Aeoz

On 25/09/2023 at 15:11, paulhand said:

You can apply for an RRV - the requirements are the same as for a former permanent resident. 

Question: If I am a holder of Vietnam and Australian citizenship - if I renounce my Australian citizenship, do I automatically get a permanent resident visa on my Vietnamese passport? Assuming I'm onshore when I renounce.

TIA

On 09/07/2023 at 02:59, paulhand said:

The actual reason is a good place to start. Remember that a new visa will replace the one she currently has. You could always take her on a short holiday to Bali or NZ to reset the stay period on her current visa. 

Hi Paul, not the thread starter but I have a related question: If the mum does this and goes back and forth (stays 3 months in AU, goes to Bali/NZ for 1-2 week holiday, and go back to AU for another further 3 month stay, repeat) will there be any issues with immigration?

Another question, if the mum applies for a 12 month stay tourist visa while still holding the multiple entries 3 year grant visa, will there be any issue (e.g. existing visa cancelled)?

5 hours ago, rammygirl said:

Hard to say how recent these videos are. Things have tightened up in the last year or so, certainly in the past this was not an issue.

By tightened up, what does it entail? Do we actually have visas that are cancelled because people are moving before the 2-year obligation?

Hi everyone,

I've researched the forum regarding the question of "Moving states on 190 visa before completing 2-year stay obligation" and have found many answers. The general consensus is that it's a moral obligation and you are free to move, however this may affect your future citizenship or visa application. Raul Senise also made a thread in 2018 stating that "Some States are now actively pursuing non compliance and have successfully had SC190 visas cancelled for applicants not meeting their obligations of living and working in the sponsoring state, using cancellation provisions in the Migration Act." I appreciate Raul's warning but there doesn't seem to be any followups to this matter. If someone had their visa cancelled because they broke this obligation, I'm sure one of them would create a forum post to discuss in this forum or any other expat forum. None so far.

Now I came across these videos by Australian Immigration Law Services (Karl Konrad) and he states that there are no obligations for 190 visa holders to stay in the nominated state and that moving will not affect their citizenship application.

Video 1 - Release Letter to Move From Your Sponsoring State/Regional Area?

Video 2 - Moving from your sponsoring state or territory? Yes you can!

Video 3 - Australian State/Regional Visa. Can I Move?

I believe a migration lawyer would not speak in absolutes unless they are absolutely sure. The fact that Karl, who's a renown migration lawyer in Australia, is confident enough to speak in absolutes gives the assurance that there is no repercussion and it is only a moral obligation. Yes, staying and fulfilling the 2-years would be the ethical thing to do, but there are various reasons for residents to move (job opportunities, climate, social environment, etc.) and if they can justify their reason to move I believe it's fine. It crosses the line when someone who was granted the visa immediately moved somewhere else without trying to fulfil their moral obligation as much as they can.

--

Having said this, has anyone who moved to another state less than 2-years after grant of their 190 visa ever applied for citizenship and got refused? Is there anyone who was granted citizenship? Please kindly share.

1 minute ago, ramot said:

Actually it’s spot on, potential immigrants are often under the illusion that they are special, and deserve a visa, the government doesn’t give a toss about individuals, it makes up its own rules and changes them retrospectively irrespective of the cost to the individual.

I didn't say otherwise. I just said it's a dumb thing for a MIGRATION AGENT to say. Potential immigrants don't know shit, that's why they ask stupid questions. Migration agents have to deal with this crap but it's their job to educate and find solutions. If a random bloke said, well fine buddy you're spot on, but a migration agent that relies on these "potential immigrants" for their livelihood? Definitely not someone to trust for your visa.

8 hours ago, wrussell said:

If you expect immigration regulations to be either fair or reasonable, you expect too muxh.

That's a really dumb answer from a Migration Agent. 

7 hours ago, Karstedt said:

Just an update on the details, to take effect November 2019... unless it gets reversed of course.

Points breakdown:

· more points for having a skilled spouse or de facto partner (10 points);

· more points for applicants nominated by a State or Territory government or sponsored by a family member residing in regional Australia (15 points);

· more points for having certain STEM qualifications (10 points); [no details on which qualifications]

· points for applicants who do not have a spouse or de facto partner (10 points); and

· points for applicants with a spouse or de facto partner who has competent English (5 points).

Priority changes to equal point applicants:

· First – primary applicants with a skilled spouse or de facto partner

· Equal First – primary applicants without a spouse or de facto partner

· Second – Primary applicants with a spouse or de facto partner who can demonstrate competent English but does not have the skills for skilled partner points (age and skills)

· Third – Primary applicants with a partner who is ineligible for either competent English or Skilled partner points. These applicants will be ranked below all other cohorts, if all other points claims are equal.

Copied from Iscah, sourced from legislation.

I read the partner points as 'stacking', so SOL+English partner = 15 pts. Keeping singles behind SOL+English couples but even or ahead of all other couples. Overall, a positive change for singles and makes marriage for points more difficult.

IMHO, the only good change since 2017.

How is this fair to legit couples? My spouse has to get competent english just for me to get 5 LESS points than singles who are doing nothing.

Singles and non -skilled couples were on the same level with the old rules. Now they're just disadvantaging legit couples. 

At the very least they should make english couples have the same points with singles, not 5 less. Then only the SOL + english partners get more points than singles and non-skilled spouses.