190 and moral obligation to stay

[Daisyflowers]

Hi. I am having a bit of a situation. I have a 190 granted for  a different state than my family live in. We haven’t made the move yet (work/house sale etc) but planing to soon. Being in a different state from the family didn’t really factor in to our decision as we have traveled to see each other for years. However, a family member is currently experiencing significant mental health problems as well as a separation. They have asked if I could move in with them to care for/support them. They don’t have anyone else to take care of them/support them. It’s not a great situation. However, I understand my moral obligation to my sponsoring state. If I contacted my nominating state and explained the situation,  do you think my ‘moral’ obligation to care for my family member would be factor enough to release me from my moral obligation to my sponsoring state?

[Marisawright]

I'd say it's unlikely.  My question would be, how long does this family member expect you to be their carer?   If it's a few months and then you can move back to your sponsoring state and spend the remaining time up till citizenship there, I can't see how it would be a big deal.

However, migrating is hard enough for a family without taking on extra burdens.   It will be an extra stress, not to be able to get set up in your own home and start your new life.  Is there any way she would consider moving to your state to live with you, instead?   If she has no support where she is, then it doesn't sound like she'd be giving up much by moving away for a while.  It may even help her make a clean break from her spouse.

Edited December 19, 2022 by Marisawright

[Ausvisitor]

It's a tough one, but I suspect the answer is no. Whilst you feel a moral obligation to help the family member, the ability to do so only exists because you have a visa (with a conflicting moral obligation).

The state would argue their obligation comes first as without their visa you probably wouldn't be able to afford to care for the family member.

[Daisyflowers]

Thanks. It’s such a difficult situation. I’ve read a few things that suggested contacting my sponsor state  and explaining my situation and asking if I can be ‘released’ for the moral obligation part. Others have said there is no repercussions if you don’t stick to your moral 2 years and anything stating other is intended to make you believe there will be a risk to your visa and/or getting citizenship so you do stay. . I don’t think I could  take the risk and will contact my state. I just don’t know what I would do if they said no! But it seems the consensus on the forum is it’s risky not to fulfil the  moral obligation. 

[Ausvisitor]

Couple of things, first depends what state, NSW for instance just flat out refuses to even acknowledge a request for release never mind actually grant one.

You are right it is a moral obligation, that said my employers wanted me to transfer to a different state from NSW, they are a massive global company with an army of lawyers and immigration specialists, they all advised me to stay out as NSW are getting quite militant in defending their sponsored grants, I can only imagine other states are similar.

As always something isn't a problem until it becomes a problem, and then, often it is too late

Edited December 19, 2022 by Ausvisitor

[Marisawright]

8 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

You are right it is a moral obligation, that said my employers wanted me to transfer to a different state from NSW, they are a massive global company with an army of lawyers and immigration specialists, they all advised me to stay out as NSW are getting quite militant in defending their sponsored grants, I can only imagine other states are similar.

This is very useful information.  

[Daisyflowers]

I really appreciate all the information. The more I look the more confusing it is! When I was looking for best ways to contact your state I found a video by Karol Konrad made this year saying; you don’t have to stay in your state, there is no risk to your visa being cancelled as the visa has already been given, and no impact on citizenship later down the line. I can’t understand the different information  around  on such a huge matter. Surely it’s a yes or no situation. It just adds more stress in trying to figure out my options

[Lavers]

1 hour ago, Daisyflowers said:

I really appreciate all the information. The more I look the more confusing it is! When I was looking for best ways to contact your state I found a video by Karol Konrad made this year saying; you don’t have to stay in your state, there is no risk to your visa being cancelled as the visa has already been given, and no impact on citizenship later down the line. I can’t understand the different information  around  on such a huge matter. Surely it’s a yes or no situation. It just adds more stress in trying to figure out my options

I suppose states wouldn’t want the info to  easy to find as all people will do is get a 190 for the easiest state then move states the minute they land.

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, Daisyflowers said:

I really appreciate all the information. The more I look the more confusing it is! When I was looking for best ways to contact your state I found a video by Karol Konrad made this year saying; you don’t have to stay in your state, there is no risk to your visa being cancelled as the visa has already been given, and no impact on citizenship later down the line. I can’t understand the different information  around  on such a huge matter. Surely it’s a yes or no situation. It just adds more stress in trying to figure out my options

As far as I can see, Karol Konrad is the migration-agent equivalent of an ambulance-chasing lawyer.   

Unfortunately it can't be a yes or no situation.   As the regulations stand today, there would be no impact UNLESS you knew, when you applied, that you had no intention of moving to the state (on which case your visa would be cancelled for fraud).  However no one knows what the regulations might say in four years' time, when you're ready to apply for citizenship.  I'm assuming that is why Ausvisitor's company lawyers are advising against taking the chance.  

[ali]

5 hours ago, Daisyflowers said:

I really appreciate all the information. The more I look the more confusing it is! When I was looking for best ways to contact your state I found a video by Karol Konrad made this year saying; you don’t have to stay in your state, there is no risk to your visa being cancelled as the visa has already been given, and no impact on citizenship later down the line. I can’t understand the different information  around  on such a huge matter. Surely it’s a yes or no situation. It just adds more stress in trying to figure out my options

Could you move to your sponsoring state and your relative come and live with you?

[DrDougster]

There's nothing on a 190 grant letter about living in a certain state. 

It's mainly hearsay on here aside from agents, who have some experience, and little real world experience of moving state on a 190 in recent times exists.

Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like you were moving to an area of need or bringing in millions in taxes for a particular state so I'd guess, and it is a guess, that your state won't actually notice, never mind give two hoots that you're going to move. However, if you were coming in to fill a shortage like a healthcare or technical need then you'd really just be exploiting the system and this is never going to look good.

Does it actually matter? Almost certainly no. I'd go support your family if they need you and you have the resource - mentally, financially, socially to do so.

[Daisyflowers]

Thanks again for all the info. I’m going to contact my state and see what they say. Depending on the answer I guess will determine what I do. But if anyone has any experience of  contacting a state or not living in their sponsor state and how you manage that i would be grateful for the information. Thanks again. 

[Ausvisitor]

On 20/12/2022 at 16:22, DrDougster said:

There's nothing on a 190 grant letter about living in a certain state. 

It's mainly hearsay on here aside from agents, who have some experience, and little real world experience of moving state on a 190 in recent times exists.

Reading between the lines, it doesn't sound like you were moving to an area of need or bringing in millions in taxes for a particular state so I'd guess, and it is a guess, that your state won't actually notice, never mind give two hoots that you're going to move. However, if you were coming in to fill a shortage like a healthcare or technical need then you'd really just be exploiting the system and this is never going to look good.

Does it actually matter? Almost certainly no. I'd go support your family if they need you and you have the resource - mentally, financially, socially to do so.

I am not for one second suggesting your response was in direct reply to my post, but I wanted to clarify.

Whilst I do not have first hand experience of moving states on a 190, the company I work for has over 800 people employed on 190s and their very expensive army of lawyers and legal experts are all saying don't do it.

I know which advice I'm going to take

[DIG85]

On 20/12/2022 at 00:01, Marisawright said:

  I'm assuming that is why Ausvisitor's company lawyers are advising against taking the chance.  

In-house legal teams, HR teams etc. exist for one reason only: to protect the company. The advice to stay in NSW is not for Ausvisitor's benefit but for his employer's, notwithstanding the fact that his line manager appears to want him to move states. The company's legal counsel obviously believes, rightly or wrongly, that employees moving states may prejudice the company's ability to sponsor employees in the future.

I have worked in several large firms and it is always the case that these in-house teams are ultra-conservative and brook no risk, often despite the commercial wishes of the client-facing teams.

As for the subject of the thread, I find the notion that anyone has a moral obligation to a state to be preposterous. Of all the parties one could possibly have a moral obligation to, the state would be the very last. There is absolutely no morality when it comes to the law, especially immigration law, and anyone who doubts that should see how far one gets when trying to argue morality to a tax inspector or policeman. 

As has been pointed out, the conditions of grant do not stipulate that the grantee must remain in the state for 2 years. The only possible way a state could cancel a visa is if it could demonstrate there was never any intention to remain in the state, which is almost impossible for them to prove.

NSW may flat out refuse to acknowledge a request to be released from the 2 years, but there's bugger all they can do about it if you do leave - not least because the issue and cancellation of visas is a federal responsibility, not a state one.

Could the rules change by the time one is ready to apply for citizenship, and possibly be backdated? Technically they could, but I find the chances that they would penalise an act that was lawful at the time to be miniscule. I can't recall any instance where a government has done that.

Edited December 22, 2022 by DIG85

[Ausvisitor]

You are completely wrong in your assumption on the in house team.

For one we outsource all this to external MARA agents

Secondly it isn't my line manager asking it's the head of the organisation (12k+ people in AUS and 250k+ people worldwide)

Thirdly, the advise to a holder of a personally acquired 190 visa would have diddly squat impact on an organisations ability to sponsor others (as they aren't sponsoring this one either)

I guess though truth and facts don't fit your narrative here...

[Ausvisitor]

On 23/12/2022 at 05:43, DIG85 said:

 

Could the rules change by the time one is ready to apply for citizenship, and possibly be backdated? Technically they could, but I find the chances that they would penalise an act that was lawful at the time to be miniscule. I can't recall any instance where a government has done that.

You don't know your European history very well then. Consider Germany 1939-1945 and what they were allowed to do legally by their government that the same country government is now prosecuting people for (even though it was legal when they did it)

There are literally hundreds of other examples of a government reversing it's stance and criminalising activities that were performed legally at the time.

Edited December 25, 2022 by Ausvisitor

[DIG85]

7 hours ago, Ausvisitor said:

You don't know your European history very well then. Consider Germany 1939-1945 and what they were allowed to do legally by their government that the same country government is now prosecuting people for (even though it was legal when they did it)

There are literally hundreds of other examples of a government reversing it's stance and criminalising activities that were performed legally at the time.

Godwin’s law alive and well. I was referring specifically to citizenship laws.

Edited December 25, 2022 by DIG85

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, DIG85 said:

Godwin’s law alive and well. I was referring specifically to citizenship laws.

Why should they be exempt?

[DIG85]

22 minutes ago, Marisawright said:

Why should they be exempt?

Technically the government could retrospectively increase the top rate of tax for the 2018-19 tax year and require everyone to re-lodge their tax return for that year and pay any additional tax due as a result. The chances of it doing so are to all intents and purposes nil.

A visa is granted with a number of conditions. Staying two years is in the grantor state is not one of them. The reason for that is simple: the DHA recognise that people’s or firms’ circumstances can change within that timeframe. I cannot imagine any circumstances where the conditions for grant of a visa change retrospectively. Perhaps you can, and that’s fine, you can put your life on hold and stay doing something you don’t want to if you’re that terrified of the potential ramifications. Personally I think there’s more likelihood of being struck down by a car than doing something which is legal now having any impact on your future visa/citizenships. Different strokes for different folks, I guess. Just like someone terrified of covid can lock themselves indoors for the rest of their lives if they want to.

 

 

Edited December 25, 2022 by DIG85

[Marisawright]

On 26/12/2022 at 08:19, DIG85 said:

Technically the government could retrospectively increase the top rate of tax for the 2018-19 tax year and require everyone to re-lodge their tax return for that year and pay any additional tax due as a result. The chances of it doing so are to all intents and purposes nil.

Not a good analogy, because that would affect only that one tax year.  

We're talking about citizenship laws being amended, at some time in the future, to require that all visa obligations (moral or otherwise) must be met before citizenship can be granted. I don't see what's unlikely about that. The question is whether that change would apply retrospectively.  

On 26/12/2022 at 08:19, DIG85 said:

 I cannot imagine any circumstances where the conditions for grant of a visa change retrospectively.

You cannot imagine it? Maybe you just lack imagination.   Changes in visa regulations have been applied retrosectively in the past.

[DIG85]

17 hours ago, Marisawright said:

 

We're talking about citizenship laws being amended, at some time in the future, to require that all visa obligations (moral or otherwise) must be met before citizenship can be granted. 

What moral obligation are you talking about?

There is only the legal obligation that, at the time you apply, you intend to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years from the date of arrival. Intentions can - and often do - change. It's not a question of morality.

It is almost impossible for the authorities to prove that you never intended to stay in the sponsoring state for 2 years unless you are foolish enough to tell them or post on forums under your real name.

 

 

Edited December 27, 2022 by DIG85