Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Not State Sponsored. Both with Master's Degree. -TRA 900 hours Appears there are discussion on a legal challenge on the validity of the 900 hrs. I am prepared to take it to the Court. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Glenn, The advertised processing time is for all onshore applications to be finalised by the end of 2011 so one assumes that the fact that there are so many less CSL applications in the onshore pool does allow them to process some onshore applications from all categories. I did read your post though and worry that you weren't talking about 485 applicants, for whom your scenario is perfectly within expectations, given the order of processing for the 485 (a temporary visa which most onshore graduates apply for): Processing priority for subclass 485 applications applications from people who have completed an Australian Doctor of Philosophy (PHD) at an Australian educational institution in Australia applications from people who have nominated an occupation on the CSL applications from people who have completed an Australian Bachelor degree and Australian Masters degree at an Australian educational institution in Australia applications from people who have completed an Australian Bachelor degree and Australian Honours degree (at least upper second class level) at an Australian educational institution in Australia applications from people who have completed an Australian Bachelor degree or Australian Masters degree at an Australian educational institution in Australia all other valid applications are to be processed in the order in which they are received. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think some decisions have been made last week by DIAC. Two of our on shore clients, not on the Critical list, have been requested to provide the outstanding documents, so that the visa could be finalised and granted. regards Glenn Pereira Dear Glenn, Thanks for your valuable information. Could you please clarify what sort of visa they applied, e.g. PR or TR? is it clearly addressed by the letter from DIAC that their visa would be finalized and granted once the outstanding documents are submitted in the timeline? If it's ture that ss or non ss without CSL occupation would be finalized soon, it would be a great news for all of us! Many thanks! Best Regards, Justin Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Hi Glenn The Minister's figures differ from the figures which DIAC staff provided to Jamie Smith and others at the MIA Conference in early October 2009. In the first radio interview, Mark Webster said that about 140,000 GSM applicatons are in the backlog, divided about 50/50 between onshore and offshore visas. The Minister says about 30,000 applications for onshore visas and about 105,000 applications for offshore visas. There are rumours that the WA State Migration Centre allegedly led the charge at last week's meeting in Hobart. Some agents are telling their clients that the Sttaes thrashed DIAC into agreeing that they could clear the offshore backlog by the end of 2011 (previously 2012.) The Minister hinted that the size of the skilled migration program could be increased in 2010/11 and beyond. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would be minded to strangle the Minister, frankly. In the Senate Estimates meeting in May 2009 the Minister bragged about how he had ridden roughshod over Metcalfe's insistence that major changes could not be made without careful. detailed evaluation of the Minister's ideas first. Mtcalfe looked as if he was chewing on bitter lemons as he tried to smile, I expect, and the pair of them wasted time on the usual anodyne platitudes about it. Andrew Metcalfe was right. Plans A & B failed to deliver what the politician demanded. So now the politician demands Plan C instead. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would get the Minister by the gonads and tell him in no uncertain terms that the god-awful mess which his half thought out tinkering with the skilled program has caused must now cease. Australia is losing credibility on the world stage as a direct result of the Minister's shenanigans during 2009 and if credibility is lost, support will be lost too. Nobody trusts the Aussie skilled immigration program any more and that trust will be very difficult to win back. Common sense is the only quality needed in order to work this bit out. The Minister has felt obliged to come out of the woodwork for long enough to talk to Peter Mares about the GSM program. Very well done to Peter Mares for forcing the blighter to speak to the world instead of hiding behind his Department. Even the locals in Oz seem to be livid with the Minister at the moment for being such a patsy with the rescued Tamils who seem to have hi-jacked the Aussie Government vessel Ocean Viking and seem to have been very effective about holding the Aussie Govt to ransom. In their shoes I would stay aboard the vessel and insist that the vessel must sail directly to Perth. If I were the P&O Captain of the vessel, I'd be asking the RAAN to send a warship to take the Tamils to Perth, or at least send a warship to escort Ocean Viking in case of a cyclone en route. Ocean Viking is too small for iffy weather in mid-ocean, particularly with too many people aboard. I suspect that Andrew Metcalfe has had enough and is finally putting his foot down. If so then all power to Mr Metcalfe in my eyes. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 I think some decisions have been made last week by DIAC. Two of our on shore clients, not on the Critical list, have been requested to provide the outstanding documents, so that the visa could be finalised and granted. regards Glenn Pereira It might be because minister and DIAC don't want onshore applicants to stay on bridging visas for a long time. In his ABC interview minister said that they are currently working on procedures for onshore app. to avoid this situation. Nevertheless, I hope it's much further step than just to solve one issue with onshore app. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The following email was sent to the Minister today not by me by the way. If any meaningful reply is received, and I mean meaningful, I will post. Dear Minister As you would be aware by now, your policy decision of 23 September has had a significant impact upon the migration plans of thousands of people. That group includes a number of my clients, as well as many independent visa applicants, who have asked me via online Australian migration forums to make representations to you about the effect of the changes on their visa processing times. As two of those forums in particular have tens of thousands of active members, your immediate response to the issues raised below would be appreciated. I am writing to ask you to consider restoring priority processing to two classes of GSM visa applicants – those who have been granted State Sponsorship; and those who undertook medicals and Police Clearance Certificates at the request of your Case Officers, on or prior to 23 September. If it is not possible to do this, at the very least, I would ask that you consider refunding the Visa Application Charges paid by people in these groups, who applied in good faith, complied with all the rules in force at the time and are now left in limbo until 2012. In three years, teenage children grow into adults, family and financial circumstances change and many of the people affected by your retrospective policy change will lose the opportunity to migrate to Australia altogether. Apart from the natural justice aspect of addressing the disadvantage suffered by those affected by your Department’s imposition of retrospective policy, I would ask you consider the economic impact of taking away processing priority from applications sponsored by States and Territories to address their particular skills shortages. Despite your Department’s recent claims, I would respectfully note that the CSL does NOT cover all areas of skills shortage in Australia; there are many occupations on both regional and general state lists that are not reflected on the CSL. While I am writing as one concerned Australian, my representations are underpinned by the concerns of thousands of affected visa applicants. Accordingly, as noted above, your early response would be appreciated, for forwarding to those concerned. Thank you in advance. Sincerely Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Hi Chris Thank you for posting the letter. I have been waiting a week for the courtesy of a reply to my letter to the Australian High Commissioner in London. I have no idea why he has not even had the courtesy to acknowledge my letter but I am not impressed by his silence. The Aussie Government is proving to be remarkably reluctant to talk with the visa applicants who are directly affected by the Minister's latest U-turn. This could be because they are aware that they have no viable answers for the financial and emotional harm they have caused and are causing to the people concerned. Chers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Glenn Pereira Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 The GSM both on-shore and off-shore policies was not targeted to meet job demands. It was badly designed in July 99, Sept 07. Having seen the "job Ready test" for on-shore applications, we are going to land into the same situation as the existing "900 hrs" but a different type of a scam. I had no option to re-design the "job ready test" and send it to the Ministers and the Dept. I hope they accept my proposal. Their aim was to replicate the domestic apprenticeship model for International Students with no support for Internaitonal students to secure job placements. DIAC & TRA was fully aware of the template scams in 2007. I am unable to comprehend who "stuffed it up" and allowed applicants to lodge application with bogus employment documents and bogus 900 hrs voluntary work experience certificate. The irony of the entire operations is that TRA approved a majority of these cases. To identify each of the "scammed application" has kept DIAC staff occupied and possibly justify their wages. It is like "unblocking" an underground pipeline. I hope they announce sensible policies for the future. Regards Glenn Pereira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
merlino Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Hi Glenn The Minister's figures differ from the figures which DIAC staff provided to Jamie Smith and others at the MIA Conference in early October 2009. In the first radio interview, Mark Webster said that about 140,000 GSM applicatons are in the backlog, divided about 50/50 between onshore and offshore visas. The Minister says about 30,000 applications for onshore visas and about 105,000 applications for offshore visas. There are rumours that the WA State Migration Centre allegedly led the charge at last week's meeting in Hobart. Some agents are telling their clients that the Sttaes thrashed DIAC into agreeing that they could clear the offshore backlog by the end of 2011 (previously 2012.) The Minister hinted that the size of the skilled migration program could be increased in 2010/11 and beyond. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would be minded to strangle the Minister, frankly. In the Senate Estimates meeting in May 2009 the Minister bragged about how he had ridden roughshod over Metcalfe's insistence that major changes could not be made without careful. detailed evaluation of the Minister's ideas first. Mtcalfe looked as if he was chewing on bitter lemons as he tried to smile, I expect, and the pair of them wasted time on the usual anodyne platitudes about it. Andrew Metcalfe was right. Plans A & B failed to deliver what the politician demanded. So now the politician demands Plan C instead. If I were Andrew Metcalfe I would get the Minister by the gonads and tell him in no uncertain terms that the god-awful mess which his half thought out tinkering with the skilled program has caused must now cease. Australia is losing credibility on the world stage as a direct result of the Minister's shenanigans during 2009 and if credibility is lost, support will be lost too. Nobody trusts the Aussie skilled immigration program any more and that trust will be very difficult to win back. Common sense is the only quality needed in order to work this bit out. The Minister has felt obliged to come out of the woodwork for long enough to talk to Peter Mares about the GSM program. Very well done to Peter Mares for forcing the blighter to speak to the world instead of hiding behind his Department. Even the locals in Oz seem to be livid with the Minister at the moment for being such a patsy with the rescued Tamils who seem to have hi-jacked the Aussie Government vessel Ocean Viking and seem to have been very effective about holding the Aussie Govt to ransom. In their shoes I would stay aboard the vessel and insist that the vessel must sail directly to Perth. If I were the P&O Captain of the vessel, I'd be asking the RAAN to send a warship to take the Tamils to Perth, or at least send a warship to escort Ocean Viking in case of a cyclone en route. Ocean Viking is too small for iffy weather in mid-ocean, particularly with too many people aboard. I suspect that Andrew Metcalfe has had enough and is finally putting his foot down. If so then all power to Mr Metcalfe in my eyes. Cheers Gill Beats me why this government is choosing to spend time negotiating with economic refugees and agreeing to their ridiculous ransoms than actually working out a solution to clean up this PR mess with their skilled visa programme. Didn't the immigration minister make it known (in his most recent radio interview) that what his economy actually needs are more stethoscopes than hairdryers? He cited unfavourable economic conditions as reasons for putting a hold on skilled applications which are not on his ever-evolving critical skills list. Now, it makes me wonder how showing compassion and readily dishing out resettlement visas to economic refugees will bring his economy any good ? Wouldn't his economy need even more stethoscopes for every refugee brought in? Skilled and experienced professionals who have legitimately applied in good faith, uploaded documents, passed English tests, and are cleared for medical and police checks, are now virtually ostracised because of this bungle. On the vast contrary, we all know that skilled migrants will be more than ready to pour money in order to establish themselves in their newly adopted country, so why cut us off? Australia is a huge continent, with many potential areas for development. Saying that skilled migrants will burden the economy is simply short-sighted, and coming from an immigration minister himself, is just plain naive. Back to school perhaps? Immigration 101? Australia is just fortunate to be situated in this region where thousands of students from Asian countries flock over in droves. Attracting international students is a lucrative business and continues to be for Australia, after all it is old news that international students contribute significantly to this economy. Take a walk in Perth or Sydney's CBD, and you'll find a sea of international students thronging malls, cinemas, cafes. I was once an international student and had a good understanding of the situation on the ground. It is also a well-known fact that dangling PR carrots with certain degree courses are even greater incentives for studying in Australia. While it has become harder to snag PRs in recent years, I personally doubt prospective students in the region will consider further options like the UK. Australia has established itself very well in this region, and will continue to be a top pick for education, especially with many budget carriers (Jetstar, Tiger) operating multiple routes in the region which translates to more affordable travel for budget conscious students. But, this is no one-way street, I am certain that skilled migration will bring in more economic benefits than burden, and should not be a force not to be reckoned with. The situation is slowly changing as we speak, and Australia may not be a top pick for immigration anymore. A chat with a doctor while doing my medicals a couple of months ago here in Singapore, even said that he's observed more people applying to Canada than Australia. I write with disappointment that like the immigration minister himself, many on the streets have come to believe that immigrants are seen as a bane to the economy. They fight for jobs. If this message is what we want to send to the masses, then I observe with utmost skepticism that employers themselves will change their mindsets and come to accept the benefits of hiring a non-local. That person holding the hairdryer, driving the cement mixer, operating the crane, or fixing your Internet connection could very well be a skilled migrant. Yet you see and hear in the news about "boat people" setting foot and the government openly negotiating resettlement plans with these illegal immigrants. This brouhaha is not only a fiasco, it is a circus! What message is this country sending out? Get on a boat, take a ship ransom, and we'll entertain you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connaust Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Domestic politics, bit of old "white Australia" raising its head and refugees on boats receive all the attention because it is such a political wedge issue. While economy runs hot, all is fine, but when it slows down government tries to appease those in marginal electorates especially (think there are state govt. elections coming in 2010). Rather than explain benefits of migration and international students to Australia, they have been demonised in the media for short term political capital, plus tied in with population estimates, environment, (apparent) housing shortages etc.. Meanwhile, Indian student market is apparently on verge of collapse especially affecting private colleges, TAFEs and universities (plus their education and MARA agents) in Melbourne, followed by Sydney. Yet still ....... nobody, both domestic and international, is clear on what the real skill shortages are, and where, so that students can be encouraged to train and study, or migrants to take up employment, in these occupations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted November 16, 2009 Share Posted November 16, 2009 Hi Glenn I am unable to comprehend who "stuffed it up" and allowed applicants to lodge application with bogus employment documents and bogus 900 hrs voluntary work experience certificate. "Unnamed officials" from the UK Border Agency have been moaning to the UK Press that they are obliged to accept documents which they know are bogus because they are on performance targets which require them to be seen to grant x,ooo visas a year on behalf of a British Government which is determined to encourage immigrants from all possible sources - legal and illegal. There is none so blind as a Government that does not want to see, I suspect! Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 My hunch is that the Minister will use the increasing number of media articles about skills shortages and economic recovery - see: Shortfall of 1.4m workers threatens pension age | The Australian Country 'faces skills shortage by 2025' to magically find additional skilled visas (maybe for this program year) which will accommodate a reasonable number of priority 5 applicants plus the "meds and penals requested" cases. Just a hunch, but you heard it here first ... :twitcy: Best regards. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 PS. Doesn't all this nonsense make you realise that none of the incumbent Ministers (in Australia, or the UK) are remotely employable in the real world. Makes me wonder why we tolerate such nonsense - bring on the revolution! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 A very reasonable assumption Alan. if unemployment stays at or below 6% as some forecast, DIAC will need to speed up processing. The big issue remains that 130,000+/- on hand now and perhaps another 100,000 applications in 12 months does not go into the 108,000 places available, so there will always be justification for raising the points threshold, delinking student visas from skilled visas, narrowing the occupations on various lists and yes lifting the size of the program. With a wide range of occupations in demand and a flawed MODL and ASCO system to calssify them, there will always be difficulties in targeting visa grants by occupation and analysing the results of that targeting. The best approach is for DIAC to finish modelling the new MODL and incorporate the new ANZSCO and scrap many of the existing visa requirements. Three layers, methinks: A core MODL set by Federal Govt for major strategic professions like medicine, engineering, plus a bunch of occupations only nominated by States, with the States relying on the new MODL system data plus direct employer research from their own State to select those occupations. Student study as linked to option 1 earns permanent visa grant, and study linked to option 2 requires an employment offer to exit the student visa and then proof of employment 12 months later to be eligible for PR. or summat like that. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jamie Smith Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I can't really think of anyone in DIAC who would competently have their head across all visa categories and understands how the different visas work together, or not. But I can think of a number of agents who can. Agents are paid to develop teh best visa strategy for client, and good agents have this broad understanding. DIAC are foolishly and ridiculously gun shy in not talking to known reliable agents about policy design. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Hi Jamie, Yes, I think the sheer weight of numbers do militate a little against Alan's power of positive thinking approach, particularly as a 50,000 place increase in the program would be needed to clear the current backlog in three years, given the constant flow of new CSL applicants. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alan Collett Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 On the subject of positive thinking ... our esteemed PM has been talking about a population of 35m by 2049. If we work on the basis of that being a 12m increase from where we are now, that makes 300,000 additional persons per annum. Even allowing for ex-Treasurer Costello's exhortations to have a child for Australia I reckon much of that population increase would have to come from the migration program. So why not add an extra 50,000 this year? Onwards! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Perhaps they should have poured the stimulus money into an increased baby bonus Alan, or they could have saved some money and made our emissions situation better by staging regular Saturday night blackouts in each capital city. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 I think some decisions have been made last week by DIAC. Two of our on shore clients, not on the Critical list, have been requested to provide the outstanding documents, so that the visa could be finalised and granted. regards Glenn Pereira Dear All, Not sure whether all of you noticed this indicative post by Glenn or not. Glenn said that, both of them were not state sponsored and not on the Critial list. if they applied for 885 skilled independent visa, it would be a good news for the SS 176 offshore applicants, being on the priority 5, as 176 and 885 are classified in the same category for the new direction on 23 Sep 09. However, if they just applied for the 485 visa (TR), it means nothing to all of the state sponsorship applicants either offshore 176 or onshore 886, as 485 visa is assessed in its own territory, being processed concurrently with other visas, according to their date of lodgement. Please correct it, if i am wrong. Regards, JUSTIN Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McKlaut Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 My hunch is that the Minister will use the increasing number of media articles about skills shortages and economic recovery - see: Shortfall of 1.4m workers threatens pension age | The Australian Country 'faces skills shortage by 2025' to magically find additional skilled visas (maybe for this program year) which will accommodate a reasonable number of priority 5 applicants plus the "meds and penals requested" cases. Just a hunch, but you heard it here first ... :twitcy: Best regards. I think we will excuse any sudden improvements in migration made by the minister or whomsoever else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
connaust Posted November 17, 2009 Share Posted November 17, 2009 Regarding employability of ministers etc. Like Britain there is now a policy of putting more Australian students through university... but, unlike prospective migrants, there seems to be no targetting of skills nor study and career pathways to satisfy shortages? Of course no coincidence that Labor is connected to tertiary education employees unions, but more importantly senior management, Rudd is a former colleague and great mates with several Vice Chancellors..... At least they could encourage more science, engineering, IT and health/medical based graduates...... and advice in secondary school ....... but seems to be a brazen money grab to ensure nice easy glide into retirement for tenured, senior personnel.... especially as some international university student markets have fallen off a cliff i.e. India, visa changes will probably affect China too.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Justin JIANG Posted November 20, 2009 Share Posted November 20, 2009 I just have a look at the 'Review of the migration occupations in demand list issues paper No.2, Sep 2009' by DIAC. In page 18, it says ' It would alo be sensible to look to align any changes to MODL with DIAC's plan to transition from using ASCO to ANZCO as a basis for the SOL in the first half 2010'. In additon to the following factors, my humble view is that:a) it wouldn't be any news before the new MODL is released by DIAC;b) the proposed MODL change would most possibly be launched by DIAC during Feb to April 2010, c) non-CSL, SS applicant, being on priority 5 would be expected to have at lease one year delay in their visa processing if there isn't any good news alongside with the MODL changes in future: 1. Generally government would not change the policy frequently where a proposed change would be coming soon in the early of 2010. 2. There would be new CSL applicants come up in front of the non-csl, ss applicant being on priority 5. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest cat5 Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Just got a letter from my CO yesterday. Nothing new, still the same old explaining by the department Do you think it is unusual for me to receive a letter from my CO considering I'm now in priority 5 just like many of you. Just keeping my hopes up. Patience s a virtue!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Just got a letter from my CO yesterday. Nothing new, still the same old explaining by the department Do you think it is unusual for me to receive a letter from my CO considering I'm now in priority 5 just like many of you. Just keeping my hopes up. Patience s a virtue!! It is a standard letter/email. But watch this space, there is expected changes in Dec that MAY, repeat MAY, give some hope to some people. Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted November 21, 2009 Share Posted November 21, 2009 Just got a letter from my CO yesterday. Nothing new, still the same old explaining by the department Do you think it is unusual for me to receive a letter from my CO considering I'm now in priority 5 just like many of you. Just keeping my hopes up. Patience s a virtue!! Actually the pattern we've deduced from those letters is that they're being sent when all requirements would otherwise be met. Were it not for prioritisation.... However if the rumours are correct then January to December 2010 will be a period of positive change and you'll be glad you had that letter. Cheers George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.