karmen128 Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 I know there had been many discussions on the 190 state sponsor visa in this forum before, that staying at the state that sponsor you is only a moral obligation... Some people suggest to ask the state that sponsor you to release you...before moving to another state. How about if you're afraid that the state would say no after you ask? Would it be better to just move to another state without telling the state government? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolbreeze Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The state that has offered you sponsorship would require you to live and work in their state for a period of 2 years. Many will send out survey periodically and send you other correspondence in email to ensure you are still there. If you read the different states website on sponsorships, you will see they make this quite clear. 2 Years obligation. I don't think thee is any 'small print' Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmen128 Posted December 14, 2013 Author Share Posted December 14, 2013 as discussed many times in this forum, it is only a moral obligation to stay at the state for 2 years...When I got my PR visa grant onshore, I sent the state government an email notifying them my PR visa is grant, but didn't receive any response from them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Grey Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 The 190 visa is granted with nil conditions, which essentially means you do not have to stay in the state for two years. However, if it's determined that you had no intention of fulfilling your declaration and you fraudulently obtained the state nomination you have the potential to open yourself up to retrospective action. I haven't personally heard of this happening to anyone though. I'm not casting any accusations at your genuineness or situation because I don't know the details, but it is being abused and people need to try and see the bigger picture. There's very good reasons why the states all have this 2 year declaration, they have a limited quota and are trying to address skill shortages. So by moving to another state you work against the intended system. They invest a great deal in the program and it can be extremely unfair on places like NT when they give a place to someone who is just using it as a pathway to a more attractive state. It's also extremely unfair on other genuine applicants that cannot receive a nomination because the quota was already used. If the system continues to be abused I'm sure we'll see a scenario where the 2 years becomes a condition of the visa, which will lead to hardship for a lot of people who have a genuine need to move. I'm sure the state governments appreciate that if you simply can't find any work and can no longer afford to support yourself, you have a need (not a want) to look elsewhere and you will generally be released from any obligation. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Coolbreeze Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 What state are you referring to? Look at link below for Victoria SS http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/visas-and-immigrating/skilled-visas/skilled-nominated-visa-subclass-190#Obligations QUOTE: [h=2]Your nomination obligations[/h][h=3]Notification of visa grant and arrival[/h]You must email us with notification of DIBP’s decision on your visa application. You must also notify us by email when you arrive in Victoria, if applicable. [h=3]Live and work in Victoria for two years[/h]You, and any nominated dependants, must live in Victoria for the first two years of your visa. This two year period begins when you enter Australia permanently on the Skilled Nominated (190) visa, or if you are already onshore, when the visa is granted by DIBP. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Grey Posted December 14, 2013 Share Posted December 14, 2013 All of the states/territories have the same statement, but it's still not a condition of the visa that you have to follow. Lots of people don't meet that obligation and some never had any intention of living in the nominating state. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmen128 Posted December 15, 2013 Author Share Posted December 15, 2013 I did live in NSW for almost 1 year before I got my 190 visa grant...However I don't have any friends and family in here and I don't like my job in here... The only reason I apply the state sponsor is because my occupation is only on the NSW SS list, and not on the SOL list. So I have no choice but go for the 190 visa route. And the reason that I'm planning to move is because I'm not happy in here, and I was originally from QLD, so I want to move back to there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmen128 Posted December 15, 2013 Author Share Posted December 15, 2013 imagine coming to another state all by yourself...with no support and no family in here...just because of the job and PR at the beginning. At least I step a foot on the state when they offer me sponsorship. But during this period I suffered a lot from the visa and work pressure. So I don't think I'm doing anything wrong by just pursuing to live in another state that makes my life easier. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Many people DO do exactly that. You don't need to justify yourself. If you want to move, move, but don't make excuses about it. It just p's off everyone else who has kept up their obligation facing the exact same issues. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmen128 Posted December 15, 2013 Author Share Posted December 15, 2013 I'm not opening this thread to argue with anyone, I'm just asking questions in here. But it's not very nice to hear what you say, that's very rude Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 People have answered. It is always going to be an emotive topic because many people will see that you could have robed THEM of a space in that state when they really do want to be there. You know you can move, so move and tell the state that it didn't work out for you so you have left. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peach Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 But it's not very nice to hear what you say, that's very rude But it is the truth... Sorry if it smarts a bit, but you are rorting the system. No different to the hundreds of Indian 'hairdressers' that found a loophole a few years ago.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
karmen128 Posted December 15, 2013 Author Share Posted December 15, 2013 How about for the immigration department? My nominated occupation is on the SOL list when I was studying my degree and when I applied for the TR. But the department remove my occupation from the SOL list at the time my TR is grant. So is this fair? They don't even provide a transitional arrangement for people that have their occupation on the SOL list by the time of applying the visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Peach Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 How about for the immigration department? My nominated occupation is on the SOL list when I was studying my degree and when I applied for the TR. But the department remove my occupation from the SOL list at the time my TR is grant. So is this fair? They don't even provide a transitional arrangement for people that have their occupation on the SOL list by the time of applying the visa. Whilst I have sympathy for your situation, these are known risks when dealing with Australian immigration. They exist for the benefit of Australian citizens, not would be immigrants. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blossom Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 How about for the immigration department? My nominated occupation is on the SOL list when I was studying my degree and when I applied for the TR. But the department remove my occupation from the SOL list at the time my TR is grant. So is this fair? They don't even provide a transitional arrangement for people that have their occupation on the SOL list by the time of applying the visa. I came on a student visa. They changed the rules when I was 3 days from being able to apply for pr. It took me another three years to actually get pr and now I'm tied to a job on crap money that I'm not keen on, but it was MY choice to take that risk. Yes it was very stressful and upsetting, but immigration never guaranteed me a visa, so they have done nothing wrong. I am staying in my job for the full two years, even though I could get out of it after a year, because my morals will not let me leave. I really don't think you are helping your case. It just sounds like you are trying to justify a decision which many people will never agree with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nic1171 Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 My occupation was removed so I sat the Ielts another twice to gain extra points rather than state hopping. This argument has been done to death on here so I'm sure you know the answer, don't know what you want off others. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Adam Grey Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I can understand that sometimes it's the only option available to people, but you still shouldn't apply unless you have every intention of staying in that state. I've often wondered if the state migration assessors just laugh when they see statements that read like: "......We decided a long time ago to make the move to Australia and having carried out extensive research into all the areas, we can think of no better place than Alice Springs to make our home..." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 Yes - there's no obligation apart from the moral one, and I recognise there is a spectrum of opinion where each of us sit. Some will say that they will do what it takes to get to Australia and if the law doesn't prescribe a sanction they'll push the legislation to its limit. Others will be unwilling to go against an obligation to which they have agreed in writing. Personally - I think we're heading for the abolition of the 190 visa in due course, and all State sponsored visas will be a provisional visa, where you must be seen to have lived and worked in the sponsoring State for a couple of years before you apply for State sponsorship of the permanent visa. It was substantially that way for the former provisional State sponsored business skills visas, so there's no reason why it couldn't be used for skilled State sponsored visas. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raul Senise Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 I agree, and am of the opinion that we will see changes to the subclass 190 visa pathway due to the continued rorting of the system. The States actually put much work and research into the program as it is key to addressing specific shortages with the states and their various regions. The fact that the visa has no conditions has led to it being used as a loophole to Permanent Residency. If the program is not working the Government will either scrap it completely or amend it to make it harder. As with the student visa rorts from years ago, those who will suffer will be the genuine applicants doing the right thing. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Freesia Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 What is it that makes you think that though- is that pure speculation ? or do you know something is in the offing? The thing is that while it remains legal to "skip" states, people are free to do so , much as it might p*ss off those who toe the line....the vast majority of people respect the moral obligation I imagine...or maybe not; they just don't talk about it, they just move on. It's up to Immi to close loopholes; otherwise they're there to be exploited, & personal opinions make no difference as long as it's legal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 What is it that makes you think that though- is that pure speculation ? => Many years of experience working in tax and migration, and seeing loopholes closed once the Government of the day has its attention drawn to comments on internet forums such as this ... So: if you want the status quo to prevail, don't discuss it openly on internet forums. Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Raul Senise Posted December 15, 2013 Share Posted December 15, 2013 What is it that makes you think that though- is that pure speculation ? or do you know something is in the offing? The thing is that while it remains legal to "skip" states, people are free to do so , much as it might p*ss off those who toe the line....the vast majority of people respect the moral obligation I imagine...or maybe not; they just don't talk about it, they just move on. It's up to Immi to close loopholes; otherwise they're there to be exploited, & personal opinions make no difference as long as it's legal. My “thought” is based on many years of practice in the Immigration Industry. All visa subclasses are designed to fill a need. The Subclass 190 visa was designed to fill specific skill needs in various regions. The entry requirements are lower in order for the states to more quickly address skill shortages as they occur. If the visa is not serving its intended purposes it will eventually be addressed. There are many examples of changes or removal of visas if they are found not to be addressing the needs they were designed for. A recent example being the now de funked subclass 885 visa. Obviously this is a very emotive subject on both sides. I amjust offering my “thoughts” which may or may not be appreciated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saintkamy Posted April 5, 2014 Share Posted April 5, 2014 With due respect to views of all the senior members about being moral Till now is it legal to move state without letting the state know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.