomination.

That's pretty much the exact template wording that the COs always send when an application gets referred for security checks. You can email, call, write, complain etc and you'll just get the same email again and again. They won't give you a timeframe and nobody can predict it for you, best thing you can do is relax and make preparations while waiting.

Yeah they've gone into administration, will no doubt reform again under some other guise.

Companies like Global Visas/IXP work by spending huge amounts on google ads and unethical SEO practice, while employing sales people with no knowledge of immigration law to sign people up regardless of eligibility and then outsourcing the work to various agents. Nobody takes ownership, nobody gets held accountable, the service provided is shocking and applicants end up losing money. They're not the only company that act in this fashion and as they have less overheads and are not confined by registration or a code of practice, its difficult for genuine agents/companies to compete with them.

I would suggest creating your own immiaccount and then importing your application. You should only require the TRN (found on the payment receipt) and your name & DOB. Then contacting the DIBP advising that you wish to receive all further correspondence personally which can be done by submitting form 956a withdrawing the appointment of the migration agent.

Why not also contact the insolvency agents Herron Fisher and see if you can claim anything: www.herronfisher.co.uk

Article on the liquidation: http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/dreams-left-ruins-visa-firm-4004263

Thanks, I didn't know we could check the defined duties for each occupation in ANZCO website. so I've checked it and found that Civil Engineer and Geotechnical are aapparently in the same unit Group of occupation (2332).

 

I also found this information in DIAC website where they stated that

 

 

 

So I guess I still can claim my working exp points since they are both in the same unit group then?

 

 

I am quite surprised to hear from you guys just now that it is quite struggling for engineers to find jobs there because I have always heard 'the tales' that Australia always has a high demand of engineers. Or at least, that's what I heard.

 

Thanks anyway!

Yes that's correct you can claim closely related employment within the same unit group. The important factor is that the tasks and duties you performed relate to the ANZSCO description.

Re: employment prospects, these industries are always up and down. WA was the real driving force a few years back and the state was booming. Then the demand fell out of the mining industry and it had a knock on effect....Less development, less need for Civil Engineers. NT seems to be picking up rapidly in all areas and like mentioned above it only takes a few large scale development projects and things start picking up. Overall employment in Australia ranks well against comparable countries, but never expect an easy ride.

Go wherever you want to go, wherever you want to live. Availability of work is obviously an important factor but not the only one to be considered.

Echoing VS, that particular industry is experiencing a low right now but these things happen in cycles and it will pick up again. Word from recruitment companies is that a lot of the temporary/permanent engineering migrants have simply hung about after their projects finished, so there's a lot of skilled workers currently in Aus and no need to look outside the country.

I had lots of periods of employment and self employment and to be honest it was an absoute nightmare getting stuff together but they did it for me. QUOTE]

 

Would you mind me asking what they did for you? An agent can help with drafts and templates, they can also make the submittal to the relevant authority on your behalf, but there's a lot of documentation and information needed for a skills assessment which must come from you directly.

 

*Edit - Didn't realise it was such an old post*

Hi Riesta,

1) Yes it's not mandatory to have your experience assessed by Engineers Australia to claim it, however all experience must be full-time, paid, relevant to the nominated occupation and at the required skill level.

2) If you apply through the Washington Accord process Engineers Australia will define your occupation which is more often than not, whatever is listed on your degree (Civil Engineer). If you wanted to be assessed in a different occupation you would need to apply through the Competency Demonstration Report process instead.

I would check the ANZSCO defined tasks and duties for each occupation, you have the potential scenario where EA give you the skills assessment as a Civil Engineer but you can't claim points for experience because it's not considered relevant to that occupation.

As far as 457 visas go..They are a joke..cafe manager?..are you serious?

Yep 'Café or Restaurant manager' is on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List - If you read a lot of the information coming out of the hospitality industry as a whole, skill shortages are quite widespread and they'd welcome the ability to bring in more overseas workers especially in regional areas.

Hello All,

 

 

I have just realized that ACS deduct 2 Years work experience...

 

 

I have received an invitation based on my claims in EOI... I claimed 3 years work experience (5 points) in EOI... But now I have realized that ACS deducts 2 Years which makes my work experience to 1 year (0 points)...

 

 

 

 

Now, the question is, I received invitation on 65 points. If the case officer deducts 5 points of experience i will still have 60 points. Will I still be able to get VISA or the case officer will refuse visa...

 

 

As we all know there is an inconstancy in DIAC and ACS... As i filled form the EOI tool automatically generated 5 points for my experience instead of 0 points.

This has been discussed recently in another thread. A new policy has been introduced that can take into account circumstances where a genuine mistake has been made as long as the applicant would have originally received an invitation at the lower score. So for example if you were invited on July 1st at 65 points and the invitation score for that or subsequent rounds was 60 points, then it's possible that they will ask permission to correct your invitation score and assess you at 60 points.

This should not be relied on though as the regulations still quite clearly state that the assessed score must not be lower than the invited score, so it's a contradictory situation.

They (and the DIBP) can get a little het up about what a café or restaurant actually is, so often it's a good idea to include some information on the establishment you've been managing.

Also worth noting that ENS direct entry requires 3 years of relevant employment so you're still going to have to wait a while if going down that route.

Vetassess specify work experience must be relevant, paid employment of at least 40 hours per fortnight at the required skill level.

I would estimate that the majority of refusals you've seen in this occupation have something to do with the relevance of the experience against the ANZCO tasks and duties, this seems to be something that Vetassess overcomplicate on occasions.

I did not imply that everyone's case is the same, neither did i imply that the OP was incorrect. I was just pointing out that i have not heard of any specific complaints from applicants from Africa; i have heard many middle eastern complaints but not African. that was my point. And i was/am privy to quite a few "African" applicants' processes. not just talking from my own experiences.

Thanks for "explaining" it to me though.

You're "welcome". Seriously I was just trying to shed some light on the general way these are processed, I'm not arguing any point you made, there's no offence there to be taken.

That must be a new thing. I am originally from an African country and I did not experience any sort of real delays. my applications (422, 457, 175 (now 189)) all got processed within prescribed time frames, some even in record time. same thing for my parents (422, 457 and 856). never a delay. and this is the first i am hearing of a specific problem with African applicants. Pakistani, afghan and other middle eastern applicants have complained in the past and it has been attributed to the agencies in their countries taking forever with security checks.

Maybe email the CO to "ask if there is anything else they need you to provide"... i have seen a few people from both high risk and low risk countries do that when they feel their application is stuck somewhere. it sometimes triggers some movement. maybe try that?

Just shows that not everyone's case is the same. Nobody is saying that every single African will get a security check or delay, but yes there is a much higher chance that it will happen. It's not just nationality either, there's a number of triggers that will lead to extra checks being made, for example a South African doctor might sail through whereas a Nigerian Biochemist is likely to have extra scrutiny.

Ok @Adam Grey! Though I assume that there shouldn't be much delay after the MEDS/PCC Request and submission of the same? Once Health and Character concerns are OKAYed, and all documents submitted, what could be the reason for more delays?

In most of these cases you'll find that the delay is invariably security checks with external departments and the PCC is just one of the documents that they will use to assess character and any security risks. Usually you'll know when this has happened because you'll get an information request from a different processing team, or the CO will advise that the application is undergoing "mandatory health, character and national security checks". They rarely provide any timeframe or updates and there's very little anyone can do about it. Unfortunately as you've seen yourself these can take years, not months.

There's reasons, they may not necessarily be good ones though. Historically a lot of African applicants have submitted fraudulent documents, record keeping is not as stringent as it may be on other continents, there's not a great deal of information sharing being the Aus government and African governments, there's a higher ratio of health & character concerns with African applicants.....All that means African applicants will receive much higher scrutiny and will often face external checks through other departments.

It has been added at PAMS 7.2 Assessed score must be at least equal to score at invitation Criterion:

 

They have inserted another section titled: Errors in entering EoI information

 

Although this Policy is in direct contradiction of the Regulations 189.214 (1) and (2), it appears from this post at least, that it is being followed.

 

Very risky though and I would not rely upon it.

Cheers Raul, I'll check it out later. I'm surprised this hasn't been picked up and challenged yet.

I agree it sounds extremely risky, it's also a ridiculous change. The regulation is rightfully there to stop deliberate over-claiming on the EOI and receiving the invite ahead of someone with a genuinely higher score. What's stopping someone deliberately over-claiming and then simply saying they made an error after they've been invited? Giving case officers the discretion to decide whether or not to enforce this regulation if they believe an error is genuine opens up a can of worms. If we see a situation like last year where certain occupations had pro-rata invitations at EOI scores of 70-75 it's going to be interesting to see if they still think this is a good idea.

*Edit - Having now read the policy change I can now see that it can only be amended to a score that would have originally resulted in an invitation, so it wouldn't allow anyone to jump ahead of another applicant in the example above. Still think it's a bad idea/change, they've taken something that was very clear and completely muddied the water with this change*

I agree with Pumpkin, that you have been fortunate as Policy states, and I quote: “Assessed score must be at least equal to score at invitation”.

 

However, there has been a recent addition to Policy which does allow some discretion to case officers in cases where persons have made inadvertent errors when entering data in SkillSelect.

 

It looks like this very recent change to Policy has saved your application.

Do you have the PAM3 number for this policy change Raul? I haven't seen or had notice of any such change, and that's a huge change for them to sneak in without notice.

Great news. You have been incredibly fortunate, people have been declined for same thing. It is actually really interesting that this has happened as maybe indicates a change in policy / practice.

No, there has been no change. *Edit - incorrect, see below*

I wonder if a lot is being misinterpreted here. Monk, what score was your original EOI invited under? If it was 60 and then you inadvertently over claimed 70 points on the visa application, this can be amended.

If you were originally invited at 70 points, then claimed 70 points on the visa application and now they're assessing you at 60 points, this cannot be amended and would be refused. *Edit - incorrect, see below*

Here's some news! Monk has just posted saying that they have just been granted their visa after overclaiming points. Their CO emailed them from Brisbane saying they had claimed 70 points instead of 60 but that it was a genuine error and the visa was being granted in spite of the overclaim. Here's the post:

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/217151-sos-not-recognising-full-work-experience-sos-2.html#post1936578507

The regulations are extremely clear on this, the assessed score cannot be less than the score at the time of invitation. It doesn't matter if it was a genuine error or not. There is no regulation or policy stating a case officer can use discretion in this matter, it is black and white. If people read a post like this and assume there is some get out clause for genuine errors they're going to be in for a shock.

If this has happened as claimed (I say 'if' because people often misinterpret what has actually happened) the case officer has completely ignored their own regulations. While I'm sure Monk is extremely happy with it, I find it quite worrying that the officer believes they have the authority to change the law to suit their own judgement.

For the last couple of years Web Developer hasn't appeared on many state lists so it reasonable to assume that will remain the case for a while.

I'd be happy to help but It's impossible to make an informed assessment without a lot of detailed information such as a CV, date of birth, nationality, family breakdown etc which quite rightfully people do not wish to post on a public forum.

The occupation is listed as 'closed' with ACT and doesn't appear on any other state lists either. First thing I would recommend is reading the criteria for closed occupations on the ACT website and ensure you meet them before spending any time/money on a skills assessment.

having superior English is considered the same 'worth' as having a doctorate degree

but if you have a doctorate degree you still have to get superior English to go for independent skilled migrant as you cannot be 31 with 5 years experience outside Australia, and 1 year inside I am sorry but I cannot see how you cannot have to do IELTS Level 7 so why not just make it part of the immigration process, and not and additional points allowance?

Not sure what you're getting at? I gave you an example of how a person could do it. I've also seen many people get enough points without IELTS, especially those going through state sponsored 190.

Even taking your comment above regarding a doctorate. A 38 year old Phd holder with 8 years exp would have enough points. Really can't see the issue here?

Thank you Adam for answering my initial question without chastising me for IELTS :smile:

 

I have done so many scenarios to calculate for 60 points and i have so far not found a way to get it without either having a partner to gain 5 points or doing the IELTS, as you have to have obtained a degree by the time you are 22, then obtain a position straight away to gain the experience points, to hit the best age bracket for points, but maybe I am missing something

31 year old, bachelor degree qualified, 5 years exp outside Aus, 1 year exp inside.....Just one example. Of course the system benefits those those that can achieve a high IELTS score, having superior English is considered the same 'worth' as having a doctorate degree. It's not for monetary reasons, it's to help exclude certain applicants. The real problem is that the IELTS test was never designed for this purpose and concentrating on the band scores rather than overall ability is ridiculous.

There's all kinds of genuinely baffling criteria and completely unfair rules in the system as a whole. Just look at the ACS criteria as a prime example.