Question to the MARA's re 190 offshore grants

[Southlander]

HNY to you all. 

Now that 2021 has passed will it be another painful year for us 190 offshores (grants) or can we expect some movenent now? Most offshores are waiting 20-26 months which is well over over the "processing times" quoted by the dha, so makes no sense anymore why we are still being held. Covid is yesterday news and nurses imho were a smokescreen (where some grants went) as were not really needed for covid in Australia per se. 

Please can you give your insight into our real prospects of receiving our grants imminently, or can we expect 3 years to be knocking on our doors before they look at us again? Will they then do it by date order as there also seems to be a lot of outstanding grants?

We are extremely frustrated and the lack of transparency and support had not helped considering all other class of visas have had daily coverage. 

Any thoughts or feedback will be appreciated. 

Best

[31Hillbury]

I am also in this situation and would appreciate the opinions of the agents who post here, it would be most appreciated 

Thanks

[paulhand]

18 hours ago, Southlander said:

which is well over over the "processing times" quoted by the dha,

The processing times quoted are not service standards, rather they are backward looking statistics for applications that have been finalised. Therefore, if there a cohort of applications that have not been finalised (say, offshore 190 applicants from March 2020) then the data on these applications will not be shown in the statistics until they are actually finalised. So, stated processing times will likely increase when the 'held' applications are finalised.

 

18 hours ago, Southlander said:

Covid is yesterday news

... not really 

 

18 hours ago, Southlander said:

Will they then do it by date order as there also seems to be a lot of outstanding grants?

They are considered in accordance with the directions given to the Department by the Minister (Ministerial Direction 92):

The priority order is:

1. Employer Sponsored (186) or Regional Sponsored (187, 494) with PMSOL occupation; Agriculture Sector occupation; Global Talent Employer Sponsored Agreement; the Global Talent Program applicants; the Subclass 188 SIV stream; all other Subclass 188 applications 

2. Other Critical Sector occupations with approved nominations not already mentioned;

3. Employer Sponsored or Regional Sponsored under a labour agreement under a DAMA.

4. Subclass 494 with priority where nominated by an approved sponsor with Accredited Status or nominated by a party to a labour agreement

5. Subclass 491

6. Other employer Sponsored (subclass 186) with priority where nominated by an approved sponsor with Accredited Status, or nominated by a party to a labour agreement;

7. Subclass 187 with precedence to those nominated by an approved sponsor with Accredited Status are to have precedence

8. Subclass 489

9. Subclass 190

10. Subclass 189, points tested

11. All other visa applications.

Onshore applications are given priority over offshore in (3) to (7).

 

There is a separate direction for 482 and 457 applications.

 

[Southlander]

Thanks Paul. 

Covid is yesterday news, borders supposedly are open now that the majority have been vaccinated? The UK or Canada seem to have continued to process visas... 

I am aware of priority processing (they stopped processing visas before this), surely it's past its sell by date, unless they are using it as a tool. So the real question is when will they process our 190s?  Or are you suggesting that only once every person under the priority visa class you've quoted have been then they will move onto us? How will they look at us, when will they look at us and what order of the 190s lodged will they grant them. 

Best regards

[paulhand]

16 minutes ago, Southlander said:

I am aware of priority processing (they stopped processing visas before this), surely it's past its sell by date, unless they are using it as a tool.

This type of priorities direction pre-dates Covid, although the current iteration was published last July. If you are referring to the PMSOL, then that’s a tool that allows them to tweak the limited number of grants available into the sectors they feel most require them (and is covered in priority 1 and to an extent 2)
 

23 minutes ago, Southlander said:

Or are you suggesting that only once every person under the priority visa class you've quoted have been then they will move onto us?

That’s kind of the point of the direction, although obviously nothing is as black and white as that. Some offshore 189/190 applications have been granted in the last 20 months or so, but the emphasis still seems to be around allowing the local market to adjust before allowing many new entrants. It’s telling that the lowest priority subclasses are those where there is no employment sponsorship or regional commitment. 
 

I don’t have a crystal ball and, to be honest, I suspect that the Department is just reacting to events rather than having a medium term game plan for resolving visa backlogs. 

[Southlander]

Thanks again Paul, appreciate the honesty.

It was also good to see an article on abc.net highlighti the injustice of 190s being who have been state sponsored but yet to be granted whilst industries are crying out for them. 

Please do comment further if you can give us further insight or have any other predictions. 

[paulhand]

40 minutes ago, Southlander said:

Thanks again Paul, appreciate the honesty.

It was also good to see an article on abc.net highlighti the injustice of 190s being who have been state sponsored but yet to be granted whilst industries are crying out for them. 

Please do comment further if you can give us further insight or have any other predictions. 

No worries - will do.

I think part of the perceived issue with 189s and 190s is the view that they are a blunt instrument and don't guarantee that, although qualified, applicants go into the industries that need them (so-called 'taxi driver syndrome': e.g. https://reviewcanada.ca/magazine/2011/03/taxi-driver-syndrome/) - This is partly what drives the move towards 491s, pushing people away from Sydney, Melbourne, Brisbane, and employer sponsored visas where there is a micro-level, quantifiable and demonstrated job shortage that can't be filled by someone already in Australia. 

 

And, just for clarity, we are RMAs; MARA is the part of the Department that regulates us  

[Southlander]

Cheers Paul, RMA noted! I did look it up but most sites referenced MARA. I now know the difference

I read the article, I see that is an issue but this may stem from who they are granting visas to and from what cohort. It's unfortunate that most will try and work in the positions, more so 190s but that is down the employers who they hire. Also letting a state sponsor you and then say we're scared to grant you a visa because we worry what you do or where you go is fairly nonsensical. It's the states issue not the feds. I also think IELTS should be the standard English test, then you would see less taxis/uber drivers with degrees not being used to their intended capacity. But there would be less students... 

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, Southlander said:

letting a state sponsor you and then say we're scared to grant you a visa because we worry what you do or where you go is fairly nonsensical

It's not nonsensical, because the state sponsored you when circumstances were normal.  Then circumstances changed and borders closed.  Both state and federal governments feared there would be massive changes in the economy and high unemployment.  In fact there have been changes, and a lot of people temporarily out of work.  As Paul said, the government wants to give that situation time to settle down, "allowing the local market to adjust before allowing many new entrants".  That's still going to take some time unfortunately:  borders are still not fully open, and Omicron is now throwing everything into doubt again.  

It is true that industries are crying out for staff but at the same time, many employers are reluctant to offer sponsorship (which as you can see from the list, would be one way to jump the queue), and if they do, it's more likely to be a short-term 482 work contract, with a miserly relocation allowance.  Any sensible would-be migrant is likely to turn their nose up at a temp contract as there are too many risks and the transition to PR is too uncertain. The 186 DE isn't offered very often. 

  

[31Hillbury]

1 hour ago, Marisawright said:

It's not nonsensical, because the state sponsored you when circumstances were normal.  Then circumstances changed and borders closed.  Both state and federal governments feared there would be massive changes in the economy and high unemployment.  In fact there have been changes, and a lot of people temporarily out of work.  As Paul said, the government wants to give that situation time to settle down, "allowing the local market to adjust before allowing many new entrants".  That's still going to take some time unfortunately:  borders are still not fully open, and Omicron is now throwing everything into doubt again.  

It is true that industries are crying out for staff but at the same time, many employers are reluctant to offer sponsorship (which as you can see from the list, would be one way to jump the queue), and if they do, it's more likely to be a short-term 482 work contract, with a miserly relocation allowance.  Any sensible would-be migrant is likely to turn their nose up at a temp contract as there are too many risks and the transition to PR is too uncertain. The 186 DE isn't offered very often. 

  

So we could be waiting forever to get a grant then?

Surely they can’t leave us pending indefinitely? 

It sounds like they’re doing something dodgy with the processing statistics to me!

90% in 18 months doesn’t seem accurate to me. 

 

 

[Parley]

Covid is hardly yesterday's news. The numbers are rising dramatically.

Not impossible that restrictions/lockdowns return.

[Ausvisitor]

15 minutes ago, 31Hillbury said:

So we could be waiting forever to get a grant then?

Surely they can’t leave us pending indefinitely? 

It sounds like they’re doing something dodgy with the processing statistics to me!

90% in 18 months doesn’t seem accurate to me. 

 

 

They can leave you pending indefinitely, that's totally within their right. They are under no obligation to grant you a visa (or even decline you one, they can just leave you waiting if they want to).

Ultimately until you have a residency or citizenship they have no duty of care or responsibility to you.

Its not great, but that is the reality

[Southlander]

53 minutes ago, Parley said:

Covid is hardly yesterday's news. The numbers are rising dramatically.

Not impossible that restrictions/lockdowns return.

It is that you can't go hiding under your doona anymore and face up to the reality that it is here, has been and is here to stay. Having being slow out the gates have caught up and vaccinated an astonishing amount. Omicron is supposedly a much milder strain though highly infectious. I think even the most avid covid follower would see little sense in another lockdown unless they actually like the thought of them... 

[Southlander]

1 hour ago, 31Hillbury said:

So we could be waiting forever to get a grant then?

Surely they can’t leave us pending indefinitely? 

It sounds like they’re doing something dodgy with the processing statistics to me!

90% in 18 months doesn’t seem accurate to me. 

 

 

No they won't, we'll get our grants. It has been unprecedented how long most have waited and rightly will be sorting us out soon. 

[Southlander]

2 hours ago, Marisawright said:

It's not nonsensical, because the state sponsored you when circumstances were normal. 

  

So people that apply to one state for pr and move to another as soon as their visas are granted you're OK with provided their circumstances changed? 

Most also applied pre covid which is unlucky. But, grants should have carried on as they did not know what the future would bring if circumstances changed. Not alot has changed  and can be quite subjective. 

 

[31Hillbury]

1 hour ago, Ausvisitor said:

They can leave you pending indefinitely, that's totally within their right. They are under no obligation to grant you a visa (or even decline you one, they can just leave you waiting if they want to).

Ultimately until you have a residency or citizenship they have no duty of care or responsibility to you.

Its not great, but that is the reality

I would like a RMA’s perspective on this?

I understand theoretically it may be the case but surely unlikely.

I have read countless peoples opinions and theory’s of what could be the next steps and welcome the RMA’s educated opinions as hopefully their fingers are on the pulse.

@paulhand

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, Southlander said:

So people that apply to one state for pr and move to another as soon as their visas are granted you're OK with provided their circumstances changed? ....

Most also applied pre covid which is unlucky. But, grants should have carried on as they did not know what the future would bring if circumstances changed. 

You should know by now that there's one rule for governments and another rule for us mere plebs.   

Why would you let grants carry on, if you think circumstances are going to change?   Why go on granting visas to people whose skills won't be needed after all, due to changes in the economy?  That's why they put it all on hold.

 

 

[Marisawright]

2 hours ago, 31Hillbury said:

I would like a RMA’s perspective on this?

I understand theoretically it may be the case but surely unlikely.

What @Ausvisitor says is factually correct.  Whether it's unlikely depends on what occupation you're in.   After all, as Paul Hand has already said, the whole point of freezing the processing is that the job market is changing due to Covid, and the government wants to be sure it doesn't bring in people whose skills won't be needed after all.  It would be irresponsible of them to say, "well, we don't need you any more, and there probably won't be any jobs for you, but since we promised...."

Let's say that an airline pilot had been invited for a 190 pre-Covid (I have no idea whether they are eligible, it's just hypothetical).   If Immigration goes ahead with his grant now, they're mad.  Australia is full of unemployed pilots, who are starting up cafes, buying wineries or retraining as bicycle mechanics.   It's going to be a long time before the aviation industry recovers enough to need more.  So there's one invitee who would not see his grant, because post-Covid, it would be wrong to bring him to Australia only to be unemployed.

 

[31Hillbury]

Again, I was hoping to get a reply from somebody with a professional opinion.

Edited January 4, 2022 by 31Hillbury
.

[Ausvisitor]

39 minutes ago, 31Hillbury said:

Again, I was hoping to get a reply from somebody with a professional opinion.

Maybe pay for it then!

 

Ok - so the above is a bit flippant, but maybe you need to consider that the fact no RMA has replied is down to the fact that there are a lot of moving parts here:

 

1. They could decide just to junk everything pre-Covid and start again

2. They could ramp up the processing and churn through the outstanding ones really quickly

3. They might be taking their time due to staff shortages and priorities

4. There is an election soon, maybe things improve after that

 

Once an RMA gives an opinion on this, they will be held to it (either legallly or just reputationally), and as it is purely conjecture at the moment they are unblikley to want to "stick their necks out" except in  private under a service agreement which indemnifies them and you

Edited January 4, 2022 by Ausvisitor

[Marisawright]

45 minutes ago, 31Hillbury said:

Again, I was hoping to get a reply from somebody with a professional opinion.

Paul has already given it and I have just explained in more detail what that means in practice

[31Hillbury]

16 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

Maybe pay for it then, rather than keep insulting people (who aren't MRA) who are only trying to help by indirectly saying you consider them irrelevant

 

I have no problem paying for it, If that’s an option then I’d gladly pay for a chat with Paul.

I believe those of us waiting for a visa grant were just looking for an agents perspective of the situation and the possible ways it could play out.

✌

 

 

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by 31Hillbury
.

[Ausvisitor]

2 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Paul has already given it and I have just explained in more detail what that means in practice

Totally agree with you @Marisawright I do though have a lot of sympathy with @31Hillbury I remember the feeeling of helpless limbo that is the wait for a grant, and I can't imagine what it would have been like to have had it drag on for so long, especially in a period when the world is upside-down as well.

Hope @31Hillbury isnt waiting too much longer

[Ausvisitor]

31 minutes ago, 31Hillbury said:

 

I have no problem paying for it, If that’s an option then I’d gladly pay for a chat with Paul.

I believe those of us waiting for a visa grant were just looking for an agents perspective of the situation and the possible ways it could play out.

✌

 

 

 

I thought you were applying to be a teacher?

If so surely you of all people would understand that I/we did help, we answered the question you asked.

You said : "Surely they can't just keep us waiting"

I replied : "They certainly can, they have no obligation to reply in any fixed timescale"

 

You asked a direct question, I gave a direct answer. You didn't like the answer, and I understand why, but that doesn't make it unhelpful

[Marisawright]

18 minutes ago, 31Hillbury said:

 

I believe those of us waiting for a visa grant were just looking for an agents perspective of the situation and the possible ways it could play out.

And you've been given it.  Paul said, "the emphasis still seems to be around allowing the local market to adjust before allowing many new entrants....I don’t have a crystal ball and, to be honest, I suspect that the Department is just reacting to events. 

I thnk that's as much as you can expect.  If he said anything else, he would be speculating, and it wouldn't be professional. He might tell you more in private but I doubt he'll say anything on a public forum, in print.

I know it's horribly frustrating, but as he says above, all you can do is wait until the government decides that "the local market has adjusted", then it will start allowing new entrants based on what the local market needs at that time.  After all, if they're not going to take the job market into account, why bother waiting? 

Perhaps you could do some research yourself into what the job market is going to be like for teachers.  If there's a high demand in your target state, then you probably have nothing to worry about.

 

Edited January 4, 2022 by Marisawright