state sponsorship, leaving the state within 2 years

[Guest losicar]

Hi all,

Im pretty much just starting out, im a 25 year old joiner looking at going down the state sponsorship route 176, to get a further up on the priority processing, rather than the 175.

 

My ideal states aren't sponsoring my occupation, but WA is. After speaking to a reputable agent he informed me that if I fly to WA and then if I was to say id been offered a job in VIC, QLD, NSW I could move state, as it is not a condition of the visa? just an agreement with state???? I find this a bit hard to believe as everybody would be doing it.

Any advice would be much appreciated.

 

Dan

[Que Sera Sera]

Hi we, my OH who has got the visa as a Toolmaker could only get sponsership for WA and we had originally intended to head for Queensland or NSW.

 

Now as far as I understand it is just a moral obligation to stick with the state that sponsers you. We will be sticking with WA for three reasons:-

 

 

1. They were good enough to sponser us so we do feel morally obligated ( but thats personal opion not a judgement of anyone else! )
   
2. If the other states arent sponsoring my OH's job that would indicate to me that his job is therefore not in demand there so why move where he may not get a job.
   
3. When we looked into WA we found it had a huge amount going for it and therefore we really want to give it a fair go.
   

As I said this is just how we feel you must do what you feel is right for you. :wubclub:

[Guest rooperman]

Hi there,

From the DIAC web-site under obligations for a 176 visa:

 

"Main applicant and secondary applicant obligations

1. You and any secondary applicants must comply with all Australian laws as permanent residents.

2. If you are nominated by a State or Territory government, you need to agree to:

remain in the State or Territory for a period of at least two (2) years

keep the State or Territory government informed of changes in address details before and after arrival

be prepared to complete surveys and provide information as required."

 

Hope this helps!

Ben

[Guest losicar]

Hi we, my OH who has got the visa as a Toolmaker could only get sponsership for WA and we had originally intended to head for Queensland or NSW.

 

Now as far as I understand it is just a moral obligation to stick with the state that sponsers you. We will be sticking with WA for three reasons:-

 

 

1. They were good enough to sponser us so we do feel morally obligated ( but thats personal opion not a judgement of anyone else! )

2. If the other states arent sponsoring my OH's job that would indicate to me that his job is therefore not in demand there so why move where he may not get a job.

3. When we looked into WA we found it had a huge amount going for it and therefore we really want to give it a fair go.

 

As I said this is just how we feel you must do what you feel is right for you. :wubclub:

 

Thanks for this, Maybe WA has more to offer than I realise, Its the only australian state ive not visited, so just a little wary I guess.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

Hi losicar

 

Your agent is wrong but agents usually get this question wrong or express themselves badly when describing the situation.

 

Please ignore the DIAC website. That is fond of slipping policy into the picture and making people believe that policy is the law - which it isn't. They are two different things though the Court does consider the relevant policies to some extent because the policies explain the law to some extent.

 

The legal position is that you must not mislead the Minister for Immi during your visa application and before your visa is granted. The Minister takes what you say on trust. He does not double-check every word that you utter to him.

 

In order to avoid misleading the Minister, your intention to move to WA must be genuine at the time when you apply to WA for State sponsorship and it must still be a genuine intention at the time when the Minister grants you a sc 176 visa that is sponsored by WA.

 

However the sc 176 visa grants Permanent Residency in Oz from Day One. The Australian Constitution is a series of formal, written documents. So is the American Constitution whereas the British Constitution has never been committed to writing. (Which is a pity with the thieving UK Labour party running the show, in my view. The British Constitution is a matter of trust between the Queen and her subjects. She would never breach it - and she knows exactly what it says - but she can't control the thieving, lying, spin-doctoring crooks who run Parliament in the UK these days.)

 

The Aussie Constitution states that an Aussie Citizen or Permanent Resident of Oz can live in or move to whichever part of Oz that he likes, as often as he likes. He can do anything which is lawful once he gets there, as well. There is absolutely no fetter on these fundamental constitutional rights.

 

So - you intend to move to WA and your visa is granted on the basis of that intention. However after the visa is granted, you then book your flight out to Oz. One of the airlines is offering a seat sale to Sydney, so you grab a flight to Sydney. There is no Opera House to admire iin Perth so you might as well explore the delights of Sydney in the circumstances. Nothing in a sc 176 visa requires you to enter Australia at any particular airport. (If you feel really masochistic, you could fly to Darwin, reach Darwin at 4am as usual and then you could immediately start walking to Sydney if you wish, though I feel that this is a bit drastic and personally I wouldn't tecommend trying!)

 

Whilst you are in Sydney, you look around for work and hey presto - you are offered a job on Bondi beach, selling ice cream to anyone who visits the beach. You decide that this sounds intriguing do you accept the job and find somehere to live in Sydney. The Aussie Constitution permits this and if the Minister for Immi wants to alter the Aussie Constitution, he would have to organise a Referendum first.

 

You have not misled the Minister in my description above. You merely entered Oz in Sydney (or even Darwin and then made your way to Sydney overland.) At some stage, you changed your mind about whereabouts you want to live in Oz and what you want to do in your eventual destination in Oz. The Minister can't do anything about that - you have a fundamental right to change your mind. The Constitution permits you to live wherever you like and to do whatever you like in Australia. These days, that also includes making arrangements to leave Australia either temporarily or permanently if you wish....

 

The State Government of WA cannot do anything about your change of mind, for the same reasons that the Minister is powerless to do anything.

 

In practice, it doesn't happen often enough for the Aussie Government to get excited about it. The Government would be very unlikely to win a refendum on this issue and they know it, so everyone might as well let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Nothing that I have described is in any way unlawful. Some migration agents simply don't know the relevant Law. It is nonsense for a lawyer or a quasi-lawyer to yap about issues of "morality." Moral issues fall to be decided by organised religion, which is a different department within society from the legal department. If you want to know whether my advice to you is morally right, I would suggest that you consult a Man Of The Clothes. I'm a qualified lawyer. I have had no training in matters of morality. Legally I am 100% right, though.

 

In practice I tend to discourage Poms in Oz members from applying to the NT for State sponsorship when the person's real intention is to move to and live in QLD from Day One. For one thing, a stated intention of making such a move would amount to misleading the Minister for Immi.

 

Also, the NT has a choice about whether to offer State sponsorship or not. That is an entirely free choice on the part of the State. An application to the NT for State sponsorship by the NT will be scrutinised by people who live in Darwin and their boss will know the NT very well. If the would be migrant has no serious iintention of moving to the NT, his research into the NT and what life there is like will almost certainly be scrappy and the application will not "ring true" when the boss in the NT reads it. If the State application does not look kosher, the various States can and regularly do reject applicants and their applications. There is no machinery for a formal appeal against a State's sovereign right to refuse an application for State sponsorship.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest losicar]

Thankyou very much for the detailed reply, its been a great help.

kind regards,

Dan

[Koala Chloe]

Hi losicar

 

Your agent is wrong but agents usually get this question wrong or express themselves badly when describing the situation.

 

Please ignore the DIAC website. That is fond of slipping policy into the picture and making people believe that policy is the law - which it isn't. They are two different things though the Court does consider the relevant policies to some extent because the policies explain the law to some extent.

 

The legal position is that you must not mislead the Minister for Immi during your visa application and before your visa is granted. The Minister takes what you say on trust. He does not double-check every word that you utter to him.

 

In order to avoid misleading the Minister, your intention to move to WA must be genuine at the time when you apply to WA for State sponsorship and it must still be a genuine intention at the time when the Minister grants you a sc 176 visa that is sponsored by WA.

 

However the sc 176 visa grants Permanent Residency in Oz from Day One. The Australian Constitution is a series of formal, written documents. So is the American Constitution whereas the British Constitution has never been committed to writing. (Which is a pity with the thieving UK Labour party running the show, in my view. The British Constitution is a matter of trust between the Queen and her subjects. She would never breach it - and she knows exactly what it says - but she can't control the thieving, lying, spin-doctoring crooks who run Parliament in the UK these days.)

 

The Aussie Constitution states that an Aussie Citizen or Permanent Resident of Oz can live in or move to whichever part of Oz that he likes, as often as he likes. He can do anything which is lawful once he gets there, as well. There is absolutely no fetter on these fundamental constitutional rights.

 

So - you intend to move to WA and your visa is granted on the basis of that intention. However after the visa is granted, you then book your flight out to Oz. One of the airlines is offering a seat sale to Sydney, so you grab a flight to Sydney. There is no Opera House to admire iin Perth so you might as well explore the delights of Sydney in the circumstances. Nothing in a sc 176 visa requires you to enter Australia at any particular airport. (If you feel really masochistic, you could fly to Darwin, reach Darwin at 4am as usual and then you could immediately start walking to Sydney if you wish, though I feel that this is a bit drastic and personally I wouldn't tecommend trying!)

 

Whilst you are in Sydney, you look around for work and hey presto - you are offered a job on Bondi beach, selling ice cream to anyone who visits the beach. You decide that this sounds intriguing do you accept the job and find somehere to live in Sydney. The Aussie Constitution permits this and if the Minister for Immi wants to alter the Aussie Constitution, he would have to organise a Referendum first.

 

You have not misled the Minister in my description above. You merely entered Oz in Sydney (or even Darwin and then made your way to Sydney overland.) At some stage, you changed your mind about whereabouts you want to live in Oz and what you want to do in your eventual destination in Oz. The Minister can't do anything about that - you have a fundamental right to change your mind. The Constitution permits you to live wherever you like and to do whatever you like in Australia. These days, that also includes making arrangements to leave Australia either temporarily or permanently if you wish....

 

The State Government of WA cannot do anything about your change of mind, for the same reasons that the Minister is powerless to do anything.

 

In practice, it doesn't happen often enough for the Aussie Government to get excited about it. The Government would be very unlikely to win a refendum on this issue and they know it, so everyone might as well let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Nothing that I have described is in any way unlawful. Some migration agents simply don't know the relevant Law. It is nonsense for a lawyer or a quasi-lawyer to yap about issues of "morality." Moral issues fall to be decided by organised religion, which is a different department within society from the legal department. If you want to know whether my advice to you is morally right, I would suggest that you consult a Man Of The Clothes. I'm a qualified lawyer. I have had no training in matters of morality. Legally I am 100% right, though.

 

In practice I tend to discourage Poms in Oz members from applying to the NT for State sponsorship when the person's real intention is to move to and live in QLD from Day One. For one thing, a stated intention of making such a move would amount to misleading the Minister for Immi.

 

Also, the NT has a choice about whether to offer State sponsorship or not. That is an entirely free choice on the part of the State. An application to the NT for State sponsorship by the NT will be scrutinised by people who live in Darwin and their boss will know the NT very well. If the would be migrant has no serious iintention of moving to the NT, his research into the NT and what life there is like will almost certainly be scrappy and the application will not "ring true" when the boss in the NT reads it. If the State application does not look kosher, the various States can and regularly do reject applicants and their applications. There is no machinery for a formal appeal against a State's sovereign right to refuse an application for State sponsorship.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Hi

 

Does this apply to migrants on 475 visa's as well, or just 176's?

 

Thanks!

KC

[Stephen]

Hi losicar

 

Your agent is wrong but agents usually get this question wrong or express themselves badly when describing the situation.

 

Please ignore the DIAC website. That is fond of slipping policy into the picture and making people believe that policy is the law - which it isn't. They are two different things though the Court does consider the relevant policies to some extent because the policies explain the law to some extent.

 

The legal position is that you must not mislead the Minister for Immi during your visa application and before your visa is granted. The Minister takes what you say on trust. He does not double-check every word that you utter to him.

 

In order to avoid misleading the Minister, your intention to move to WA must be genuine at the time when you apply to WA for State sponsorship and it must still be a genuine intention at the time when the Minister grants you a sc 176 visa that is sponsored by WA.

 

However the sc 176 visa grants Permanent Residency in Oz from Day One. The Australian Constitution is a series of formal, written documents. So is the American Constitution whereas the British Constitution has never been committed to writing. (Which is a pity with the thieving UK Labour party running the show, in my view. The British Constitution is a matter of trust between the Queen and her subjects. She would never breach it - and she knows exactly what it says - but she can't control the thieving, lying, spin-doctoring crooks who run Parliament in the UK these days.)

 

The Aussie Constitution states that an Aussie Citizen or Permanent Resident of Oz can live in or move to whichever part of Oz that he likes, as often as he likes. He can do anything which is lawful once he gets there, as well. There is absolutely no fetter on these fundamental constitutional rights.

 

So - you intend to move to WA and your visa is granted on the basis of that intention. However after the visa is granted, you then book your flight out to Oz. One of the airlines is offering a seat sale to Sydney, so you grab a flight to Sydney. There is no Opera House to admire iin Perth so you might as well explore the delights of Sydney in the circumstances. Nothing in a sc 176 visa requires you to enter Australia at any particular airport. (If you feel really masochistic, you could fly to Darwin, reach Darwin at 4am as usual and then you could immediately start walking to Sydney if you wish, though I feel that this is a bit drastic and personally I wouldn't tecommend trying!)

 

Whilst you are in Sydney, you look around for work and hey presto - you are offered a job on Bondi beach, selling ice cream to anyone who visits the beach. You decide that this sounds intriguing do you accept the job and find somehere to live in Sydney. The Aussie Constitution permits this and if the Minister for Immi wants to alter the Aussie Constitution, he would have to organise a Referendum first.

 

You have not misled the Minister in my description above. You merely entered Oz in Sydney (or even Darwin and then made your way to Sydney overland.) At some stage, you changed your mind about whereabouts you want to live in Oz and what you want to do in your eventual destination in Oz. The Minister can't do anything about that - you have a fundamental right to change your mind. The Constitution permits you to live wherever you like and to do whatever you like in Australia. These days, that also includes making arrangements to leave Australia either temporarily or permanently if you wish....

 

The State Government of WA cannot do anything about your change of mind, for the same reasons that the Minister is powerless to do anything.

 

In practice, it doesn't happen often enough for the Aussie Government to get excited about it. The Government would be very unlikely to win a refendum on this issue and they know it, so everyone might as well let sleeping dogs lie.

 

Nothing that I have described is in any way unlawful. Some migration agents simply don't know the relevant Law. It is nonsense for a lawyer or a quasi-lawyer to yap about issues of "morality." Moral issues fall to be decided by organised religion, which is a different department within society from the legal department. If you want to know whether my advice to you is morally right, I would suggest that you consult a Man Of The Clothes. I'm a qualified lawyer. I have had no training in matters of morality. Legally I am 100% right, though.

 

In practice I tend to discourage Poms in Oz members from applying to the NT for State sponsorship when the person's real intention is to move to and live in QLD from Day One. For one thing, a stated intention of making such a move would amount to misleading the Minister for Immi.

 

Also, the NT has a choice about whether to offer State sponsorship or not. That is an entirely free choice on the part of the State. An application to the NT for State sponsorship by the NT will be scrutinised by people who live in Darwin and their boss will know the NT very well. If the would be migrant has no serious iintention of moving to the NT, his research into the NT and what life there is like will almost certainly be scrappy and the application will not "ring true" when the boss in the NT reads it. If the State application does not look kosher, the various States can and regularly do reject applicants and their applications. There is no machinery for a formal appeal against a State's sovereign right to refuse an application for State sponsorship.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

 

 

This pretty much answers my question ....in short, we were SS by WA and had/have every intention of moving to WA....BUT...It seems I may have a very good job offer in QLD, prior to us even leaving UK shores.

 

Morally I do feel obliged as it is WA who have given us this shot....but on the other hand....a little pointless to settle my family (especially my children 12yrs / 8yrs) in Perth and for me to commute interstate when "Legally",we could settle first time in QLD.

 

Heart and Head pulling me in different directions..!!..:confused:

 

 

Cheers,

 

 

Steve

[Graemsay]

I've heard various stories about whether a 176 allows you to move, and the official line from the State of Victoria was that they are happy to move if you can't find work, but you had to ask permission. Whether or not that's a legally binding requirement is a different matter, and Gill's post suggests that it isn't.

 

In Stephen's case, I'd be inclined to speak to the WA migration people and explain the situation. They will probably say that it's no problem, in which case there isn't a moral quandary.

 

The 475 is a provisional visa, so I suspect that there are restrictions on it.

 

Given the desire to put migrants where there are jobs, and the noises coming from DIAC about Australia being the only Western country to grant full PR from day one, I wouldn't be surprised if all migrant visas become provisional in future.

[ShoaibAnwar]

One thing more i want to clear, if i move from Sponsored state to another state within first 2 years .... Is this moral obligation effect on my citizenship case after 4 years??? Because i don't want any fuss for my citizenship case .....

 

Regards,

Shoaib Anwar

[vikram]

Hi Experts,

 

if I move from Sponsored state to another state before first 2 years, without communicating to the state Authorities.... would this be a moral obligation for applying citizenship after 4 years???

[abhishekg]

Hi Experts,

 

if I move from Sponsored state to another state before first 2 years, without communicating to the state Authorities.... would this be a moral obligation for applying citizenship after 4 years???

 

I am facing similar issue, was granted 190 last year. Moved to Sydney around 2 months back. Applied for 350+ jobs got just one interview call to hear the same "no local experience" song. For each IT job, agents are getting 150+ CV ans NSW has put software engg in critical skill set.

 

I called NSW a few times and they said that they will expect me to remember 2 year commitment. Sent email to my case officer and stated the plight of my financial situation here and that of family in India. No response received so far. A friend of mine told me that he is aware of ppl getting citizenship without fulfilling 2 years obligation. Again this is indeed a grey area and no concrete solution exists and agencies shy away from dealing with these situations. Anyone got any official stance on this subject either from state or DIAC?

[Nemesis]

I am facing similar issue, was granted 190 last year. Moved to Sydney around 2 months back. Applied for 350+ jobs got just one interview call to hear the same "no local experience" song. For each IT job, agents are getting 150+ CV ans NSW has put software engg in critical skill set.

 

I called NSW a few times and they said that they will expect me to remember 2 year commitment. Sent email to my case officer and stated the plight of my financial situation here and that of family in India. No response received so far. A friend of mine told me that he is aware of ppl getting citizenship without fulfilling 2 years obligation. Again this is indeed a grey area and no concrete solution exists and agencies shy away from dealing with these situations. Anyone got any official stance on this subject either from state or DIAC?

Leaving the State within 2 years will have no impact on citizenship.

its only a moral obligation and a huge number of people break that obligation every year-I'm amazed that the loophole still exists, but it does.

[Raul Senise]

Because so many people have abused the State Sponsorship system, the states have cracked down on sponsorship. It is now difficult to obtain state sponsorship in some states unless you are already living there or have an offer of employment.

 

As to the OP's question; many people have broken their commitment to the State and still received Citizenship. Whether this will continue to be allowed in the future, only time will tell.

 

I can tell you that they are getting tougher on Citizenship applications and are starting to turn them down on even quite minor character grounds.