Kazzarazza Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi all Why can't all the experienced agents out here work together, cope with the changes and focus there energy on getting ENS or RSMS for there clients. Cause pondering on the lost opportunities is not going to lead anyone of us anywhere, migration agents are going to lose business while migrants like me a going to lose hope and money. If we cannot change the system let us work around it. Can anyone of you help me in getting an ENS and RSMS or tell me how I can start working on it. The minister can change goal posts but he cannot stop me from attempting a goal. Hi Sherin. Good on ya. Couldn't agree more. I started a thread on this very topic just yesterday, titled ENS/RSMS sponsors - where are you? It's so frustrating. The Minister makes this is new favourite for the month but nobody here knows a damn thing about it. The employers definitely need lobbying - and it needs to be a simple process and cheap (if not free) so that prospective employers are not financially disadvantaged. Cheers, Kazza Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest The Pom Queen Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 The minister can change goal posts but he cannot stop me from attempting a goal. What a great attitude to have, good luck and I hope your dreams come true somewhere down the line.:wubclub: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherin Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Thanks Joanne & Kazzarazza I am sure the collective time all the PIO members have spend pondering on the issues is more than the time DIAC took to formulate the new rules. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Glenn, Yes of course they're in the same visa class however I think Sylvia is right about the circumstances involved in the case she was discussing, since after September 2007 it's impossible to change the nominated occupation. Cheers, George Lombard Hello George Just thought I'd say hi you recently assisted an old school friend of mine Louise originally from Plymouth. She works for a very well known spanish singer !!! In your opinion my spouse is a Hairdesser who has passed TRa. applied for WA ss september 2009 awaitng response. My daughter is 16 at present. If we sat tight and rode the wave as it were do you think we will be ok or should we be looking at another avenue. My uncle owns a salon in London court Perth who my wife intends to work for. Gill has once againgivengood advice and possibly change direction. What are your thoughts Kind Regards Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest valeries Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Sylvia and George are correct. I had to re-apply and re-pay the fees because the nominated occupation on the SS has to match the nominated occupation on the visa application, which was not the case with my 175. And they don't let you change the nominated occupation. Nice way of making more money for the gvnt... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jason RM0107604 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 i feel alot of sympathy for people trapped in the existing profiling and processing guidelines for skilled migration. How depressing it must be waiting around and putting your life on hold. this is not about promises or non promises, but rather treating people with respect and dignity. the new processing guidelines are like a prison sentance - truly disgraceful in how they treat existing applicants. As to new applicants im not so worried about them. I am not in favour of the policy, but can respect at least the govt's right to determine migration policy that it considers is beneficial for al Australians. sure the new policy is doomed to failure and will hurt the universities who are dependent on overseas students - but we all, including governments live and learn. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Well said. Changes have to happen in everything in life. We dont like them all but we should learn how to adapt, deal with them and move on! I don't agree. So what happens, down the road another change in goalposts again? This will never be ending. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jmoor Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hello George Just thought I'd say hi you recently assisted an old school friend of mine Louise originally from Plymouth. She works for a very well known spanish singer !!! In your opinion my spouse is a Hairdesser who has passed TRa. applied for WA ss september 2009 awaitng response. My daughter is 16 at present. If we sat tight and rode the wave as it were do you think we will be ok or should we be looking at another avenue. My uncle owns a salon in London court Perth who my wife intends to work for. Gill has once againgivengood advice and possibly change direction. What are your thoughts Kind Regards Shane Shane - is your uncle sponsoring your wife for an ENS ??? He only offers a job but isn't contractually obliged to keep employing her if it doesn't work out. No risk for him, great gain for you ! Not too sure of the cost but to be first priority processing versus 2012 I would be seriously convincing him to do this amd finding the extra $$$$ ! Jay Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
vandm Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Ok guys, We are ALL on the same side here. The side being helping those moving to Oz.....right???? Can we please put aside any differences from EITHER side and just do what we are here to do????? I appreciate that there may be more to this `issue` than I am aware of but I think there is a bigger picture here that we need to stay aware of! THE NEW IMMIGRANTS THAT NEED OUR HELP! :hug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Jay We havent looked down the route of my uncle giving ENS support as I thought he might be obliged to employ my wife for 3 years , although she will be working for him anyway and once were there she will start when settled in . So she has a job offer to work as a hairdesser and I believe this would make her Cat 1. I think I will contact my agent to discuss. Keep seeing programmes about Australia on the telly and it just confirms that thats where we want to live even it takes three years. Thanks for your advice Jay Regards Shane Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 HI Shane The additonal charge in relation to the visa itself would be $445 AUD - the fee for processing the nomination application. DIAC would waive the $1,705 for processing the visa application. Employer Sponsored Permanent Visa Charges I know it is precious little but it is some small crumb of comfort at least. If you read the stuff about the ENS 121 visa and Booklet 5 really carefully, and your Uncle can be persuaded to do the same at his end, you might find that you and your Uncle can manage the nomination and visa applications on your own, without needing to involve Uncle's tax accountant, a migration agent etc. Nobody can tell you that you definitely can manage alone because nobody except Uncle knows whether his business would be able to sponsor your wife. Uncle won't know for sure either unless he can be persuaded to study the DIAC material. Do you know enough about Uncle's business (eg whether he takes Aussie apprentices and what arrangements he makes for their ongoing training) to be able to make an informed guess on your own about how viable a DIY application is likely to be? The links are here: Employer Nomination Scheme (Subclass 121/856) Employer Sponsored Migration Booklet - Australian Immigration I would suggest that in addition to reading DIAC's descriptions about the EBS 121 visa, it would be a good idea to download and study the various application forms and the all-important checklist because this part of the exercise will reveal what information DIAC want you and Uncle to supply between you. That should give you a fairly good 'feel' for whether it would be straightforward to tackle the whole thing by yourselves. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mandymark Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Well said. Changes have to happen in everything in life. We dont like them all but we should learn how to adapt, deal with them and move on! With respect, its not always that simple. We've wanted to emigrate for at least 5 years now, but as OH has had to finish his 22yrs with the RAF, it hasn't been possible. We were devastated 5yrs ago when many got redundancy but OH didn't, so had to aim towards 2010. We're living in RAF accommodation, I've turned down employment as I thought we were moving in February, OH has turned down the offer of further service with the RAF and we haven't tied up our savings beyond Feb 2010. We were looking forward to moving and finally settling down as a family. Ok, so we then had the changes on 23 Sep. Initially I was not willing to accept the changes and sent emails/OH's CV to countless companies and agencies, enquiring about ENS.......haven't even had the courtesy of ONE acknowledgement. We're now living in our 10th house in 18yrs of marriage, so I have 'adapted and dealt with change' for years, but this recent hurdle has completely devastated my family (and of course OH's Mum in Australia who was looking forward to us moving out there). Mandy Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Jason Cameron I guess my questions for you are partly a specific immi law questions, and partly more general legal questions, please. There has been a discussion on another forum in which an RMA asked Glenn Pereira whether it is lawful for the Minister to delay the processing of GSM visas in this way. We all know that superficially it appears to be lawful but you know as well as I do that the law is not always as it seems when you simply read the relevant page. Glenn's response was that he thought a prominent barrister should be asked to consider the issue. Armed with Glenn's opinion, Jamie Smith and I had a chat about the possibilty of obtaining some heavyweight legal advice about this. OUr exchange can be found a few pages back in this thread. My feeling is that the people best placed to get a formal Opinion about this from senior Counsel would be the MIA. They would know (or could easily find out) which Aussie barrister would be the best one to ask and so forth. Jamie's feeling is that the MIA could do the asking or perhaps a group of RMAs could club together to get some detailed advice about this aspect. So far, so good. My questions for you are: 1. What is your own gut-instinct, please? Do you think the Minister's new Direction would stand up to scrutiny by the Court? 2. What about Aussie employers (most likely employers outside of the State capitals for the purpose of this hypothesis.) If they find themselves beset by a shortage of (let us say) welders, do they have any sort of right to demand that the migrant quota must be increased? Or are they stuck with simply voting for a different government if they don't like the current one? 3. If senior Counsel were to say that it is an issue that the Court should be asked to scrutinise, then: 3.1 How long would it realistically take to be ready to apply to the Court? 3.2 Which Court? 3.3 How long would it be likely to take until there is a Judgement one way or the other? 3.4 Is the Minister bound to obey any judgement handed down by the Court? (I understand that if you apply for judicial review of a visa refusak and you win, it does not mean that DIAC is then obliged to grant the visa. Which all seems a bit toothless to me so would a Judgement that favours aggrieved visa applicants be equally toothless in this situation?) 4. Are you by any happy chance less ignorant than I am about Human Rights legislation? I've come across an analogous situation in the debate about the health criteria for migration. Apparently Australia is a signatory to but has not yet ratified the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. It seems that 143 countries have signed it but only 68 have ratified it so far. Various legal experts in Oz are saying that the migration legislation flies in the face of this Convention and that provisions in domestic law excluding the migration legislation from the Convention's ambit and provisions would not be effective in law. I know zilch about Human Rights law. I was under the vague impression that the UK legislation on the subject is the result of a Directive from Brussels. I am now wondering whether the whole thing is actually the brainchild of the UN. Do you know what the background to Australia's Human Rights legislation is? Is the migration legislation excluded from it? Many thanks Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 I don't agree. So what happens, down the road another change in goalposts again? This will never be ending. For example, making ENS the end of the queue. :wubclub: And then we all would look like a herd of goats running the very next time to reapply for new visas. :biggrin: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi again Jason You are going to hate me by the time I have finished grilling you! I've just been dealing with another query on another thread, which has given me another idea. I am trained in English Law, not Aussie Law. Also I know nothing about public law (too boring to bother with imho, since my intention and wish has always been private practice. I would drop dead sooner than be a hack lawyer for any sort of Govt department.) And I know nothing about the jurisprudence of Immi Law in the UK or in Oz. In private contract law, you tell me to get my meds and pccs done so I obey you. I incur further cost in the process. If you then said you intended to delay matters, I would have a good look at the law. I would be looking for: 1. Has there been part performance of the contract in this situation? 2. Can I now demand Specific Performance by you, so as to require you to complete the contract? 3. Can I claim damages from you if you decline to accede to my demand that you now get on with it and complete our bargain without delay? What exactly is the transaction for a visa? Is it some type of public law contract? Is it a contract at all? Is there a way for the applicant to enforce whatever this visa deal is? Many thanks again :notworthy: Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi M&M Like everyone else, I've been feeling my way through this thing, trying to understand what is happening that we have not been told about. I've yet to meet a senior Govt official who volunteers answers to questions which have not been asked. I am wondering..... The Minister loves employer sponsored migration. He has been saying that since the day he was sworn in. Evidently he was cudgelled into accepting that the CSL is necessary, at least in the short term. However given his twin loves, this whole thing is beginning to feel to me as if the real deal for Cat 5s downwards is, "You'll get your visas as and when we have space left in our quota, but not unless or until we have amused the Minister to the hilt first." I just have a hunch that Cat 5 downwards are being marginalised and treated like the extras on a film set (for want of a better analogy at 11pm, when I am flagging and my bones and my bed are having an urgent discussion about their wish to lie together within the next hour!) Am I being unduly pessimistic, do you reckon? Many thanks Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shirazeram Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Shiraz.. your question is a bit off topic for this thread, but to have your reply quickly.. here it goes:- No fee involved into adding a state sponsorhip to a VE175 (which turns it into a VE176) - New application to be made if you want to change a Nominated Occupation on an application. That is what Valeries did: she lodged an application VE176 with a different nominated occupation that the already lodged VE175, and that is why she had to pay fee for a new application. Cheers, Sylvia Thank you Sylvia for your reply! It seems that your visa processing went so fast while standing in MODL! Thanks God! I am in MODL and applied in April/2009 I am trying to accelerate my visa processing by SS but it seems that this way doesn't work after 23 sep! Any guidance and help will be appreciated. Please help me to find the best way. Thanks Shiraz Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jason RM0107604 Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 Hi Gill, as you probably know aus law is basically a rip off from english law - so much of you what suspect would apply - will apply at at least you knowledge of adminstative deciosn making law woud be relevant. I not an experti in adminstriative law but have some experiencing having some yers ago spent 30 days in a federal court hearing on adminstrative decision making by the govt without a barrister. i didnt win though so not sure if that experience is all too helpful. but i have gained an understanding following it is not easy to fight the govt when it wants to make a policy which is simply illogical. I havent fully researched it heres what i think. 1. is the policy made lawfully. The first step in determining the whether a policy was made lawfully is to determine whether it was made in accordnace with the power to make policies. Its a tehcnicality argument. I havent reviewed the actual policy but given the minister makes policies alot i suspect that it would have been made lawfully 2. adminstrative decision making and policy making as a general rule the minister has a right to make policies. These policies can be quite broad as long as they relate to the exercise of powers under the regulations. The policies cannot be inconsistent with the regulations. Under the regulations the minister is charged with deciding visa applications. A policy cannot be inconsistent with this obligation. In a general sense, a policy can lawfully determine how a decision is made in that regard when a decision is to be made in terms of priorities. I think you could only argue that the policy is unlawful if you can say that the effect of the policy is that decisions are not made properly. I think administrative law may support a finding to say that - well after a period of X years - in some cases it is no longer posible to to discharge the duty properly. - the argument is that the decision is no longer adequately referrable to the facts. Its a bit like when a judge hears a case and doesnt hand down his judgment until 2 years later - the decision is then a little questionable. further on this and posibly in the alternative, I would be concerned about how the minister is goign to adequately assess work experience claims 2, 3 and 4 years after the fact. Assuming i am right on this issue, and i dont really think that i am - then the next question is how long is X years before it can be said that the decision is no longer a decision adequately referrable to that application. i think in the context of migration, X would be 5 to 10 years and not the current policy which is 2 to 3 years. Therefore my gut instinct would be that we could not succeed on this ground. 2. contract law some years ago there was a case in the supreme court by an applicant against the australian insittute of management based on judicial review of an application to AIM for skills assessment. The case failed - primarily because the administrative appeals legislation applicable to adminstrative decision making for found to be not applicable to the AIM. But in passing the jduge made the comment that it is possible that the applicant could have applied for an order pursuant to a contract forming between the applicant and the AIM. This contract arose when the applicant paid his fees to the AIM for assesssment and the argument then would be that - the parties having a contract, the applicant could seek specific performance of that contract. The obligation upon formation of any such contract would be to assess the application and in the absence of any specific contract terms as to when the application would be assessed then a reasonable time would apply. If such a contract existed with DIAC and the applicant, then it could be argued that specific performance would be something that could be considered. Yet the difficulties with this argument is thati doubt making a visa applicant creates a contract. i think its different to making an application with the AIM. With teh AIM the person is contracting with them to assess their skills. Its called a skills assessment application, but in reality i think its more just a contract. but with the DIAC people are paying a fee as prescribed by Govt as part of a right to submit an application. I doubt this would be a contract. hence i do not think this ground would succeed. Where a contract is formed, rights are always much stronger than simply adminstrative rights - but in this case i doubt a contract is formed. 3. human rights. I completely understand the basis for consiedration under this category. Its time the Govt realises that not only refugees have human rights. Making some one sit around for years after you gave them an expectation their processing timeframe would be months not years is something which is quite disgusting. yet Australia - likel all countries, interprets its own obligations as to whether or not it is complying with its obligations under such treaties.i think it would be hard to run a point to say there is some type of humans rights issue in generic classes of migration. I do think the rights of refugees - to not be locked up in prison while the govt sits on its hands is something that does not directly translate to ordinary applicants who, while rightfully frustrated, are not otherwise shackled by the govt. there is unlikely to be any defacto abuse in such circumstances. 4. legitimate expectations in administrative law There is law to say that where a legitimate expectation is created then it may be possible for a party to compel the administrative decision maker to give effect to that legitimate expectation. This is a general principal of administrative law. it would ot apply to new applicants after the introduction of the policy, but may possibly apply to people who applied before the policy on the undertstanding that their cases would be processed in accordance with the timeframes given by diac at the time. There are some difficulties in advancing an argument on these grounds, but ultimately as a matter of principal if it can be shown that a legitimate expectation was created, then an applicant may be able to say they relied on that legitimate expecation to their detriment and expect that the legitimate expection be fulfilled. Again i have not recearched this avenue, but feel that in the circumstances it is probably the best avenue of the others explored herein to consider further. there are many cases on legitimate expectations in admin law. but its a long long time since i have read any of them. 5, estoppel Estoppel law as developed says basically that the minister cannot be esstopped from exercising any obligation it has in the regulations of act by inconsistent actions, words or policy. yet i am not sure that the rules on estopple would apply to the excercise of policy. I would think the estopple rules would apply to the exercise of powers expressly allowed for in the regulations and act. Yet the flip side of this coin is that the policy arises from the exercise of a power under the act. Im not decided on this point. The argument would be an estoppel arises from applying the policy because of legitimate expectations created as per item 4 above. ultimately - people cannot claim the decision maker or minister is estoppel fromthe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted October 13, 2009 Share Posted October 13, 2009 to the ebst of my knowledge the present skilled Migration and Points test came into force from 1st July 1999. Since then the previous Howard government then continued to do a patch work to both on-shore and off-shore. The skilled Indpendent was not targeted to the workforce requirement. I read a TRA report to the Senate of migrants who migrated as Tradespersons and about 70 percent did not continue their occupaton in Australia. It is my opinion that the government will announce a new immigration policy which will target labour shortage. A education program is likely to be set up for employers to sponsor occupations on the MODL (or CSL) regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Hi Gill, as you probably know aus law is basically a rip off from english law - so much of you what suspect would apply - will apply at at least you knowledge of adminstative deciosn making law woud be relevant. I not an experti in adminstriative law but have some experiencing having some yers ago spent 30 days in a federal court hearing on adminstrative decision making by the govt without a barrister. i didnt win though so not sure if that experience is all too helpful. but i have gained an understanding following it is not easy to fight the govt when it wants to make a policy which is simply illogical. I havent fully researched it heres what i think. 1. is the policy made lawfully. The first step in determining the whether a policy was made lawfully is to determine whether it was made in accordnace with the power to make policies. Its a tehcnicality argument. I havent reviewed the actual policy but given the minister makes policies alot i suspect that it would have been made lawfully 2. adminstrative decision making and policy making as a general rule the minister has a right to make policies. These policies can be quite broad as long as they relate to the exercise of powers under the regulations. The policies cannot be inconsistent with the regulations. Under the regulations the minister is charged with deciding visa applications. A policy cannot be inconsistent with this obligation. In a general sense, a policy can lawfully determine how a decision is made in that regard when a decision is to be made in terms of priorities. I think you could only argue that the policy is unlawful if you can say that the effect of the policy is that decisions are not made properly. I think administrative law may support a finding to say that - well after a period of X years - in some cases it is no longer posible to to discharge the duty properly. - the argument is that the decision is no longer adequately referrable to the facts. Its a bit like when a judge hears a case and doesnt hand down his judgment until 2 years later - the decision is then a little questionable. further on this and posibly in the alternative, I would be concerned about how the minister is goign to adequately assess work experience claims 2, 3 and 4 years after the fact. Assuming i am right on this issue, and i dont really think that i am - then the next question is how long is X years before it can be said that the decision is no longer a decision adequately referrable to that application. i think in the context of migration, X would be 5 to 10 years and not the current policy which is 2 to 3 years. Therefore my gut instinct would be that we could not succeed on this ground. 2. contract law some years ago there was a case in the supreme court by an applicant against the australian insittute of management based on judicial review of an application to AIM for skills assessment. The case failed - primarily because the administrative appeals legislation applicable to adminstrative decision making for found to be not applicable to the AIM. But in passing the jduge made the comment that it is possible that the applicant could have applied for an order pursuant to a contract forming between the applicant and the AIM. This contract arose when the applicant paid his fees to the AIM for assesssment and the argument then would be that - the parties having a contract, the applicant could seek specific performance of that contract. The obligation upon formation of any such contract would be to assess the application and in the absence of any specific contract terms as to when the application would be assessed then a reasonable time would apply. If such a contract existed with DIAC and the applicant, then it could be argued that specific performance would be something that could be considered. Yet the difficulties with this argument is thati doubt making a visa applicant creates a contract. i think its different to making an application with the AIM. With teh AIM the person is contracting with them to assess their skills. Its called a skills assessment application, but in reality i think its more just a contract. but with the DIAC people are paying a fee as prescribed by Govt as part of a right to submit an application. I doubt this would be a contract. hence i do not think this ground would succeed. Where a contract is formed, rights are always much stronger than simply adminstrative rights - but in this case i doubt a contract is formed. 3. human rights. I completely understand the basis for consiedration under this category. Its time the Govt realises that not only refugees have human rights. Making some one sit around for years after you gave them an expectation their processing timeframe would be months not years is something which is quite disgusting. yet Australia - likel all countries, interprets its own obligations as to whether or not it is complying with its obligations under such treaties.i think it would be hard to run a point to say there is some type of humans rights issue in generic classes of migration. I do think the rights of refugees - to not be locked up in prison while the govt sits on its hands is something that does not directly translate to ordinary applicants who, while rightfully frustrated, are not otherwise shackled by the govt. there is unlikely to be any defacto abuse in such circumstances. 4. legitimate expectations in administrative law There is law to say that where a legitimate expectation is created then it may be possible for a party to compel the administrative decision maker to give effect to that legitimate expectation. This is a general principal of administrative law. it would ot apply to new applicants after the introduction of the policy, but may possibly apply to people who applied before the policy on the undertstanding that their cases would be processed in accordance with the timeframes given by diac at the time. There are some difficulties in advancing an argument on these grounds, but ultimately as a matter of principal if it can be shown that a legitimate expectation was created, then an applicant may be able to say they relied on that legitimate expecation to their detriment and expect that the legitimate expection be fulfilled. Again i have not recearched this avenue, but feel that in the circumstances it is probably the best avenue of the others explored herein to consider further. there are many cases on legitimate expectations in admin law. but its a long long time since i have read any of them. 5, estoppel Estoppel law as developed says basically that the minister cannot be esstopped from exercising any obligation it has in the regulations of act by inconsistent actions, words or policy. yet i am not sure that the rules on estopple would apply to the excercise of policy. I would think the estopple rules would apply to the exercise of powers expressly allowed for in the regulations and act. Yet the flip side of this coin is that the policy arises from the exercise of a power under the act. Im not decided on this point. The argument would be an estoppel arises from applying the policy because of legitimate expectations created as per item 4 above. ultimately - people cannot claim the decision maker or minister is estoppel fromthe :hug::hug: Hi Jason Thank you very much ideed. I am too tired to analyse your reply right now but as I read it, several sentences leapt off the page. I think it is a simply brilliant reply. Fantastically well done. I'm going to read and re-read it later but must get some kip now.. Once again, very many thanks indeed. Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JoanneHattersley Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 With respect, its not always that simple. We've wanted to emigrate for at least 5 years now, I apologise if my comment was taken the wrong way. What I meant was ( I was replying to someone earlier) that I agreed with them, we can spend days debating the changes but it may be time to accept that it has happened and find a solution/way round. Easy for me to say being in Oz I know. SO I apologise....... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest shanks Posted October 14, 2009 Share Posted October 14, 2009 Has the new DIAC Policy now become the official 'Australian Way' for treating unsuspecting migrants? After the cheating by OZ Education Institutes offering worthless education for exorbitant fees, now the Government too has towed the line, by cheating applicants of their money and not providing the promised service within reasonable timelines, or just shifting goal posts at their fancy. KEEP UP THE REPUTATION AUSTRALIA !!! - Land of Cheats Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sherin Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 For example, making ENS the end of the queue. :wubclub: And then we all would look like a herd of goats running the very next time to reapply for new visas. :biggrin: Well I don’t agree with this, no matter whatever change happens I am sure ENS is going to be right on the top of the priority list. Apart from this ENS would also provide job security and lot of savings in teething cost (initial settling cost) Migrants ........ This website has got a list of possible expenses during the initial job hunt and a comparison on how an ENS could help in mitigating these expenses. But getting an ENS or RSMS seems a tough task …L Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Raphael6 Posted October 15, 2009 Share Posted October 15, 2009 Extending validty all documents for all this who folded the aplication everybody who folded aplication before the change!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 16, 2009 Share Posted October 16, 2009 Extending validty all documents for all this who folded the aplication everybody who folded aplication before the change!!!!!!!!!!!!! Hi Raphael6 I agree. It was never the intention of the set-up that people should have to get two or three approvals from ACS, two and possibly more sets of meds and police checks etc. The Minister has the power to order changes to processing priorities but that does not give him a right to tell prospective visa applicants to commit themselves to writing open cheques to the ACS, Panel Doctors etc. I mention the ACS because I understand that ACS approvals are only valid for 12 or 24 months. (I don't know which.) The Minister is losing credibility with his constant chopping and changing. He is giving the impression of panic-stricken indecision, which is the exact opposite of the impression his spin doctors want for him. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.