barker

Not a migration agent. I don't ever offer advice, only post things I find that are relevant to people using this forum. This information is publicly available through google, if you do a proper search. It's not my fault their notices are scraped by google and now appear in the search results. I tend to have a information in the sunshine approach to things. People need to know what they don't know, in order to be more knowledgeable about their own situations.

This is from the MIA. Here is the link. https://www.mia.org.au/communications/id/2807/

Sorry I’m not a migration agent and I don’t give advice. There are however many good migration agents on this board if you have a look around. I simply post the information that I receive or research myself.

Just a heads up this is the MIA email I received in regards to this, so I wouldn't call it a rumor. More like a potential for changes to come. It at least gives you some direction as to the DIBP decision and or thought process. Skilled Migration List Consultation - Request for comment The Department of Employment is responsible for undertaking a regular review of the new Short-term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL) and Medium and Long-term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL). These occupation lists are used for skilled migration to meet short and medium/long term needs for the Australian economy. The Department has developed a Traffic Light system to flag possible changes occupations currently listed on the STSOL and the MLTSSL. Because there were substantial changes to the skilled migration occupation lists in April and July 2017, the Government has prioritised continuity and stability. There are no proposed changes for the MLTSSL strategic skills list at this time. This current Traffic Light Bulletin is for consultation purposes only. Stakeholder feedback will be taken into account before the list is finalised. The public consultation period is open until 1 December 2017. The Department invites stakeholders to provide evidence and feedback in relation to the specific occupations identified for possible change, as well as those flagged for no change. The MIA encourages members with clients who may be affected by the proposed changes to the STSOL to provide feedback and evidence to the Department through its online submission template.

If anyone is actually interested, this is PIC 4021 which is the requirement I mentioned earlier. ________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Public interest criteria (PICs) in Regulations Schedule 4 are 'time of decision' criteria that variously apply to nearly all Schedule 2 visa subclasses. PIC 4021 - "the passport requirement" - is intended to prevent the grant of certain visas to applicants who do not hold a valid passport. The passport requirement upholds the integrity of Australia's visa programs by preventing the acceptance and endorsement of passports that: pose an unacceptably high risk of being fraudulent, counterfeit or falsified or pose an unacceptably high risk of being issued to persons who are not residents or nationals of the issuing State (for example, investor passports) or do not allow for adequate verification of identity (for example, due to damage, group passports) or are issued by entities that are not official sources or were issued by governments, States or countries that no longer exist or have been declared invalid by the issuing authority or the subsequent government or in the case of permanent visas, are endorsed by the issuing authority that it is not valid for migration or in the case of temporary visas, do not contain a right of re-entry to the country of origin or a third country or do not allow for international travel (for example, identity documents that are not travel documents). The passport requirement also supports Australian Government foreign policy by preventing acceptance and endorsement of passports that would indicate recognition of an issuing authority, contrary to foreign policy - for example, diplomatic and official passports issued by Taiwan or passports issued by Turkey that endorse the "Turkish Republic of North Cyprus". For the purpose of PIC 4021, 'passport' has the meaning defined in s5(1) of the Act: It is essential that the passport requirement be assessed for all relevant visas as a 'valid passport': enabling verification of the visa applicant's identity facilitating the person's travel to and from Australia and allowing for re-entry into their country of origin or a third country and not be a document listed in the legislative instrument made under PIC 4021(a)(iii). Officers are to ensure that passport details are correctly captured by the department's systems before travel. 47 Who PIC 4021 applies to PIC 4021 applies to all visa applications made on or after 24 November 2012, other than for: Refugee and Humanitarian visas Protection, Temporary Safe Haven and Territorial Asylum visas Border visas Witness Protection visas Enforcement visas Bridging visas (except for the WB-020 Bridging B visa, to which PIC 4021 does apply) special purpose visas visas with specified eligible passports (for example, ETAs and SCVs). For most visas, PIC 4021 must be satisfied by all applicants, whether applying as a primary applicant or a secondary applicant. PIC 4021 is not a "one fails, all fail" criterion. If a member of the family unit fails to satisfy this PIC, the primary applicant can still satisfy criteria for visa grant provided they hold a valid passport.

You must have a valid passport to be granted the visa, unless it would be unreasonable to expect you to get one. This is a rare exception. Renew the passport and it’s Not a problem. Log in to your immiaccount , go into the account and you’ll see a button that says update us. more details here: https://www.border.gov.au/Lega/Lega/Form/Immi-FAQs/how-can-i-update-my-address-or-passport-details

So right now the current occupation list for the 187 DE is found in this legislative instrument. https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L00847

Hi Shaktimaan, if you are looking for advise specific to your situation I'd ask your RMA but in general with this statement above by the department, because they applied in 2016, they are subject to that particular instrument. Also, the file I posted is simply proposed changes, not confirmed changes.

Basically they are saying if we have a low risk occupation, a low risk nominator and a low risk individual we can approve the application quickly. Some occupations are processed faster to meet the needs of Australia. For example, we have a surgeon that was nominated, approved and had his 187 granted earlier this year in a little over 3 months. I realise it seems unfair, but you have to understand there are literally thousands of people applying for PR as a cook, retail managers etc, and orders of magnitude smaller amounts of other occupations. The DIBP need to meet certain KPI (key performance indicators) like any other business or government agency. I'll use healthcare as an example, if we can get a surgeon in a regional town that will have a much greater impact, on a much broader range of people than say a cook. (No matter how delicious your food is ) But with todays good news, I think you guys should rest easy in the sense that now you're just running out the clock. You're not trying to beat March 2018 if you do DE. So that's a heartening and maybe a small glimmer of hope in a process that is shrouded in mystery.

The MIA has received confirmation from the Department of changes to Partner (SC 309/100 & 820/801) and Prospective Marriage (SC 300) visa application arrangements mooted at the MIA National Conference. On or after 18 November 2017 the following changes will occur to Partner and Prospective Marriage Visa (PMV) application arrangements: • Partner and PMV visas must be lodged online. • Paper applications received after COB on 17 November 2017 at any office of the Department, Service Delivery Partner, overseas embassy or High Commission will be invalid. The following policy will be applied to applications lodged before and after 18 November 2017 and not finally decided: • Undocumented or poorly documented applications lodged by RMAs, eg applicatons that only meet the basic Schedule 1 requirements for lodging a valid application, may be refused without notice and without requests for further information. • Where natural justice letters have been sent to RMAs, no follow up or subsequent reminders will be sent. The Department will decide the application on the information before it, unless an extension of time has been requested and granted. • For applications lodged prior to 18 November 2017, the Department will provide only ONE opportunity to submit additional information and/or documents or respond to a natural justice letter. These measures have been implemented by the Department because of the high level of incomplete and undocumented applications lodged and are aimed at freeing Departmental resources to address the second stage processing backlog. The Department has also indicated that it will prioritise well documented and low risk applications in 2017 - 2018. AAT applications will also be remitted to one central office to speed up processing.

This is a bulletin outlining potential changes being circulated by DIBP to the relevant occupations FYI. Traffic Light Skilled list changes.pdf

Also, here is an update about potential changes to the occupations listed on MLTSSL and STSOL. Traffic Light Skilled list changes.pdf

Hey guys I'm happy to say I have some relief and for a change some truly GREAT NEWS for you all. So the stack updated today and here is the updated directive. The bold and big text is the most important part. 10.3.3 Approvable occupations specified in the latest legislative instrument For RSMS any occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument with ANZSCO skill levels 1 to 3 may be nominated. Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) (ENS Direct Entry stream) and Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D)(RSMS Direct Entry stream) provide that the delegate must be satisfied that that the tasks to be performed in the position will correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an Instrument in writing. In practice, this means that: when assessing nominations under Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) delegates must confirm that the nominated occupation is included on the Medium and Long term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) or the Short term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL), which lists occupations that can be approved in relation to permanent employer sponsored nominations under the ENS Direct Entry stream; when assessing nominations under Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) delegates must confirm that the nominated occupation is included in the legislative instrument in relation to permanent employer sponsored nominations under the RSMS Direct Entry stream. delegates must be satisfied that the tasks of the nominated position effectively align with the tasks for that occupation as outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). Important: As of 19 April 2017, the legislative instrument for Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) referred to above contains two lists, the MLTSSL, which replaced the former Skilled Occupation List (SOL), and the STSOL which replaced the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List (CSOL). Occupations listed in the MLTSSL and STSOL are eligible for the PESE ENS Direct Entry stream. A full list of these occupations is available on the Department’s website. Some occupations on the list are restricted to certain situations via a caveat - refer to the legislative instrument. The list will be reviewed periodically and can change with occupations being removed or added. If the Direct Entry stream nomination application was made before the updated list came into effect, then the application will be considered against the list that was current at the time the nomination was lodged. If the Direct Entry stream nomination application was lodged on or after the date the updated list came into effect, then officers should confirm that the nominated occupation is specified in the current legislative instrument. If the nomination application and associated visa application are for a removed occupation, then the applications cannot be further assessed and the applicants should be offered the opportunity to withdraw.

Remember all those posts I made doubting the ability to approve after changes are made to the instrument. Well here’s not just my concern but the migration institute is also concerned. Email I got from MIA on Wednesday as an FYI: Dear Colleagues, I have as a matter of urgency asked the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in charge of visa policy for transitional arrangements to apply to RSMS applications in the pipeline which will be affected by Migration (IMMI 17/059: Regional Certifying Bodies and Regional Postcodes) Instrument 2017 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01460 which comes into effect on Friday 17 November 2017 and replaces and repeals the current Instrument (IMMI 16/045) The major effect of this Instrument is to re-define “Regional Australia” and exclude the postcodes of Perth metropolitan area. Specifically, the Instrument re-defines the postcodes that make up “regional Australia” under subregulation 5.19(7) The relevant part of Regulation 5.19, that deals with Direct Entry RSMS Nominations, falls under Subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which has seven sub-subparagraphs, A, B, C, D, DA. E and F. All these 7 sub-subparagraphs are “Time of Decision” requirements. The relevant sub-subparagraph affected by a re-definition of “Regional Australia” is sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A): “the position is located in regional Australia”. Without any transitional arrangements to this new Instrument, any Nominations on or after 17 November 2017, will not meet Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) and must be refused. This would also retrospectively affect Nominations refused prior to 17th November 2017, that are still undecided with the AAT. I am grateful for WA Branch President James Clarke and his Committee for alerting me to this. We will keep you informed of the progress of our request Second email: Dear Colleagues, Update on processing of Perth RSMS applications lodged prior to 17 November 2017 when Legislative Instrument IMMI 17/059 (which removes Perth as a “regional” area) comes into effect: NO RETROSPECTIVITY! Following my representations to the Assistant Minister and the Department I have just received the following advice from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection: Hi Kevin, The new Instrument applies to applications lodged from 17 November and will not be applied retrospectively. Under the new Instrument [Legislative Instrument IMMI 17/059] the Perth metropolitan area is not considered regional for RSMS applications. The RSMS applications in the Perth metropolitan area that we have on-hand and lodged before the 13 March 2017 with RCB certification will proceed to assessment. Those RSMS applications lodged from 13 March 2017 onwards do not have RCB certification as the WA government’s RCB declined to provide certification. These applications will be finalised and as they cannot be approved without RCB certification, will be offered the option to withdraw or be refused. The department will be sending an e-newsletter shortly with this information. The department has since confirmed that this means that those applications lodged before 13 March 2017 with RCB certification from Perth will proceed to assessment AND when they are assessed the consideration of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A), which is a time of decision matter, will use the old Instrument and Perth will be acceptable for those applications. I trust this information will be of some comfort to many of you and your clients. Kind regards, Kevin Lane National President Migration Institute of Australia

Yeah it does seem like they definitely aren’t putting a high priority on rsms. The thing is that “timer” they have is a reflection of the application being lodged that month. For example if you lodged today they are saying 15 months from that day. However I do agree that if they for example didn’t honor the stsol list in March and instead choose to refund everyone it would be to their benefit to not process applications in a timely manner. Another possibility and likelihood is a surge in applications, similar to what we saw in citizenship numbers.

Bad news guys! That decrease in processing time was short lived.

For the 187 visa the two years is a requirement even after the visa is granted. For the 186 you only need to have the INTENTION to work for two years at the time of application. You can change your mind of course.

Perth has been removed by request of the premier of WA from the RSMS list. As for the timing I am not sure.

Health checks can be accepted as far as 18 months if through no fault of the applicant it has expired. Police checks are also at the discretion of the CO.

I certainly hope this is clarified soon, this is also the troubling bit surrounding the upcoming changes in March. The way the legislation and policy is interpreted/written as of now means any changes to the rules affect a lot of people and doesn’t leave much wiggle room for DIBP to be flexible.

Thanks for this! More importantly they include the new DIBP flyers down below as references. This is good news for those applying for a transitional PR. Unfortunately the department still needs to clarify the DE stream requirements and whether the MLTSSL applies to those people

Hi Leo, To be honest I'm not sure how they interpret the PI/PAM3 because it's not "law" per se it's just policy. So once again, it's all up to the person interpreting the law and making policy. The dates don't make a huge difference if they decide to change something. Several MA's have commented that there is some disagreement about the policy vs. law, but to be honest no one really knows for sure how the department will interpret the law until they announce it. The best guess I've heard is people "should" be unaffected but this is just a guess.

If If your application is still within the published service standards, your email will be deleted and you will not receive a reply.

Thanks for that screenshot Alex, however as you can see this is a general document from DIBP and does not address whether the changes affect undecided applications. The "Who is affected?" simply designates the target audience of the circular. I don't think you can rely on one word (prospective) to make a presumptive claim. Technically anyone who currently has an application pending is "prospective". As I have previously posted, their internal documents as of now state that if the nominated list (legislative instrument) changes, the application cannot be approved. We need to wait for updated information to see how they will proceed. I'm not spreading false information, rather to the contrary. People need to be aware of all the issues so they can be prepared for any contingencies that arise.

I really hope that the changes are applied only as of applications lodged on or after March 1, 2018 and that they aren't just stalling all the STSOL applications only to reject them, but nothing would surprise me with DIBP.