barker

No problem, if you look at any of the specialist descriptions you'll see this "Medical Registrars training in these specialties are included in this unit group." http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Product+Lookup/24ED79D1706EE8A9CA2575DF002DA60D?opendocument

RMOs were always on the STSOL. No visa implications, because at 1 year the RMO/Intern just applies as a 253999 (Medical Practitioner nec) for PR. Doctors have the greatest flexibility in PR applications because any doctor in training can just apply as any of the 30 position codes due the ANZSCO code specifying that anyone training for that role can apply as that. Ie: if someone is training to be a GP they can apply as a GP for the purposes of PR.

It certainly does seem that the government is taking the stance of waiting people out and hoping they go away especially for professions they have no interest in, I hope you guys get an answer soon. We just had another 187 DE (medical professional) granted today at work and it took a little under 5 months from start to finish. (4 months 15 days) so they are definitely processing visas but not all of them.

Contacting the UK sounds like a good plan. If I were in your shoes, I would do anything I could to give my child UK over Zimbabwe citizenship, to make their lives easier in the future.

Good news is that your RCB can be rectified, you havent spent lots of money yet and you still have a chance! Have them redo the RCB with an RMA who knows what they are doing, meet the requirments and then do you nomination and visa. You still have time before March as well.

I understand it’s frustrating. Having a look back at your posts I’m guessing you’re referring to the nomination. The employer is the one who makes all the decisions regarding the nomination and AAT lodgement etc. And yes it can be any lawyer, obviously if one practices immigration law more often this would be a benefit. You’re very lucky that your employer has agreed to go to the AAT for the nomination as not every employer would. That being said ultimately it is the employer’s decision in regards to the nomination application and they don’t have to involve you in it if they don’t want. However if you ever go to AAT for your visa application (hopefully not) that’s all your decision at that point. Regards

I think you'll find the experience requirement is a moving target based on the employer. I would apply anyways and see what happens. Who knows, they may hire you. Many times the requirements are not firm. Lots of government jobs are fixed and require specific things but just go for it. Give it a shot.

Hi Lisa, I assume you are both referring to condition 8107. Your sponsor is obliged to inform the department within 28 days of your last day of employment, as for how long this takes them (DIBP) to action is really variable and I don't think anyone can tell you that with certainty. As far as how long you have to leave or find a new sponsor this depends on when your visa was granted (if on or after November 19, 2016) then it's 60 days. If it was granted prior to this date you still have up to 90 days to find a new sponsor, from when you are notified. Please find the information attached below. If you need clarification a RMA or immigration lawyer might be able to help you with alternatives, or you could find a new sponsor. DIBP is processing sponsor change requests as a matter of priority. (At least according to them) Regards migration-newsflash-au-457-visa-after-cessation-18-october-2016.pdf

Because you'd think instead of using a stock photo of a US passport, they would use something more appropriate to Australia.

Have a look at the passport in the far right picture, on the DIBP homepage. It's a US passport. Hahahaha

Yeah, but what I'm getting at is that if you somehow had an actual "reason" they would be hard pressed to not approve it given that it meets the criteria. Ie; if you could prove someone in your family died recently or was ill etc. To me this is more an exercise in hypotheticals. But still interesting. The fact that you currently have a travel facility on your present visa shouldn't theoretically play a role in deciding whether to grant the new RRV. Similar to how the DIBP will very readily grant you an ETA even though you have PR.

The 157 does not expire it is a permanent visa as per the DIBP site. Only the travel facility expires. For which you then apply for yet another RRV.

I suppose theoretically if it was granted it would take the place of the 187. When a RRV is granted it is literally a whole new visa and the old visa ceases to exist. Read under Section 82 (2) A substantive visa held by a non-citizen ceases to be in effect if another substantive visa (other than a special purpose visa) for the non-citizen comes into effect. You'll notice that on the DIBP site the visa is defined as: Both the 155 and 157 visas are permanent visas. They let you undertake all of the activities that your original permanent visa let you undertake: stay in Australia indefinitely work and study in Australia enrol in Medicare, Australia's scheme for health-related care and expenses sponsor eligible relatives for permanent residence travel to and from Australia as many times as you want while the travel facility is valid apply for Australian citizenship, if eligible. Because it is a new visa, the legislation wouldn't cover the cancellation of it because it falls under a different subclass. You could technically apply for a 157 RRV but I don't know if you'd meet the third criteria From the DIBP site: You might be granted a subclass 157 visa if all of the following apply to you: you lawfully spent at least one day but less than two years in the past five years in Australia immediately before you apply for this visa you were an Australian permanent resident or an Australian citizen the whole time you were in Australia there is a compelling and compassionate reason for leaving Australia. I suppose that if you actually had a compelling and compassionate reason for leaving, they would have to approve it because it would fall under the primary criteria, but honestly this would be a complex legal question that would be best answered by a RMA or a lawyer. But it is a very interesting argument and I would be curious to see how it panned out if it ever went to tribunal.

So from what we are seeing, 5 months seems to be the average time for some skill level 1 occupations at present just based on people's posts on this forum. I'm just *guessing* based on ENS/RSMS as it appears they are following similar grant patterns. It really is hard to predict which occupations are approved fastest, but it certainly seems that professional, and highly technical skills are being prioritised. It appears that the large influx of other applications is causing the average processing time to increase out to 15-18 months.

These dates are for nominations or visa filing? They are handled by the same team, and often nominations and grants are decided together — as was the case above.

Auto reply email as of today: We are currently allocating ENS/RSMS cases lodged between April 2016 and August 2017.

It all depends on the visa type, occupation, applicant etc. My 457 visa was approved in a little over two days (I'd already done the medicals ahead of time). My 187 visa was processed in 2.5 months. (I reused the 457 visa medicals). This processing time included my employer getting all of their end's paperwork together etc.

Here is the policy statement guidance from the department about how long they will accept medical clearances. Technically it can be up to 18 months. There is some discretion by the decision maker that can be exercised. When can the validity of a health clearance be extended If the validity period of a health clearance can be extended, this can be done only for 6 months and only if: there were delays in processing the visa application for which the medical examinations were completed and these were not caused by the visa applicant, or there are compelling or compassionate reasons. Such extensions should not be given automatically. Note: The validity of a health clearance completed for a previous visa application which has already expired should not, unless compelling and compassionate circumstances exist, be extended to facilitate re-use of a previous health clearance. If an applicant has lodged a new visa application has HAP has already successfully ‘re-used’ a health clearance (completed for a previous visa), and this health clearance expires shortly after ‘re-use’ for the new pending application, officers should keep in mind that the delays in processing provision would not generally be in respect of the newly-lodged visa applications. These cases may fall under the ‘compelling or compassionate’ provision. Extensions beyond those above are not available in any circumstances and processing officers should manage this. If it appears that a health clearance is about to expire before visa grant, processing officers should organise for health examinations to be undertaken again. Where the applicant’s health clearance has expired, and no further extensions are available, applicants are required to complete medical examinations.

I'm not a MA, but this is the information the DIBP has put out as of November 2017, in which they state they have not stopped processing at any time. RSMS and ENS processing RSMS and ENS processing times are currently being affected by a number of factors – including: the high on-hand RSMS/ENS caseload, which is further exacerbated by a particularly high number of lodgements in recent months (note: more than 16,000 applications were lodged in June 2017 alone, which is equivalent to approximately four months of average application lodgements) there are increased levels of non-genuine applications or applications with integrity concerns which require a higher level of scrutiny and incomplete visa application lodgements. At no point in time has processing stopped on these cases and the Department is continuing to work through the on-hand caseload as fast as possible. Note: Applications lodged more recently may be allocated for assessment ahead of older applications to facilitate more efficient processing of the pipeline and reduce processing times.

Hi Kanz, You won't find it on the DIBP website. This is an excerpt from legendcom, which is a subscription based service from DIBP.

I’ve posted the information that DIBP has provided and beyond that I don’t really have any more I’m sorry! They haven’t exactly been super forthcoming with details. Let’s hope they release more information soon.

Just to head off any accusation that I am a lawyer, let me say I’m not a lawyer either. But what I am saying is that these emails come through to a central email address which the forwards them to hundreds of interested parties. I will continue to post publicly available links to information that is in the interest of this forum’s members.

I’m not going to entertain these pointless discussions. If you actually take the time to look through my previous posts, you will see time and time again that I have never represented myself as an agent. I have also consistently encouraged people on this forum to seek RMA advice. I hope you do realise that these bulletins are sent to large corporations (who do their own immigration work through in house lawyers) as well as small RMAs. Just because I receive an email, does not by default make me an RMA.

You sound very upset. What I said before still stands, these are emails that can be found on google. Also, your fellow migration agents are also posting these notices, so I'm not sure why you're so offended. I think we are getting off topic here. The fact is the information I have posted is valid, and is relevant to this forum. References: https://edupi.com.au/summary-1-july-2017-visa-migration-changes/

I would certainly suggest asking a registered migration agent for help with this one. Or at least for help planning for contingencies if it gets refused.