Nissa Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Hi everyone Could someone clarify this for me please. If you get a State Sponsorship 489 visa having had a certain state sponsoring you, are you able to live and work in a rural area of a different state without jeopardising the conditions of your visa? Thanks Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Northam Posted September 23, 2016 Share Posted September 23, 2016 Hi Nissa - This gets to another common question I get - "What happens if I don't live and work in the state that nominated me for my 190 visa?". For the 489 visa, it is a condition (usually 8539) of your visa that "While the holder is in Australia, the holder must live, study and work only in an area specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing ", however from the DIBP point of view, you are not limited to living in a "specific" designated area, and essentially can live/work/study in any designated area that is on the list of designated areas in effect when you were granted the visa. However it is very likely you are also bound by whatever agreement you made with the state sponsorship authority to live/work/study in the state (and perhaps the area of the state) that you were sponsored by. Importantly, this agreement with the state is not a condition of your visa like 8539 is, and may be subject to some negotiation with the state if you find you are unable to satisfactorily live/work/study in the state as you originally planned. Breaching the agreement with the state also occurs, but this creates a bit of a grey area as the only recourse to the state would likely be some sort of civil action for breach of contract, which I haven't seen done - also, the question arises as to what the exact nature of the "agreement" is between you and the state - ie, is it an enforceable contract? For the 190 visa, there is no condition on your visa relating to a restriction on live/work/study geographically, however the same "agreement with the state" issue exists as it would for the 489 visa as described above. For either of these visas, there seems to be lingering concern among some that a blatant breach of the sponsorship agreement with the state could be brought up at a later time, perhaps when assessing character issues for an Australian citizenship application. Given the character requirements of citizenship are substantially more general and less detailed than for visas, this may be a legitimate concern, however I have not heard of people failing at citizenship due to breaching a state sponsorship agreement - that certainly doesn't mean that it hasn't happened or can't happen in the future. My best advice is to honour the agreement with the state if at all possible - if you find yourself unable to do so, consider gathering as much evidence as you can (ie, documentation of good faith job search that resulted in no job offers) in the area you agreed to live/work/study in as this may be helpful later on if any issues arise. Hope this helps - Best, Mark Northam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nissa Posted September 25, 2016 Author Share Posted September 25, 2016 Hi Mark, Thankyou for your reply. So in effect then as long as we live and work in a regional/rural area in accordance with condition 8539 and comply with the relevant postcodes attached to said condition we are within our rights to go to a state other than the one who sponsored us. regards nissa Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mark Northam Posted September 26, 2016 Share Posted September 26, 2016 Hi Nissa - Moving to a different state than the one that sponsored you during the currency of a state-sponsored 489 visa may not be considered a breach of your visa conditions, but may well be considered a breach of your agreement with the state that sponosred you and potentially could cause issues later on re: character depending on the circumstances. Best, Mark Northam Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.