Visa application submitted 3 mins late

[Cobs_Ahoy]

2 hours ago, Bluey128 said:

Ah thank you for checking that for me, that's really kind. I'm useless at finding these things out myself. Yeah we want SA or QLD. Our agent is also saying to apply for a 190 for other states and just move to the one you want but I'm a bit worried about this!

I think although it’s not a legal obligation, if the department of home affairs can prove you never intended to live in the state that sponsored you then they can rescind your visa. So it is a gamble as which ever state sponsors you could pursue the canacellation of your visa if they think you’ve pulled a fast one.

Also, when you apply for your PR in 3 years time, they may well be looking for people who can’t demonstrate living in their sponsoring region for that time. I’d say that’s a big risk!

[Cobs_Ahoy]

Sorry, post above mentioned PR in 3 years, that’s obviously only relevant for 491 visas,   so hopefully DUC wasnt advising this approach for any 491 EoIs! 

[Bluey128]

6 hours ago, Gavilon18 said:

I had an initial consultation with DUC yesterday and when I mentioned that I was interested in WA or SA, ideally WA but VISA options pretty much non existent there, the response was apply for SA as you will get the VISA but as its a moral obligation and not a legal obligation to reside there you can just go to WA.

As there is a chance of the visa being a 491 and therefore a need to convert to PR I'd be a bit nervous on taking this course of action

I deffo would not do it with a 491. And I'm reluctant to do it with a 190 but we are getting desperate after everything we've been through so far!

It's hard to know whether to trust them or not cos I'm thinking it's best for them to just get a you a visa and get you off their books - making room for more paying customers.

 

 

[Marisawright]

12 hours ago, Gavilon18 said:

I had an initial consultation with DUC yesterday and when I mentioned that I was interested in WA or SA, ideally WA but VISA options pretty much non existent there, the response was apply for SA as you will get the VISA but as its a moral obligation and not a legal obligation to reside there you can just go to WA.

As there is a chance of the visa being a 491 and therefore a need to convert to PR I'd be a bit nervous on taking this course of action

Ah, it's DUC.  A big company but I've seen a few instances of dodgy advice coming from them.  Is there a strong reason you want to go to WA?

[wrussell]

This is quite misleading.

[wrussell]

Consult one of the RMAs who posts on this forum and in general deal directly with a RMA, not an organisation that retains the services of a RMA as a consultant.

[Ausvisitor]

8 minutes ago, wrussell said:

Consult one of the RMAs who posts on this forum and in general deal directly with a RMA, not an organisation that retains the services of a RMA as a consultant.

I totally agree with you statement, but I do have sympathy with the OP.

They engaged DUC who are generally talked about as offering a decent service on these forums and generally they have a decent reputation.

In their position I would have assumed if that many are saying they do a good job then they must be ok.

I guess you just don't expect people you've paid to do a job to screw up like this.

I'm always glad I chose to work with an RMA directly - but I was seriously considering DUC when we did our paperwork because they appear to be reputable and dependable 

[Marisawright]

37 minutes ago, Ausvisitor said:

I totally agree with you statement, but I do have sympathy with the OP.

They engaged DUC who are generally talked about as offering a decent service on these forums and generally they have a decent reputation.

I'd have to disagree.  I've never seen anyone recommend the DUC on these forums.  The most I've seen is people saying they're "OK", especially if someone has already committed to them.  Occasionally we'll get someone saying they used DUC and it worked for them. I can recall a few instances where people have been given incorrect information by the DUC phone line so that has made me wary of them.

Edited August 4, 2022 by Marisawright

[Phil1712]

19 hours ago, Gavilon18 said:

I had an initial consultation with DUC yesterday and when I mentioned that I was interested in WA or SA, ideally WA but VISA options pretty much non existent there, the response was apply for SA as you will get the VISA but as its a moral obligation and not a legal obligation to reside there you can just go to WA.

As there is a chance of the visa being a 491 and therefore a need to convert to PR I'd be a bit nervous on taking this course of action

I used Concept Australia and they seem to know their stuff. But be aware of processing times, I have been waiting over 27 months now for my 491 grant

[wrussell]

If an invalid visa application is submitted, the visa application charge is refundable. There are rare circumstances in which lodging an invalid application is a sound strategy, but not in the case above.

[Bluey128]

On 04/08/2022 at 04:00, wrussell said:

Consult one of the RMAs who posts on this forum and in general deal directly with a RMA, not an organisation that retains the services of a RMA as a consultant.

Can I ask what you mean by this? The lady that we're working with at DUC is a an RMA

[Bluey128]

10 hours ago, wrussell said:

If an invalid visa application is submitted, the visa application charge is refundable. There are rare circumstances in which lodging an invalid application is a sound strategy, but not in the case above.

Why would somebody deliberately submit an invalid visa application as a strategy???

[Bluey128]

On 04/08/2022 at 04:49, Marisawright said:

I'd have to disagree.  I've never seen anyone recommend the DUC on these forums.  The most I've seen is people saying they're "OK", especially if someone has already committed to them.  Occasionally we'll get someone saying they used DUC and it worked for them. I can recall a few instances where people have been given incorrect information by the DUC phone line so that has made me wary of them.

There are countless recommendations across all of the associated Facebook groups. Recommendations for DUC represent the vast majority of all of the recommendations for agents on there. That's why we went with them.

 

[Bluey128]

On 04/08/2022 at 04:12, Ausvisitor said:

I totally agree with you statement, but I do have sympathy with the OP.

They engaged DUC who are generally talked about as offering a decent service on these forums and generally they have a decent reputation.

In their position I would have assumed if that many are saying they do a good job then they must be ok.

I guess you just don't expect people you've paid to do a job to screw up like this.

I'm always glad I chose to work with an RMA directly - but I was seriously considering DUC when we did our paperwork because they appear to be reputable and dependable 

Yes, we did not expect this in a million years. The amount of sterling recommendations is what swayed us to go with them.

Can I ask what you mean about working with a RMA directly? All the guys at DUC are RMA's including the lady dealing with us

 

[Ausvisitor]

3 hours ago, Bluey128 said:

Yes, we did not expect this in a million years. The amount of sterling recommendations is what swayed us to go with them.

Can I ask what you mean about working with a RMA directly? All the guys at DUC are RMA's including the lady dealing with us

 

The team at DUC aren't RMAs - they have a number of RMA on retention as advisors but the majority of the people you interact with at DUC are just paid case handlers that turn the cogs

 

It may be that yours was a qualified RMA if so that makes their mistake even more unforgivable

 

 

[Bluey128]

1 hour ago, Ausvisitor said:

The team at DUC aren't RMAs - they have a number of RMA on retention as advisors but the majority of the people you interact with at DUC are just paid case handlers that turn the cogs

 

It may be that yours was a qualified RMA if so that makes their mistake even more unforgivable

 

 

Can't argue with you there

[wrussell]

15 hours ago, Bluey128 said:

Why would somebody deliberately submit an invalid visa application as a strategy???

  For one example:

When the Hon Senator Evans was in the van, stuffing up everything he put his hands on, in particular deferring the processing of skilled visas and changing the rules without warning, I had a client whose husband had come to Australia on a visitor visa without informing me. I had the choice of not including the husband on the offshore application or including him in which case his application, but not hers, would be invalid. In those days visa application charges were per application, not per applicant.  The best strategy was to lodge before the particular skilled application was deleted from the list or the application was stuffed in some other way by the Honourable and subsequently include the husband after he went home. 

There are other circumstances in which lodging an invalid application or an application that has limited prospects of success might be considered.

[ramot]

2 hours ago, wrussell said:

  For one example:

When the Hon Senator Evans was in the van, stuffing up everything he put his hands on, in particular deferring the processing of skilled visas and changing the rules without warning, I had a client whose husband had come to Australia on a visitor visa without informing me. I had the choice of not including the husband on the offshore application or including him in which case his application, but not hers, would be invalid. In those days visa application charges were per application, not per applicant.  The best strategy was to lodge before the particular skilled application was deleted from the list or the application was stuffed in some other way by the Honourable and subsequently include the husband after he went home. 

There are other circumstances in which lodging an invalid application or an application that has limited prospects of success might be considered.

How I remember the pain, and even some suicides,  that man caused to prospective International students by changing the rules retrospectively overnight even though they  had followed all the conditions to apply  for PR, Our son was hit twice, by changes, luckily he was one of the very few, who after 31/2 years of the insecurity of being on a bridging visa, got PR, the majority were told to go. Should have only taken him  1 month.as his application was either in or going in the next day, can’t remember, but it was a disgrace.

Edited August 6, 2022 by ramot

[wrussell]

Even worse were the thousands of perfectly valid applications that were capped and ceased by the Honourable, the Minister, Michaelia Cash in 2015. Some were from my clients who had waited many years for a visa decision. I arranged refunds of the visa application charges, but they lost the money they had  paid for skills assessments, English language tests, my professional fee and ancillary costs. Some of them had reached the age where they could not apply to Australia or anywhere else. 

[nomadiccarpenter]

18 hours ago, wrussell said:

Even worse were the thousands of perfectly valid applications that were capped and ceased by the Honourable, the Minister, Michaelia Cash in 2015. Some were from my clients who had waited many years for a visa decision. I arranged refunds of the visa application charges, but they lost the money they had  paid for skills assessments, English language tests, my professional fee and ancillary costs. Some of them had reached the age where they could not apply to Australia or anywhere else. 

I was very worried this would happen had Morrison's cabinet been re-elected. That shouldn't even be an option for a government.

[Steve Elliott]

Late lodgement even if three minutes late, means the application was invalid.

Also, it's worth pointing out that each State and Territory is given a set number of allocations each year by DHA. If a nomination was wasted due to an avoidable error, the nominating State has, in effect lost one of those places if it has to re-nominate a second time around. 

On the topic of "moral obligation", that potentially becomes a more of an issue, if it is a visa which requires nomination at the PR stage. If you blatantly disregard the requirements of the nominating state, don't be surprised if they refuse to nominate you for PR.  

[ramot]

1 hour ago, nomadiccarpenter said:

I was very worried this would happen had Morrison's cabinet been re-elected. That shouldn't even be an option for a government.

Chris Evans was a labor immigration minister, so both governments guilty of canceling visas

[wrussell]

As far as I know the liar from the shire cancelled visas, but not applications.

 

[Bluey128]

20 hours ago, Steve Elliott said:

Late lodgement even if three minutes late, means the application was invalid.

Also, it's worth pointing out that each State and Territory is given a set number of allocations each year by DHA. If a nomination was wasted due to an avoidable error, the nominating State has, in effect lost one of those places if it has to re-nominate a second time around. 

On the topic of "moral obligation", that potentially becomes a more of an issue, if it is a visa which requires nomination at the PR stage. If you blatantly disregard the requirements of the nominating state, don't be surprised if they refuse to nominate you for PR.  

What about a 190 visa?

[Steve Elliott]

2 hours ago, Bluey128 said:

What about a 190 visa?

I'd suggest you go to the relevant State or Territory migration website for further information. States and Territories have access to a vast array of data sources to verify visa applicants are abiding by state requirements and the visa applicant's undertaking.