Current 457 visa holders' transition to PR after March 2018?

[Nemesis]

46 minutes ago, TemporaryVisaHolder said:

Slater and Gordon law firm just won a case in which the federal government had to pay $70 million in compensation for those wrongfully held up by the immigration. Coming back to DIBP retrospective decision on 457 visa's pathway to PR, it is the immigration department who earlier prescribed that 457 visa holders are eligible to permanent residency under TRT stream. Observing this policy, thousands have sold their properties, changed their jobs and started a new path in Australia in a lawful manner. Indeed, they have made great contributions to this beautiful country. All of a sudden, the immigration minister issued a highly retrospective statement which deprived current 457 visa holders of their pathway to permanent residency. This retrospective statement shattered thousands of careers and damaged thousands of Australian businesses. In nature, this retrospective statement is contrary to all rule of law principles. I wonder if anyone has thought of a class action against such a retrospective statement.

Could you please post a link to this decision?

The only one I can find is to do with refugees, nothing to do with 457-type legislation.

Edited June 17, 2017 by Nemesis

[MaggieMay24]

12 hours ago, TemporaryVisaHolder said:

Slater and Gordon law firm just won a case in which the federal government had to pay $70 million in compensation for those wrongfully held up by the immigration. Coming back to DIBP retrospective decision on 457 visa's pathway to PR, it is the immigration department who earlier prescribed that 457 visa holders are eligible to permanent residency under TRT stream. Observing this policy, thousands have sold their properties, changed their jobs and started a new path in Australia in a lawful manner. Indeed, they have made great contributions to this beautiful country. All of a sudden, the immigration minister issued a highly retrospective statement which deprived current 457 visa holders of their pathway to permanent residency. This retrospective statement shattered thousands of careers and damaged thousands of Australian businesses. In nature, this retrospective statement is contrary to all rule of law principles. I wonder if anyone has thought of a class action against such a retrospective statement.

Comparing the decision regarding the 457 with the outcome of the refugee class action is comparing apples and oranges.  The 457 was only ever a temporary visa.  457 visa holders should always have come to Australia with the knowledge that their prospects for PR could vanish if they lost their jobs, if their employer wasn't able or willing to sponsor PR, if the rules changed, etc.

The change to the 457 is only affecting those who have an application lodged or planning to lodge as of the effective date of the announcement.  It's still unknown whether there will be grandfathering for those already on a 457 making them eligible for a PR visa (again, if their employer is able and willing to sponsor them).

[jess6]

9 hours ago, MaggieMay24 said:

Comparing the decision regarding the 457 with the outcome of the refugee class action is comparing apples and oranges.  The 457 was only ever a temporary visa.  457 visa holders should always have come to Australia with the knowledge that their prospects for PR could vanish if they lost their jobs, if their employer wasn't able or willing to sponsor PR, if the rules changed, etc.

The change to the 457 is only affecting those who have an application lodged or planning to lodge as of the effective date of the announcement.  It's still unknown whether there will be grandfathering for those already on a 457 making them eligible for a PR visa (again, if their employer is able and willing to sponsor them).

Yes, that's the link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/commonwealth-agrees-to-pay-manus-island-detainees-compensation/8616672

That's still interesting for people who have lodged their PR application over a year ago and are being held up without reasons.

[NicF]

1 hour ago, jess6 said:

Yes, that's the link: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-06-14/commonwealth-agrees-to-pay-manus-island-detainees-compensation/8616672

That's still interesting for people who have lodged their PR application over a year ago and are being held up without reasons.

Are you seriously comparing having your ability to apply for PR delayed / removed with being kept in detention indefinitely?  A 457 is a temporary visa, as far as I am aware has always been a temporary visa and there has never been a guaranteed pathway to PR.. While it is disappointing for some people that they may not now be able to gain PR it in no way comes close to what the refugees held on Manus Island have been through.

[jess6]

1 hour ago, NicF said:

Are you seriously comparing having your ability to apply for PR delayed / removed with being kept in detention indefinitely?  A 457 is a temporary visa, as far as I am aware has always been a temporary visa and there has never been a guaranteed pathway to PR.. While it is disappointing for some people that they may not now be able to gain PR it in no way comes close to what the refugees held on Manus Island have been through.

Can you show me where I compared the 457 visa situation with the situation of refugees held on Manus Island? Holding people during years on Manus Island is against Human Rights. I do not even understand how the goverment of a democracy can create situations like these, and make them last so long.

Your answer feels so very judgmental, patronizing and aggressive to me. I wish you were a little more compassionate with everyone. Because that is what compassion is about.

From a legal perspective, this article is interesting. This is the only thing I said.

Now, you may not be aware of this, but some people have been held during more than 5 years on bridging visas, waiting onshore for their Permanent Visa applications to be processed.

And while there is nothing to compare between their situation and the situation of the refugees on Manus island, their situation is still not a situation that goes without suffering.

[Nemesis]

2 hours ago, jess6 said:

Can you show me where I compared the 457 visa situation with the situation of refugees held on Manus Island? Holding people during years on Manus Island is against Human Rights. I do not even understand how the goverment of a democracy can create situations like these, and make them last so long.

Your answer feels so very judgmental, patronizing and aggressive to me. I wish you were a little more compassionate with everyone. Because that is what compassion is about.

From a legal perspective, this article is interesting. This is the only thing I said.

Now, you may not be aware of this, but some people have been held during more than 5 years on bridging visas, waiting onshore for their Permanent Visa applications to be processed.

And while there is nothing to compare between their situation and the situation of the refugees on Manus island, their situation is still not a situation that goes without suffering.

People are not 'held' on a bridging visa. If they choose to leave the country, they can. 

I don't get why there was any need to bring up a court case about Manus Island in a thread about 457s. One is to do with human rights, the other is to do with people privileged enough to have the choice of getting a visa to live in Australia. 

[jess6]

4 hours ago, Nemesis said:

People are not 'held' on a bridging visa. If they choose to leave the country, they can. 

I don't get why there was any need to bring up a court case about Manus Island in a thread about 457s. One is to do with human rights, the other is to do with people privileged enough to have the choice of getting a visa to live in Australia. 

I did not bring up that case, someone else did. You have the right to find it inappropriate, others have the right to see interesting facts in it. Nobody has insulted anybody here, so let people be and think what they want.

The reality is that you do not know anything about the people who "are free to leave because they are priviledged enough to have the choice of getting a visa to live in Australia".

If you think it is fine to not process files and let people in limbo because "people can leave the country if they want". Fair enough.

I do not need to see people held in prison illegally to start having compassion for them.

Have a good day.

[jess6]

2 hours ago, jess6 said:

I did not bring up that case, someone else did. You have the right to find it inappropriate, others have the right to see interesting facts in it. Nobody has insulted anybody here, so let people be and think what they want.

The reality is that you do not know anything about the people who "are free to leave because they are priviledged enough to have the choice of getting a visa to live in Australia".

If you think it is fine to not process files and let people in limbo because "people can leave the country if they want". Fair enough.

I do not need to see people held in prison illegally to start having compassion for them.

Have a good day.

And by that I mean - just in case you would misinterpret it - that I start having compassion for people as soon as they suffer. Indepedently of the reason why they suffer. Because all humans in the world deserve compassion when they are not feeling well.

[MaggieMay24]

Please remember that this thread is about 457 visa holders and their options to apply for PR.  If you want to discuss the plight of the refugee claimants and their detention, this should be taken to a new thread.  Thank you.

[Brendan]

On 4/28/2017 at 18:41, Jessp said:

I just watched a very clear webinar from a migration agency in Brisbane - think you can find a replay at this link https://app.webinarjam.net/register/35809/6a49f87cf8

 

confirmed there is currently no list for TRT. (God knows whether that will change though!) A few blanks still from DIBP re whether current 457s not meeting 2 yr requirement by mar 2018 will wait 2 or 3 years but I found it v useful. Hopefully others will too.

I received this response from our MA: "Unfortunately, after March 2018 only those with occupations on the MLTSSL will be able to apply. It is those applicants who will need to meet the three year requirement on their 457 visa. As your occupation is only on the STSOL, if you cannot lodge an application before March 2018, then there is no PR pathway available to you in your current role/occupation." Not what I wanted to hear and hoping they somehow got it wrong!
 

[dsdrussell]

33 minutes ago, Brendan said:

I received this response from our MA: "Unfortunately, after March 2018 only those with occupations on the MLTSSL will be able to apply. It is those applicants who will need to meet the three year requirement on their 457 visa. As your occupation is only on the STSOL, if you cannot lodge an application before March 2018, then there is no PR pathway available to you in your current role/occupation." Not what I wanted to hear and hoping they somehow got it wrong!
 

I've been told similar by my company's MA.     That is her interpretation as well.    Not sure that the TRT route after March 2018 has been fully finalised yet, but as it stands, it's looking that way.

Currently looking at the Direct Entry Sponsored stream which she believes will be OK as long as we get the application in pre-March 2018.   Will need to get a Skills Assessment first which can take 3 months as well.................

[Brendan]

Hi, Anybody know whether the Direct Entry Sponsored stream skills assessment will consider 5+ years experience in the occupation if I don't have a Degree?

[Vic154]

What if you're now on the STSOL and apply under TRT stream pre-march 2018, but it is not approved by then? Anyone know if your application will be treated with current or new rules in that case?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Brendan]

Latest from our MA: In late June, the Department of Immigration did release a newsletter to Migration Agents - in one section of the newsletter there was a sentence indicating that there may be transitional PR arrangements available (under the Temporary Residence Transition Stream) for existing 457 visa holders. Unfortunately, at this time, we do not know what those arrangements may be - for example, we do not know if those existing 457 visa holders will still only need to evidence 2 years on their 457 or 3 years on their 457 (which is the requirement post March 2018). The Department also did not advise when they expect to release this information.

[peanut bacon]

Guys, please take time to search and read instead of asking dodgy MA who just want fast and easy money .. 

Everything is written down since end of May, there is no yes, maybe, why not, because of ..

can't be more clear than this;

 

 

[Nemesis]

5 hours ago, peanut bacon said:

Guys, please take time to search and read instead of asking dodgy MA who just want fast and easy money .. 

Everything is written down since end of May, there is no yes, maybe, why not, because of ..

can't be more clear than this;

 

 

Thats a bit of a nasty comment there. The vast majority of agents are registered, reputable and reliable. They also do not just do their job for easy money.  If an agent has shared info they received from DIBP why doubt it and slate the agent?

Edited July 14, 2017 by Nemesis

[peanut bacon]

I don't know mate but looked when this document was issued. The answer should be pretty clear specially coming from people doing this job for a living ..

From page 2 You can see people seeking advice from MA without a clear answer.

And this topic is just one in how many out there on internet. Just on Facebook if you take all the specific topics regarding different nationalities you can clear see some people are not doing there job with ethic.

A friend of mine nearly quit everything to fly back home just because 2 MA told him the path for PR was not possible.

I am not saying all MA are the same, but some of them obviously don't understand the impact of what they are advising to their customer.

I've used a MA for my 457 ( really bad experience ) and will use one for my PR but I will never take a life decision on whatever they tell me. 

 

 

 

 

[MaggieMay24]

14 hours ago, peanut bacon said:

I don't know mate but looked when this document was issued. The answer should be pretty clear specially coming from people doing this job for a living ..

From page 2 You can see people seeking advice from MA without a clear answer.

And this topic is just one in how many out there on internet. Just on Facebook if you take all the specific topics regarding different nationalities you can clear see some people are not doing there job with ethic.

A friend of mine nearly quit everything to fly back home just because 2 MA told him the path for PR was not possible.

I am not saying all MA are the same, but some of them obviously don't understand the impact of what they are advising to their customer.

I've used a MA for my 457 ( really bad experience ) and will use one for my PR but I will never take a life decision on whatever they tell me.

Although DIBP may publish the regulations and then give fairly good summaries on their website, everyone's specific situation will be very different based on their qualifications, their work experience, the employer's situation, etc.  So suggesting that the requirements are clearly provided and they can do it themselves without "dodgy agents" is very much over-simplifying things.  I absolutely agree with doing some independent research so you have an understanding of the process, what a visa lets you do or not do, etc.

And until any changes to the PR visas are legislated, there can be no clear answers.

[jess6]

Are there legal instruments in Australia for Migration Agents or applicants to lobby the DIBP?

[VERYSTORMY]

3 hours ago, jess6 said:

Are there legal instruments in Australia for Migration Agents or applicants to lobby the DIBP?

Why? The department are just administrating the laws and regulations as passed from the minister or parliament. 

[VERYSTORMY]

20 hours ago, peanut bacon said:

I don't know mate but looked when this document was issued. The answer should be pretty clear specially coming from people doing this job for a living ..

From page 2 You can see people seeking advice from MA without a clear answer.

And this topic is just one in how many out there on internet. Just on Facebook if you take all the specific topics regarding different nationalities you can clear see some people are not doing there job with ethic.

A friend of mine nearly quit everything to fly back home just because 2 MA told him the path for PR was not possible.

I am not saying all MA are the same, but some of them obviously don't understand the impact of what they are advising to their customer.

I've used a MA for my 457 ( really bad experience ) and will use one for my PR but I will never take a life decision on whatever they tell me. 

 

 

 

 

Did you know that in an average year there are between 2000 and 3000 changes to the laws and regulations pertaining to migration and visas in Australia. The department publish maybe half a dozen on their website. 

You may think that's not fair and how can a person know the rules. The department would answer that it is perfectly fair as there is a mechanism. It is called Rgistered Migration Agents. 

[peanut bacon]

Guys you're missing the point. My post was mainly to clear out some basic questions. 

As of the title of the topic and from page 2,  members are asking if they will still able to apply for PR once they have reach 2 years with their employers like before. Yes ? 

As of May the 29th, the short answer is yes. 

As for dodgy MA I did not say to lodge the application by yourself, but some people are paying up to $200 just to get an answer about 457 to 186. 

On the other hand, talking about dodgy MA, if they were that reliable how come X is charging $3K for an application, Y $4K and Z $10K ( And let's not talk about the ones asking you $50K+ to get PR or just a 457 in no time ) we talking here for the same customer, same profil, same case.

Immigration is a really big business in Australia, like in every country I suppose, but Australia is still the number one I guess because of the crazy wages, lifestyle and economy compare to all others developed countries.

A baker, a hair dresser, a nurse etc .. would never get $55K a year back in Europe, America, South Africa. 

@VERYSTORMY I'v lived in 5 different countries since I'v finished studying and have been a migration agent in one of them - not to say that I know everything it's not the point at all - but it's easier than what it looks like. It's no rocket science. Some people make it look hard to justify the money they are charging you maybe ? Like real estate agent ?? Ok 

Anyways to sum up, you want to move in a country, follow the rules. If you can't get PR you can't be mad, you already made a choice by choosing to immigrate.

 

 

[VERYSTORMY]

The short answer is that unless someone is over the age limit, you do not need to be on a 457 for two years. If you can pass a skills assessment you can apply for PR either independently or be sponsored by the employer for a 186 or 187 even before setting foot in Australia. All the two years on a 457 does is removes the requirement to obtain a positive skills assessment. 

As for easy, look it like this, in my years on the forum as both a member and moderator I am have seen many people get a refusal. In every case they never thought they would get a refusal. In every case either they would not have got a refusal or would not have applied had they used an agent. That is a lot of cash wasted. 

As for agents fees, I have never heard of a MARA agent charging 50k or anything like. Yes, fees will vary as it depends on the case and what is involved. Also, when in the process they are appointed

[Nemesis]

15 hours ago, peanut bacon said:

Guys you're missing the point. My post was mainly to clear out some basic questions. 

As of the title of the topic and from page 2,  members are asking if they will still able to apply for PR once they have reach 2 years with their employers like before. Yes ? 

As of May the 29th, the short answer is yes. 

As for dodgy MA I did not say to lodge the application by yourself, but some people are paying up to $200 just to get an answer about 457 to 186. 

On the other hand, talking about dodgy MA, if they were that reliable how come X is charging $3K for an application, Y $4K and Z $10K ( And let's not talk about the ones asking you $50K+ to get PR or just a 457 in no time ) we talking here for the same customer, same profil, same case.

Immigration is a really big business in Australia, like in every country I suppose, but Australia is still the number one I guess because of the crazy wages, lifestyle and economy compare to all others developed countries.

A baker, a hair dresser, a nurse etc .. would never get $55K a year back in Europe, America, South Africa. 

@VERYSTORMY I'v lived in 5 different countries since I'v finished studying and have been a migration agent in one of them - not to say that I know everything it's not the point at all - but it's easier than what it looks like. It's no rocket science. Some people make it look hard to justify the money they are charging you maybe ? Like real estate agent ?? Ok 

Anyways to sum up, you want to move in a country, follow the rules. If you can't get PR you can't be mad, you already made a choice by choosing to immigrate.

 

 

8

Actually the training to become a registered migration agent in Australia is pretty rigorous, and with all the intricacies of the system I don't see how anyone could call it easy! I did look into it myself at one time but its such a complex system, requiring a lot of full-time study and I couldn't really justify the outlay. I don't know of any agent onshore who is making a fortune for themselves out of the profession. Charging 50k is ridiculous and if that agent is registered with MARA he/she probably should be reported for charging to excess. And if anyone is daft enough to pay it, in these days of forums and google when its simple enough to compare charges, then they deserve all they get. 

[Working Visa]

On June 17, 2017 at 17:02, TemporaryVisaHolder said:

Slater and Gordon law firm just won a case in which the federal government had to pay $70 million in compensation for those wrongfully held up by the immigration. Coming back to DIBP retrospective decision on 457 visa's pathway to PR, it is the immigration department who earlier prescribed that 457 visa holders are eligible to permanent residency under TRT stream. Observing this policy, thousands have sold their properties, changed their jobs and started a new path in Australia in a lawful manner. Indeed, they have made great contributions to this beautiful country. All of a sudden, the immigration minister issued a highly retrospective statement which deprived current 457 visa holders of their pathway to permanent residency. This retrospective statement shattered thousands of careers and damaged thousands of Australian businesses. In nature, this retrospective statement is contrary to all rule of law principles. I wonder if anyone has thought of a class action against such a retrospective statement.

Peter Dutton has been accused of acting beyond his power. Recent visa changes are retrospective, unlawful and therefore vulnerable to court challenges.

http://www.afr.com/news/policy/industrial-relations/migration-lawyers-say-457-visa-changes-unlawful-20170607-gwm8el