Guest morgansashadog Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Dear Highlander Think I've written to you before as you seem to know a lot! Can you help with this one? :goofy:Aargh, I have completely lost the plot now. We originally applied for a 175 visa back in March 08 (hubby having completed and passed Vetassess etc) using hubby's General Electrician trade which was on the CSL. With previous changes by the Oz government pushing our application down the priority list, we decided to also apply for a 176 State Sponsored for Victoria also under General Electrician which was also on their (Victoria's) skills eligibility list (is this the same as CSL?). In July 09 we received a message that our 176 SS was successful and that they would now pass this on/back to the DIAC. We were over the moon at that thinking that in the new scheme of things our application was priority 2 (SS with nominated CSL trade) and looking at the timelines of other's applications, we might quite possible be able to move out to Oz June/July 2010. But today we got an email from Immi.gov that our 175 application will now be processed at the lower priority, as General Electrician is now no longer on the CSL. What I don't understand is, does this also void out our 176 SS application - if so we fall to 5th on the priority list but if the 176 stands alone we would be number 2 on the list. ie. State Sponsored with nominated CSL trade. Just went on the Victoria web site but this hasn't been updated since 21st July (before the 23rd September changes). Does anyone know? Would love to hear from anyone else in the same position and what they're doing. Look forward to hearing fellow migrators to keep me from throwing the whole thing in the bin! Regards Anne&Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest eurosyl Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Dear Highlander Think I've written to you before as you seem to know a lot! Can you help with this one? :goofy:Aargh, I have completely lost the plot now. We originally applied for a 175 visa back in March 08 (hubby having completed and passed Vetassess etc) using hubby's General Electrician trade which was on the CSL. With previous changes by the Oz government pushing our application down the priority list, we decided to also apply for a 176 State Sponsored for Victoria also under General Electrician which was also on their (Victoria's) skills eligibility list (is this the same as CSL?). In July 09 we received a message that our 176 SS was successful and that they would now pass this on/back to the DIAC. We were over the moon at that thinking that in the new scheme of things our application was priority 2 (SS with nominated CSL trade) and looking at the timelines of other's applications, we might quite possible be able to move out to Oz June/July 2010. But today we got an email from Immi.gov that our 175 application will now be processed at the lower priority, as General Electrician is now no longer on the CSL. What I don't understand is, does this also void out our 176 SS application - if so we fall to 5th on the priority list but if the 176 stands alone we would be number 2 on the list. ie. State Sponsored with nominated CSL trade. Just went on the Victoria web site but this hasn't been updated since 21st July (before the 23rd September changes). Does anyone know? Would love to hear from anyone else in the same position and what they're doing. Look forward to hearing fellow migrators to keep me from throwing the whole thing in the bin! Regards Anne&Lee Hi Anne & Lee, The CSL is the list as published by DIAC, not the list that the states keep. At this stage you only hold a state sponsorship which puts you higher in the priority list than applications without them, but below applications that are on the CSL. Unfortunately that means you are now 5th in the priority picking list. Cheers, Sylvia Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 30, 2009 Share Posted October 30, 2009 Hi Anne and Lee. We are in a similar position, the way I understand it is even if you have SS and have converted to a 176, but your trade is NOT on the DIAC CSL list you are now cat 5. Even though your trade is on the victoria list, it is NOT on the DIAC CSL list. Here is the list. http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/critical-skills-list.pdf This is what is so stupid and I don't understand. As I said before why have a SS list where the states are screaming out for certain skills, and then the DIAC say heh we know the state def wants you and is willing to sponsor you but go to 2013!!! Therefore there is no point in state sponsorship or the 176 visa. I don't think that your 176 will be void as you have already had it but either way your 176 would be cat 5 , not cat 2, if your skill is not on the DIAC CSL list. 175 would be even lower cat 6 if you are on the MODL, cat 7 if you are not. 1. applications from people who are employer sponsored under the ENS and the RSMS 2. applications from people who are nominated by a State/Territory government and whose nominated occupation is listed on the Critical Skills List (CSL) 3. applications from people who are sponsored by family and whose nominated occupation is listed on the CSL 4. applications from people who are neither nominated nor sponsored but whose nominated occupation is listed on the CSL 5. applications from people who are nominated by a State/Territory government whose nominated occupation is not listed on the CSL 6. (i) applications from people whose occupations are listed on the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) and (ii) applications from people who are sponsored by family and whose nominated occupation is not listed on the CSL. 7. all other applications are to be processed in the order in which they are received. That is the way I understand it anyway..................... anyone please feel free to correct me if I am confused which would not be hard!!! It sounds to me if the DIAC are talking to you about a 175, they have not changed you application to 176?? Just a thought.......... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest morgansashadog Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 :daydreaming:Thank you both for your replies - I thought as much - I think we're no.5 as well. Why do they bother? Maybe they are just testing us and only those that hang on in there no matter what they throw at us will be allowed in eventually. Meanwhile some good news - we recently moved (about 6 weeks ago) and during that time were without email/internet - only just got back on line with a new computer and new broadband. Was checking through the Visa instructions for the 176 and it said you must reply with your DIAC number etc - I panicked and thought haven't done that so went looking for old emails and found one from Victoria SS which has allocated us a case officer on 3rd September and asked us to get our medicals and police checks done! Is this good news? or, as it was before 23rd Sept, maybe it's all void now! Aargh. Anyway, as of 3rd Sept, we had 70 days in which to reply which takes us to mid November - only seeing everything today means we have 10 days in which to reply. I have been on the computer all evening printing out the mountain of documents that you have to fill in and now have to wait til Monday to contact anyone. Also everything has to be done by post and we are in the middle of a postal strike! It never rains! I will let you know how we get on but for everyone to know, here is our timeline so far: Applied SS Victoria June 09/Successful advised Aug 09/CO allocated Sept 09 - sending meds/police checks Nov 09 - you never know maybe we will get out there sooner than 2012! Speak soon. Anne&Lee Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bilaln30 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Thanks bilaln30 Perhaps you could ask that person why DIAC continued to process your application and ask you to pay costs when the Minister had directed DIAC earleir in the year that your class of visa should not be processed? Dear Jamie, Thanks for your reply. However I haven't understood what you mean by saying that the Minister directed DIAC earlier this year that my visa class should not be processed? I mean I know so many people who got 176 visa prior to 23 Sep, they were no MODL with SS. I am also on MODL with VIC SS but alas I was a bit late. Regards, Bilal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Dear Jamie, Thanks for your reply. However I haven't understood what you mean by saying that the Minister directed DIAC earlier this year that my visa class should not be processed? I mean I know so many people who got 176 visa prior to 23 Sep, they were no MODL with SS. I am also on MODL with VIC SS but alas I was a bit late. Regards, Bilal Gday Bilal The instructions from January were that DIAC were meant to suspend MODL cases and non-CSL cases. They did not, so some lucky ones got through. The Minister then read the riot act to DIAC and instructed them again. I think the non-MODL that got through earlier mean now it ahs to be a at the expense of the State sponsored people, ie there's only a finite number of visas and some of the wrong priority (nonSS but MODL and nonCSL) got through so now some of the right priority now have to miss out (SS MODL non CSL). That's the guts of what I think the double argument is, that DIAC were instructed to process some people who were in fact not processed due to DIAC stuff up, and the ones they were processing now have to be suspended and were wrongly continued with in processing and costs were unnecessarily incurred. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Pawan2327 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Hello guys I m in the last stage of my processing of 175 visa waiting for my medicals and police clearance . i recieved a mail from the immigration stating for change of application from 175 to 176 state sponsor migration as my 175 - toolmaker is not on the CSL List .. for quicker processing of my application and easy approval under 176.. as it is in the top priority.. Please give me some suggetion is it really worth to change the application of 176 as i finished up my automotive engg here in melbourne australia as well,but didnt lodged file on this behalf as i m hoping for response to my toolmaker file,lodged state sponsor as well 2 months before from SA.But still no response,is it worth to lodge for perth WA or not. and how long does it take for the approval of state sponsorship to Perth- Western Australia. Did any one recently got approval from WA State for 176 Visa ? hope to hear from u all guys.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Hello guys I m in the last stage of my processing of 175 visa waiting for my medicals and police clearance . i recieved a mail from the immigration stating for change of application from 175 to 176 state sponsor migration as my 175 - toolmaker is not on the CSL List .. for quicker processing of my application and easy approval under 176.. as it is in the top priority.. Please give me some suggetion is it really worth to change the application of 176 as i finished up my automotive engg here in melbourne australia as well,but didnt lodged file on this behalf as i m hoping for response to my toolmaker file,lodged state sponsor as well 2 months before from SA.But still no response,is it worth to lodge for perth WA or not. and how long does it take for the approval of state sponsorship to Perth- Western Australia. Did any one recently got approval from WA State for 176 Visa ? hope to hear from u all guys.. Hi mate, It's an entirely misleading statement that if someone not on the CSL list after the state sponsorship approval would stand at the top priority. I think you my misinterprete the email from your co. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bilaln30 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Gday Bilal The instructions from January were that DIAC were meant to suspend MODL cases and non-CSL cases. They did not, so some lucky ones got through. The Minister then read the riot act to DIAC and instructed them again. I think the non-MODL that got through earlier mean now it ahs to be a at the expense of the State sponsored people, ie there's only a finite number of visas and some of the wrong priority (nonSS but MODL and nonCSL) got through so now some of the right priority now have to miss out (SS MODL non CSL). That's the guts of what I think the double argument is, that DIAC were instructed to process some people who were in fact not processed due to DIAC stuff up, and the ones they were processing now have to be suspended and were wrongly continued with in processing and costs were unnecessarily incurred. Dear Jamie, Thank you once again for your prompt reply. However, I am sorry I haven't again understood. Following were the 1 Jan, 2009 priority processing directions: From 1 January 2009, the new Ministerial Direction gives priority processing to applications strictly in the following order: 1. employer sponsorship; then 2. State or Territory Sponsorship; then 3. an occupation on the Critical Skill List (CSL); then 4. Business Skills; then 5. an occupation on the MODL; and then 6. All other applications In these directions state sponsors were on priority 2 and then CSL. However, now they are other way round. So I was on MODL and latter got VIC SS. So I moved from priority 5 to 2. Please I would be very grateful if you could explain once again how January directions were meant to suspend MODL cases and non-CSL cases? Best regards, Bilal Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sparamjit Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 This is the link I received from abc news channel from Australia. Though they discussed this issue for 17 minutes, but my feeling is that it will not make much impact. This was more of a general discussion . Here is the link if you guys want to hear the discussion ... The National Interest Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Bilal, I am afraid January has been and gone............. this is what all the comotion is about on here. We are now at the end of oct with the sept changes. Look at p. 86 to the new list I have written. Until MORE changes this is what stands............ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest bilaln30 Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Bilal, I am afraid January has been and gone............. this is what all the comotion is about on here. We are now at the end of oct with the sept changes. Look at p. 86 to the new list I have written. Until MORE changes this is what stands............ Thanks for ur reply. I know about 23 Sep changes. Jamie said that the Minister knew that the cases who are non CSL with SS were not going to be processed in Jan then why DIAC went ahead and asked us to do medicals and PCC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Ahhh sorry........... prob because they do not have enough CSL people to process. That is why I feel that people are in a way still going to be processed......... or some-one is getting a back hander!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cartertucker Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Ahhh sorry........... prob because they do not have enough CSL people to process. That is why I feel that people are in a way still going to be processed......... or some-one is getting a back hander!!!! If this is this case, I wish they would tell those of us that are anxiously waiting.....:frown: It would be great if your right though.....:yes: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Lets hope that this is the case. I think that the CSL from the DIAC has not really changed that much this year, so if they have not filled that requirement by now, they will continue to struggle. As the CSL list is so small now, the number of applicants in my opinion may be small as well. Therefore hopefully they will process the rest of us as there will be no-one else. Finally I cannot see the states being happy that they have sponsored people and are not getting them through the door. I know it may be wishful thinking, but to be honest that is the way I am looking at it now. I feel we have had so many hurdles along this 3 year stretch................. this is just another that will prob be changed again when they realise it is not working and both the people and the states are getting mighty peed off!!! Also the number of applicants will prob reduce if people think they have a 3-4 year wait............ less money going to the DIAC, and they won't like that!!!!!! When it affects the purse things will prob change again!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 This is the link I received from abc news channel from Australia. Though they discussed this issue for 17 minutes, but my feeling is that it will not make much impact. This was more of a general discussion . Here is the link if you guys want to hear the discussion ...The National Interest Hi Sparamjit I have just listened to the programme. I think the presenter, Mark Webster and Dr Zuleia did an absolutely excellent job ot identifying all the various strands of the problem. I don't think the Minister will agree to be interviewed by Peter Mares. I think DIAC will be fools if they don't field a senior officer to stand in for the Minister. Apparently Peter Speldewinde has been appointed as the spin doctor to appease the GSM applicants on behalf of the Minister so my guess is that DIAC will want to send Mr Speldewinde to be interviewed. Who will trot out the same flannel that he is trotting out in his e-mails to people. DIAC will claarly shield the Minister from any personal flak directed at him. If I were DIAC's Top Brass I would want to put the Minister out into the playing field. I think the applicants need to hear from him and need to engage in direct dialogue with him. However I would not take the risk of letting him speak. This Minister is fond of trumpeting that he does the moral right thing and expects the law to be changed to as to enable him to do whatever is morally right. A clever journalist could trap him into agreeing that refunds would be morally right. Nonetheless, if I were Mr Metcalfe I would dearly want to throw the Minister to the wolves. I'd want to use the sink or swim principle as far as he is concerned. The current position is unsustainable and is likely to get worse. The Minister is dithering, despite having several options available to him. It seems to me that he has the following options amongst others but that he is too spineless to risk using them: 1. Cap & terminate all the visas in the GSM programme here and now. Put everyone back to the position they would have been in if the applications had never been made. 2. Create a new visa which I will call "the CSL visa" for want of a better description. Make that the only GSM visa until such time as the Minister decides that the economic crisis has passed. Do 2 with effect from 1st January 2010 even if he lacks the spinal sinew to do 1 as well. At least prevent the present problem from becoming worse than it already is. In the Minister's shoes I wouldn't even try to clean up the scams. I would cap & terminate the whole lot instead. It gets rid of the backlog overnight. The "CSL visa" would keep a skeleton trickle of new migrants - the vital ones - coming into Oz. The general voting public in Oz would probably cheer - it would be a sure-fire vote winner, I suspect. Keep the door firmly closed to all but "CSL visas" until such time as the GSM program can be re-opened with a range of new visas which do not suffer from the same potential for abuse as the existing system contains. DIAC COs would have their work cut out organising the refunds (required under cap & terminate rules) and they should also pay compensation for things such as wasted medical fees where the applicant can prove that the meds were done on the instructions of the Australian Government. There is no need for job cuts on the GSM processing coal face because somebody would have to deal with refunds and compensation claims. Sure, the logistics of using the cap & terminate provisions would be a nightmare to organise. However the Australian Government sat and watched the problem developing and ripening. They should now have the decency to accept the consequences of their own failure to act properly in time to prevent the current chaos. Using the cap & terminate provisions would work very unfairly for some applicants, for sure, because many of them would be too old to reapply once a "general GSM" door opens again at some point in the future. Unfortunately the situation is such a mess that there will inevitably be collateral damage no matter what the Government does next. As against that, taking tough, bitter steps now would create certainty again and any system of law requires certainty more than it requires anything else, in my view. IN addition to creating certainty in the GSM program, it would also send a very clear message to Australian employers, that message being, "If you don't want to be without migrant staff, get up off your butts and start sponsoring them for visas yourselves." Employers dislike uncertainty as much as everyone else dislikes it. The radio programme highlighted very clearly that Aussie employers won't tolerate the "limbo position" of hiring workers on Bridging Visas for properly professional & permanent jobs because the employers don't know when the Bridging Visa holder's skilled visa application might be refused. Letting the present muddle continue - and worse still trying to fix it - will do more harm than good in the long run, I reckon. I think the Government would do far better to wipe the existing slate clean and start again with a fresh program. The "message" to the scammers is now out there in letters a metre high. I would tell them, "We are keeping all the existing applications. If you make another application under a new system, we will get your current application out of mothballs and have a good look at what you have told us this time around. If you have tried to foist bogus documents upon us this time and you are dumb enough to try it again, on your own heads be it because we will catch you and we will prosecute the onshore villains for attempted immigration fraud. Offshore villains will have their applications refused and a five year ban will be imposed on any further applications from anyone whom we catch in this category." If they did this, at least 50% of the villains would remove themselves from the running, I reckon. That is much cheaper and more efficient than trying to analyse every single application in the way that is currently proposed, and it also reduces the scope for litigation enormously. Do it once and there is room for reasonable doubt. Do it twice and they've asked for the consequences, it seems to me. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would be urging the Minister to authorise a big, bold, once and for all solution to the current mess. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 moving stuff Gill!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would be urging the Minister to authorise a big, bold, once and for all solution to the current mess. Cheers Gill That's what the first CSL and priority processing were, bold steps to reform the system. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Bilal, the point is that the first set of instructions from January were not properly followed by DIAC, but they are similar to what we have now. The second instructions have some refinement to the priorities. The point is, MODL and non CSL cases were processed ahead of the supposedly higher priority state sponsored and CSL. I can't be much clearer than these last explanations to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 That's what the first CSL and priority processing were, bold steps to reform the system. Hi Jamie No they weren't. They were nothing more than a "band-aid solution" to quote Mark Webster and in my opinion he is right. To continue with Mark's analogy, they were and still are dealing with a torn artery. The solution to that is a tourniquet above the site of the injury. Shoving sticking plasters onto the hole in the artery is a waste of time. For as long as the heart continues to beat, blood will continue to be pumped out the hole and successive plasters will fall off. You have to cut off the blood supply whilst you sew up the hole in a way that will not fall off or otherwise fail. Sez she who hasn't a clue about trauma surgery but I would guess that this is more or less how a hospital would deal with the victims of a motorway pile-up, which is what has occurred in visa terms. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest sparamjit Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Hi Sparamjit I have just listened to the programme. I think the presenter, Mark Webster and Dr Zuleia did an absolutely excellent job ot identifying all the various strands of the problem. I don't think the Minister will agree to be interviewed by Peter Mares. I think DIAC will be fools if they don't field a senior officer to stand in for the Minister. Apparently Peter Speldewinde has been appointed as the spin doctor to appease the GSM applicants on behalf of the Minister so my guess is that DIAC will want to send Mr Speldewinde to be interviewed. Who will trot out the same flannel that he is trotting out in his e-mails to people. DIAC will claarly shield the Minister from any personal flak directed at him. If I were DIAC's Top Brass I would want to put the Minister out into the playing field. I think the applicants need to hear from him and need to engage in direct dialogue with him. However I would not take the risk of letting him speak. This Minister is fond of trumpeting that he does the moral right thing and expects the law to be changed to as to enable him to do whatever is morally right. A clever journalist could trap him into agreeing that refunds would be morally right. Nonetheless, if I were Mr Metcalfe I would dearly want to throw the Minister to the wolves. I'd want to use the sink or swim principle as far as he is concerned. The current position is unsustainable and is likely to get worse. The Minister is dithering, despite having several options available to him. It seems to me that he has the following options amongst others but that he is too spineless to risk using them: 1. Cap & terminate all the visas in the GSM programme here and now. Put everyone back to the position they would have been in if the applications had never been made. 2. Create a new visa which I will call "the CSL visa" for want of a better description. Make that the only GSM visa until such time as the Minister decides that the economic crisis has passed. Do 2 with effect from 1st January 2010 even if he lacks the spinal sinew to do 1 as well. At least prevent the present problem from becoming worse than it already is. In the Minister's shoes I wouldn't even try to clean up the scams. I would cap & terminate the whole lot instead. It gets rid of the backlog overnight. The "CSL visa" would keep a skeleton trickle of new migrants - the vital ones - coming into Oz. The general voting public in Oz would probably cheer - it would be a sure-fire vote winner, I suspect. Keep the door firmly closed to all but "CSL visas" until such time as the GSM program can be re-opened with a range of new visas which do not suffer from the same potential for abuse as the existing system contains. DIAC COs would have their work cut out organising the refunds (required under cap & terminate rules) and they should also pay compensation for things such as wasted medical fees where the applicant can prove that the meds were done on the instructions of the Australian Government. There is no need for job cuts on the GSM processing coal face because somebody would have to deal with refunds and compensation claims. Sure, the logistics of using the cap & terminate provisions would be a nightmare to organise. However the Australian Government sat and watched the problem developing and ripening. They should now have the decency to accept the consequences of their own failure to act properly in time to prevent the current chaos. Using the cap & terminate provisions would work very unfairly for some applicants, for sure, because many of them would be too old to reapply once a "general GSM" door opens again at some point in the future. Unfortunately the situation is such a mess that there will inevitably be collateral damage no matter what the Government does next. As against that, taking tough, bitter steps now would create certainty again and any system of law requires certainty more than it requires anything else, in my view. IN addition to creating certainty in the GSM program, it would also send a very clear message to Australian employers, that message being, "If you don't want to be without migrant staff, get up off your butts and start sponsoring them for visas yourselves." Employers dislike uncertainty as much as everyone else dislikes it. The radio programme highlighted very clearly that Aussie employers won't tolerate the "limbo position" of hiring workers on Bridging Visas for properly professional & permanent jobs because the employers don't know when the Bridging Visa holder's skilled visa application might be refused. Letting the present muddle continue - and worse still trying to fix it - will do more harm than good in the long run, I reckon. I think the Government would do far better to wipe the existing slate clean and start again with a fresh program. The "message" to the scammers is now out there in letters a metre high. I would tell them, "We are keeping all the existing applications. If you make another application under a new system, we will get your current application out of mothballs and have a good look at what you have told us this time around. If you have tried to foist bogus documents upon us this time and you are dumb enough to try it again, on your own heads be it because we will catch you and we will prosecute the onshore villains for attempted immigration fraud. Offshore villains will have their applications refused and a five year ban will be imposed on any further applications from anyone whom we catch in this category." If they did this, at least 50% of the villains would remove themselves from the running, I reckon. That is much cheaper and more efficient than trying to analyse every single application in the way that is currently proposed, and it also reduces the scope for litigation enormously. Do it once and there is room for reasonable doubt. Do it twice and they've asked for the consequences, it seems to me. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would be urging the Minister to authorise a big, bold, once and for all solution to the current mess. Cheers Gill Yeah I agree that the reporters atleast took up the matter on our behalf infact they gave us some kind of starting and showed us that there is somebody to listen, but my only question is would any body from the ministers think tank would have cared to listen it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Nicely put Gill. That is how the visa processess feels..............'trauma surgery', except with the bill at the beginning of it for the privilege!!! I could not have described it better myself!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jackster Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Using the cap & terminate provisions would work very unfairly for some applicants, for sure, because many of them would be too old to reapply once a "general GSM" door opens again at some point in the future. Unfortunately the situation is such a mess that there will inevitably be collateral damage no matter what the Government does next. brilliant!!!! i lodged my visa 3 weeks before my 45th birthday, have jumped through every hoop thrown at me gained qld ss, have spent the best part of 5000gbp sacrified my lifestyle over the past year, this journey is rapidy losing its sparkle Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest rachbarlow Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 this journey is rapidy losing its sparkle I agree!!! £6200 later................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest KatyNick Posted October 31, 2009 Share Posted October 31, 2009 Unfortunately Jackster, we'll be in the same boat as you as my OH will be 45 next April. I suppose the best way for us to go is to 'try' and get employer sponsor. How easy that will be for a Welder I just don't know Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.