Changes to MODL - 8 Feb 2010

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Since this thread is moving into areas of policy, focused on the 20,000, I've had a thought that the very best form of advocacy which could be done for them would be to work for the Department to offer them "fee-free" second applications. Many will fail the English requirements, and many will have skills assessments which are now expired, but it should assist most.

 

Would also be nice if some recruiters or employee agents (such as Jamie) could donate some time to assisting the 20,000 find job offers for possible ENS applications - these applications will be fee-free until the cap and kill determination actually takes effect, which will probably be 30 June, the end of the program year.

 

As for the prospects of mass litigation, I am sure that a number of lawyers are looking at this but until there is actually a cap and kill instrument (ie the Minister needs to publish a determination specifying the numbers of visas in each subclass to be granted in the relevant program year) the only possibility is a mandamus action forcing them to proceed to a decision if a matter is decision-ready.

 

The lawyers with most experience of a successful "class action" would be David Bitel from Parish Patience (it's true that Nigel had the idea for him) and Adrian Joel but to run one of these things you need both a good idea (I am sure there would be four or five barristers looking at this now on spec) and superior administrative skills, particularly if there are thousands of people caught up in the action. One for you to consider, Chris.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Hi George

 

I've never done any sort of litigation. In the UK, the Rules of the Supreme Court are known as "The White Book" because the cover used to be white in the old days of paper and books. It was a thick thing - getting on for 2 inches thick and it seemed to be closely typed from a distance. I've never actuallly opened it myself so I haven't a clue about the hundreds of rules!

 

David Bitel gives Nigel Dobbie the credit for the legal idea that won the big Student case for them. However that does not seem to have been a class action? (At least, I've never got further than a title of the case and the hazy understanding that something was wrong with the procedure used by DIAC for the visa cancellations.)

 

Does there have to be a class action? My ultra-vague understanding of the Student case was that there was only one Plaintiff - Mr Uzzin - but that winning the argument for him set the precedent for all of the others?

 

I'm so vague about litigation that any fool can work out that I wouldn't have a clue how to help the people like Babboo and Virtual Bajwa on here myself. Plus Mandamus and Certorari were ditched out of English Law long before my own time - if I ever knew what they were, I forgot it 30 years ago! I know that Aussie Law still has them but I don't know how they work.

 

However my legal instincts are generally good and generallly right. I'm simply not convinced that the Judges in Oz would allow the Minister to use Cap & Kill in order to pick and choose between legitimate applicants for legitimate visas?

 

Many thanks

 

Gill

[Christopher McGrath]

Perhaps one avenue of protest could be through Opposition MPs and/or the Shadow Minister for DIAC. Oppositions love putting it to the sitting Government. Also the press and certain TV programs might see the human interest part of all this. It is the election year here in Australia and sitting Governments hate to be criticised at any time, but especially in election year.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Perhaps one avenue of protest could be through Opposition MPs and/or the Shadow Minister for DIAC. Oppositions love putting it to the sitting Government. Also the press and certain TV programs might see the human interest part of all this. It is the election year here in Australia and sitting Governments hate to be criticised at any time, but especially in election year.

 

Hi Chris

 

Some of the Senators gave Minister Evans a good mauling the other day. I don't know anything about the Baird Inquiry and the Students but Senator McLucas told the Minister firmly that with everyone whingeing that Baird would sort it all out, what on earth was the hurry with the Minister for Immi's hasty and half-baked announcement on 8th Fen 2010. Why has he pre-empted Baird?

 

She also told him that his constant chopping and changing is giving Australia a simply filthy reputation on the world stage - which is true. Foreigners like me have learned in a hurry that Krudd's Krew cannot be trusted an inch.

 

Senator Hanson-Young just mauled him! Good for her. He needed it! Senator Guy Barnett clearly didn't believe many of the Minister's claims and Senator Gary Humphries seemed equally sceptical to me.

 

We have lost this in the UK. In 1997, Tony Blair got such a huge majority for New Labour that they have been able to ignore Parliament ever since. They just spin everything out to the Press and tell Parliament about it later, once the change is already a done deal, which I think is a huge pity.

 

Blair was ghastly and his wife was even worse. Blair behaved like the Cheshire Cat - the grin preceded the man and his fatuous statements. However Gordon Brown is infinitely worse. At least he has a respectable and silent wife, which is something, but he is ghastly enough for both of them.

 

At least Blair didn't get the EU Presidency. He would have been totally intolerable if he had got that. One of his moronic spin doctors yapped that Blair had the "motorcade factor" or some such nonsense. Watching the Blair Circus would bring Paris to a halt apparently. Hmmm. Very good reason not to have a bunch of acrobats anywhere near a serious show, then, imho.

 

At least Australia does still seem to know what Parliamentary Democracy is for and what it is about. I'd hang on to that if I were Australia.

 

However George Lombard said that in an election year, Parliament in Oz tends to rubber stamp whatever the sitting Government wants? Is that right? I assume that George is right because he does know a huge amount about how Australia works. I hope he isn't right for the sake of those who want to migrate to Oz - especially the 20,000 - but I have a horrible feeling that George may well be right?

 

If so, the Minister for Immi's timing is clever and he can more or less do as he likes - including changing the law retrospectively?

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Christopher McGrath]

Without wanting to spend time going back into old history, I remember when the then Minister first introduced a new Parent Visa whereby a certain large sum of money had to be paid. I think it was Minister Ruddock at the time. That catagory came in but a few months later the Opposition disallowed the bill, so it was scrubbed. DIAC under its name at that time, said none of the applications lodged wiuld be considered as the catagory now didnt exist. I cant remember why, but DIAC was forced to change its mind and had to assess those applications lodged after the catagory's commencement, and the date the Bill was disallowed. The lesson was DIAC created a catagory and was forced to assess all who applied and grant visas where the criteria was met.

[Guest babboo]

Without wanting to spend time going back into old history, I remember when the then Minister first introduced a new Parent Visa whereby a certain large sum of money had to be paid. I think it was Minister Ruddock at the time. That catagory came in but a few months later the Opposition disallowed the bill, so it was scrubbed. DIAC under its name at that time, said none of the applications lodged wiuld be considered as the catagory now didnt exist. I cant remember why, but DIAC was forced to change its mind and had to assess those applications lodged after the catagory's commencement, and the date the Bill was disallowed. The lesson was DIAC created a catagory and was forced to assess all who applied and grant visas where the criteria was met.

 

Dear Chris McGrath, George, Gill and Susan :hug:

 

Thank you all very much for taking up this issue and giving us insight and the relevant laws and examples of blunders done by DIAC. Thank you all for also forwarding the links to Immigration Lawyers ... I have just called my brother in Melbourne and told him to contact them personally. I am seriously considering a review and challenging this legislation in the court of Law.

 

I am also inviting all through this forum/ post -- All prior 1st Sep. 2007 applicants who have been affected to contact me by phone or email to discuss this issue and lets fight out this retrospective DIAC agenda. I am ready to cough out some more to teach these " People Our Business" department a lesson.

 

Babboo

babboo67@yahoo.in

[Guest china]

Just so you know, although you are very right that the IELTS booking system is archaic, we were able to call and ask which dates thhey had available, so we were able to put down two dates which we know have plenty of spaces on, and both work for us. That was with the Harrogate LAnguage Agency in Leeds, very helpful people! x

[zoe1922]

Hi all,

 

I started my GSM visa application online a few days before 8th February. I have read through the articles and information on the DIAC website but I am confused as to whether I started it in time and it is classed as 'Pending' and I'm ok if I still lodge it, or if I am wasting my time and should try for a state sponsored.

 

My occupation was on the MODL so I was going to claim the extra points for that. Or should I wait and see what is on the new SOL when it comes out? There's no guarantee that my occupation (childcare coordinator) will be on it though (as with all the other occupations).

 

Also, I now have no idea what priority a GSM has if it is not on the CSL?

 

Thanks for any help you can give me:jiggy:

[Graemsay]

Zoe, I think that you need to have the application submitted (and the fee paid) to lock in the extra 15 MODL points. It sounds like you've got a completed application form, but haven't actually pushed the button yet.

 

At present a non-CSL application that's not state sponsored will take around three years to process. I'm not sure what priority category it's in, but I haven't heard of any category 6 applicants being processed, and that would be the best case.

 

If you get state sponsorship then it'll bump you up to category 5, and you might get a visa sooner. Given DIAC's been making noises that suggest independent migration is on the way out then it might actually be a necessity in future.

[McKlaut]

Hi all,

 

I started my GSM visa application online a few days before 8th February.

 

Thanks for any help you can give me:jiggy:

Was your application fee withdrawn before 08/02/2010, have you received a TRN and on-line status shows "application commenced" before 08/02/2010?

 

If "yes" then your application is considered as submitted before 08/02/2010.

[WAITINGGAME]

Hi

 

Dont know if anybody can help but here goes.

 

Basically am just wondering we have recieved SS for QLD, but am thinking when the new list comes out in July and Joiners (OH Trade) maybe not be on there, can we apply for other states which will have joiners on to get us there quicker even though we have been excepted into QLD.

 

Thanks

Lindsey

[McKlaut]

Hi

 

Dont know if anybody can help but here goes.

 

Basically am just wondering we have recieved SS for QLD, but am thinking when the new list comes out in July and Joiners (OH Trade) maybe not be on there, can we apply for other states which will have joiners on to get us there quicker even though we have been excepted into QLD.

 

Thanks

Lindsey

 

Have you accepted it? Did you sign the agreement?

If no, then you may apply for other SS.

 

But I think it will be too late to do this when you signed the agreement and DIAC gets form 1100 from VIC.

[WAITINGGAME]

Have you accepted it? Did you sign the agreement?

If no, then you may apply for other SS.

 

But I think it will be too late to do this when you signed the agreement and DIAC gets form 1100 from VIC.

 

 

Yeh i think my agent has sorted all that out for me....!! arrhhhh well nevermind worth a try i will keep hanging on in there

 

Thanks for you help

[Guest maxpain12]

The MIA's decision to not take a harsher stance towards the recent legislation may in fact have the best interest of the agents and their clients in mind. Lets for say they did come up with harsh criticism then all affiliated agents and their clients may be seen by the relevant visa authorities in a negative light and given the benefit of doubt the case officer may choose to rule in disfavor of the MIA affiliated client/agent. So in taking a softer stance more in favor of the visa office MIA may actually be helping the clients of their members still in the visa process. It's just my opinion, but please feel free to correct me if anyone feels otherwise.

[Guest shaman]

The MIA's decision to not take a harsher stance towards the recent legislation may in fact have the best interest of the agents and their clients in mind. Lets for say they did come up with harsh criticism then all affiliated agents and their clients may be seen by the relevant visa authorities in a negative light and given the benefit of doubt the case officer may choose to rule in disfavor of the MIA affiliated client/agent. So in taking a softer stance more in favor of the visa office MIA may actually be helping the clients of their members still in the visa process. It's just my opinion, but please feel free to correct me if anyone feels otherwise.

 

 

 

I totally disagree with you.

Buy being quiet MIA is doing a disservice for their clients and their own interest,

[Guest maxpain12]

This is exactly what came into my mind first when I heard the news.

Offshore applicants have no relations whatever to this mess with student influx problems. BUT it's so easy to cap them that the minister decided to kill their lives first of all.

 

Bloody policy it's so disgusting. Sometimes it seems that politicians have no souls in their bodies.

 

I am of the opinion that the Aussie's prefer to have folks they know will adjust to their cultural and social norms without much trouble. To them onshore experience seems like the best way to gage adaptability which to me seems draconian. When I applied in August 2009 they were giving skill point bonuses for those who have lived there. I don't have any onshore experience but wished I had just looking at the preferences given to it then. What they decide in this regard is their own business in the end but I disagree with their judgement. I can say this because I was in the States for many years and I know some folks who came through the green card program and in one instance this guy could not talk one word of English and his attempts to learn the language ended in failure. He was alienated and eventually committed suicide. It's a good bet that they will find out sooner or later that just been onshore does not necessarily mean the individual is adaptable or can contribute to a critical skill area. Then those poor onshore folks will have their apps thrown out as well. The minister seriously needs to sit down and draw up mature immigration legislation. With exception to the green card program they can use the US immigration program as a base. The US INS has some monumental barriers to immigration but at least no one is unnecessarily on hold and the few who qualify can be certain of their eligibility as it is legally protected by the immigration laws at the time of filing, preventing their app been thrown out the door 3 years later due to new policy changes. Now there may be certain provisions where previous immigration rulings can be nullified but I have yet to see the U.S govt enact them at large.

[McKlaut]

I am of the opinion that the Aussie's prefer to have folks they know will adjust to their cultural and social norms without much trouble. To them onshore experience seems like the best way to gage adaptability which to me seems draconian. When I applied in August 2009 they were giving skill point bonuses for those who have lived there. I don't have any onshore experience but wished I had just looking at the preferences given to it then. What they decide in this regard is their own business in the end but I disagree with their judgement. I can say this because I was in the States for many years and I know some folks who came through the green card program and in one instance this guy could not talk one word of English and his attempts to learn the language ended in failure. He was alienated and eventually committed suicide. It's a good bet that they will find out sooner or later that just been onshore does not necessarily mean the individual is adaptable or can contribute to a critical skill area. Then those poor onshore folks will have their apps thrown out as well. The minister seriously needs to sit down and draw up mature immigration legislation. With exception to the green card program they can use the US immigration program as a base. The US INS has some monumental barriers to immigration but at least no one is unnecessarily on hold and the few who qualify can be certain of their eligibility as it is legally protected by the immigration laws at the time of filing, preventing their app been thrown out the door 3 years later due to new policy changes. Now there may be certain provisions where previous immigration rulings can be nullified but I have yet to see the U.S govt enact them at large.

 

The only reason I see for cutting offshore only is that Aus gov. is afraid of scarifying onshore student ducks. They cost them a fortune so nobody is brave enough to shoot them.

 

I also think that it's a fair rule that if you eligible at the time of submitting an application you will be positivelly assessed sooner or later. With no retrospetiveness.

But, I see, this is what the current minister cannot stand at all. He thinks that applicants may only hope to be assessed based on applying rules but they have no rights to be exempt from any later changes in any laws.

[dasalcedo]

I am of the opinion that the Aussie's prefer to have folks they know will adjust to their cultural and social norms without much trouble. To them onshore experience seems like the best way to gage adaptability which to me seems draconian. When I applied in August 2009 they were giving skill point bonuses for those who have lived there. I don't have any onshore experience but wished I had just looking at the preferences given to it then. What they decide in this regard is their own business in the end but I disagree with their judgement. I can say this because I was in the States for many years and I know some folks who came through the green card program and in one instance this guy could not talk one word of English and his attempts to learn the language ended in failure. He was alienated and eventually committed suicide. It's a good bet that they will find out sooner or later that just been onshore does not necessarily mean the individual is adaptable or can contribute to a critical skill area. Then those poor onshore folks will have their apps thrown out as well. The minister seriously needs to sit down and draw up mature immigration legislation. With exception to the green card program they can use the US immigration program as a base. The US INS has some monumental barriers to immigration but at least no one is unnecessarily on hold and the few who qualify can be certain of their eligibility as it is legally protected by the immigration laws at the time of filing, preventing their app been thrown out the door 3 years later due to new policy changes. Now there may be certain provisions where previous immigration rulings can be nullified but I have yet to see the U.S govt enact them at large.

If you don't know much about DIAC and their rules, it is better to say nothing.

 

I'm an Offshore pre-september 2007 applicant who have been living in Australia for 3 years and for them, It doesn't count as I have just studied short courses in order to wait for the visa I'm never going to get. Now I can't reapply as I lost my work experience.

 

I totally disagree with you in both of your comments.

[Guest maxpain12]

If you don't know much about DIAC and their rules, it is better to say nothing.

 

I'm an Offshore pre-september 2007 applicant who have been living in Australia for 3 years and for them, It doesn't count as I have just studied short courses in order to wait for the visa I'm never going to get. Now I can't reapply as I lost my work experience.

 

I totally disagree with you in both of your comments.

 

It's not about not knowing about the rules; its simple logic. You can't accept someones application on a certain pretense and then tell them years later sory no cigar. It's unfair and under the belt. The rules that were in place at the time of filing should be the rules you are subjective to since you may have paid agents thousands of dollars for your filling. That's how most other countries work in the developed world. I don't think I need to understand anything more clear than that. If your short courses were eligible and you lost your chance it is unfortunate indeed, assuming you inquired for eligibility before attempting your course of study.

[Guest babboo]

If you don't know much about DIAC and their rules, it is better to say nothing.

 

I'm an Offshore pre-september 2007 applicant who have been living in Australia for 3 years and for them, It doesn't count as I have just studied short courses in order to wait for the visa I'm never going to get. Now I can't reapply as I lost my work experience.

 

I totally disagree with you in both of your comments.

 

Well, how u can be in Australia since last 3 years and lose every thing... I am Offshore and Prior September 2007 and I am offshore still.... please explain and what happened???

[dasalcedo]

It's not about not knowing about the rules; its simple logic. You can't accept someones application on a certain pretense and then tell them years later sory no cigar. It's unfair and under the belt. The rules that were in place at the time of filing should be the rules you are subjective to since you may have paid agents thousands of dollars for your filling. That's how most other countries work in the developed world. I don't think I need to understand anything more clear than that. If your short courses were eligible and you lost your chance it is unfortunate indeed, assuming you inquired for eligibility before attempting your course of study.

 

That's how NOT other developed countries like Canada works. I invite you to know the rules there and realise that they RESPECT people and treat them fairy.

[Guest maxpain12]

That's how NOT other developed countries like Canada works. I invite you to know the rules there and realise that they RESPECT people and treat them fairy.

 

Then I kindly request you to re-read my post and realize thats exactly what I have said there. In fact its written all over the post. Whats this obsession with rules. Any joker can make any rule; rules are just a tool to use in order to achieve ones(I.E Aussie Govt) objectives. When there is no fairness behind policy decisions the rules preceding this are the obvious outcome. So don't look at it from a rules perspective but rather a lack of humanity in the first place. It is about doing things in such a way that people get treated fairly. It's about humanity inherent in some systems while totally devoid in others. If you can't understand that statement then send a private message and I will give my best shot to help you out.

[tcillc]

Review of the General Skilled Migration Points Test - Discussion Paper is now available at http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/points-test-discussion.pdf

[Guest samra138]

Hi Gill and everyone,

I want to share with you my time line and hope you could advise me

I am 475 state sponsored.

May 2009---------applied online for visa 475

May 2009---------frontloaded my medical

July 2009---------CO allocated and asked for PCC and Form 80

Sep 2009---------CO asked again for form 80 due to answers are not completed

Sep 2009---------23 Sep the law changed (beca me CAT 5)

ِBecause I am under asco code 2231_79 I tried to make another assessment because I have one of the specialization in MODL and also in CSL. I did not apply for MODL because i did not matter before 23 Sep as I was in Cat 2.

Jan 2010---------received a positive skills assessment. so I am now MODL and in CSL

I sent it to the CO and in the second day he asked me resend FORM 80 because of missing answers.

I felt so bad because I did not fill it so carefully in the second time.

.

.

Now I am wondering how long it might take after I became Cat 3 according to the new law in 8 Feb.

When I sent to my CO to ask about the status of my application, he said it is undergoing checks and might tajeseveral months

 

Best Regards,

Sam

[Guest bilaln30]

Hi Gill and everyone,

I sent it to the CO and in the second day he asked me resend FORM 80 because of missing answers.

I felt so bad because I did not fill it so carefully in the second time.

.

.

Now I am wondering how long it might take after I became Cat 3 according to the new law in 8 Feb.

When I sent to my CO to ask about the status of my application, he said it is undergoing checks and might tajeseveral months

 

Best Regards,

Sam

 

Dear Sam,

I am also at the same stage. My CO also asked me to amend Form 80 on 6 Feb. Form 80 is for 'Character Checks". Most probably they are carrying your Character Checks. How they carry out these checks, nobody knows.

 

I know two cases who were asked to amend Form 80 in Nov, 2009 and still no visa.

 

I hope that u get visa soon

Regards,

Bilal

[Guest dragsterwish]

That's how NOT other developed countries like Canada works. I invite you to know the rules there and realise that they RESPECT people and treat them fairy.

 

I think Australia is becoming worse in its immigration BUT Canada is equally bad. Last year, the Canadian immigration made a retrospective immigration policy change that affected those already submitted their PR application. I was one of the victim. When i submitted my application, my skill was on the SOL equivalent. However, months later, they announced a new list that applies retrospectively to those applications submitted months ago !! Talking about respecting people and treating fairly, Canadian immigration has a lot to learn too.