Leomoon's visa refused.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi All

 

Leomoon is from Pakistan. As far as I know, he is not a member of PiO but I think he may be a Member of British Expats. I've definitely read a couple of posts by him somewhere in the last month or so.

 

I've just found this sad entry by him on Timeline:

 

timeline - Search

 

My heart absolutely goes out to the poor guy. It must be absolutely dreadful to be knocked back in the way that he has been, especially after such a long wait. (We wouldn't moan about the UK as much as we do either if we were forced to go and live in Pakistan.)

 

It makes me realise how very lucky most of us are with these visas, no matter how frustrating the wait.

 

Best wishes

 

Gill

[Guest mandy&Jem]

There for the grace of God go I, comes to mind Gill. Poor guy must be devestated. -x-

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Poor Leomoon's story just got even worse.

 

Only a week ago, he was burbling happily on BE about what arrangements he needed to make in order to add their newborn baby to the visa application, get Meds done for Baby etc. Please see here:

 

Do I need Passport to include new born baby : British Expat Discussion Forum

 

Before that he was the first to congratulate a complete stranger who had just received her own visa:

 

FINALLY GRANTED!! RSMS REGIONAL SKILLED MIGRATION SCHEME 857 VISA !!! : British Expat Discussion Forum

 

I just WISH there was something I could to to help the poor guy and his wife. :arghh::arghh:

 

Gill

[Life on easy street]

Unfortunately what is fair or reasonable is irrelevant

 

It is the complying with all the regulation in the visa class that you apply under that is important.

 

There is a lot holes in the regulations that you can unwittingly fall into that can cause your visa application to fail.

[calNgary]

Poor lad ,,why was he refused Gill do you know ?

Cal x

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi Cal

 

The reason for the refusal is not give on Timeline, so I don't know the cause.

 

However, Leomon's entries on Timeline do say that he was not using an Agent. I think therefore that Life On Easy Street could well be right - that a minor erro/overight or misunderstanding of the strict criteria for the skilled 136 visa could have led to the refusal.

 

Timeline does reveal that Leomoon frontloaded his meds & PCCs. Sounds to me like the application probably wouldn't have got as far as DIAC requesting those in the circs.

 

I only found it because a PiO member had raised a query about the timelies with processing Labour Agreements (a type of employer-sponsored visa.) Frustrated because I couldn't get anything about them off Timeline, I started to flick through the most recent entries and recognised the name Leomoon.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[KazzE]

Visa letters 'misleading' - National - theage.com.au

 

 

Poor guy, he must be gutted, there should be a reason and he should have been given the reason and told that he can appeal, I have just read this story in The Age, I think it was in yesterdays paper. Just in case the link does not work, here is some of the text

 

THE Immigration Department failed to meet legal requirements by wrongly advising some visa applicants that they could not appeal against a decision refusing to allow them to stay in Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has found.

The Ombudsman's report also found that the information in some letters sent to failed visa applicants was "overly complex, confusing and poorly presented", and many fell "considerably short" of best practice.

The Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, said the report was "worrying". He said is was possible that in some instances a person, if properly advised of their rights, may have applied for the visa refusal to be reviewed and been able to stay in Australia.

"People rely on government agencies for accurate advice about their rights and entitlements," Professor McMillan said. "For many people applying for visas to stay in Australia is a really pivotal event in their life, so it is important government agencies adhere to best practice.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the department acknowledged that "in the past, correspondence has been unclear and confusing" for clients.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Visa letters 'misleading' - National - theage.com.au

 

 

Poor guy, he must be gutted, there should be a reason and he should have been given the reason and told that he can appeal, I have just read this story in The Age, I think it was in yesterdays paper. Just in case the link does not work, here is some of the text

 

THE Immigration Department failed to meet legal requirements by wrongly advising some visa applicants that they could not appeal against a decision refusing to allow them to stay in Australia, the Commonwealth Ombudsman has found.

The Ombudsman's report also found that the information in some letters sent to failed visa applicants was "overly complex, confusing and poorly presented", and many fell "considerably short" of best practice.

The Ombudsman, Professor John McMillan, said the report was "worrying". He said is was possible that in some instances a person, if properly advised of their rights, may have applied for the visa refusal to be reviewed and been able to stay in Australia.

"People rely on government agencies for accurate advice about their rights and entitlements," Professor McMillan said. "For many people applying for visas to stay in Australia is a really pivotal event in their life, so it is important government agencies adhere to best practice.

Immigration Minister Chris Evans said the department acknowledged that "in the past, correspondence has been unclear and confusing" for clients.

 

Hi KazzE

 

Yours is (for me, anyway) a hugely interesting contribution. I've heard that a lot of visa refusal letters burble about non-compliance with Section 221.2224 (a) (i) of a statute the applicant has never heard of, with no attempt to explain - in plain, layman's language, what on earth this section 221 etc actually says.

 

I also see no reason whatsoever why such letters cannot only be written in plain English but also be written so as to show some companssion and sensitivity for the applicant concerned. That would not be weakness on DIAC's part. It would be ordinary good manners instead.

 

I intend to find & read the Ombudsman's report, so thanks again for your comment.

 

Cheers

 

Gill