Guest babboo Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Chris Evans Speech --- "First, for persons who applied from overseas before September 2007, the Government has determined to end their uncertainty by withdrawing these applications. About 20 000 people fall into this category. The unfortunate situation was that these people applied when English language and work experience requirements were easier than they now are, and their backgrounds placed them low down the queue under priority processing arrangements. As a result, they are unlikely to have ever been granted a visa. The Government will refund their visa application charge." So, now it seems for sure that we (all pre September applicants) will be capped and ceased. I request all to come forward and contact fiery lawyers and take advice. Let us all poll some funds and collectively file a suit in the competent court of law against this legislation if it is passed in the Australian assembly... I am ready to take the initiative and with your help fight this out...Virtual Bajwa, Rahul and all..... CHEERS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest babboo Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Australian Administrative Law - Supreme Court : Lawlink NSW Thank you Wrussell, ...........:notworthy: Will some migration agent please comment on this ... ???????? Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
John Gilfillan Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 Chris Evans Speech --- "First, for persons who applied from overseas before September 2007, the Government has determined to end their uncertainty by withdrawing these applications. About 20 000 people fall into this category. The unfortunate situation was that these people applied when English language and work experience requirements were easier than they now are, and their backgrounds placed them low down the queue under priority processing arrangements. As a result, they are unlikely to have ever been granted a visa. The Government will refund their visa application charge." So, now it seems for sure that we (all pre September applicants) will be capped and ceased. I request all to come forward and contact fiery lawyers and take advice. Let us all poll some funds and collectively file a suit in the competent court of law against this legislation if it is passed in the Australian assembly... I am ready to take the initiative and with your help fight this out...Virtual Bajwa, Rahul and all..... CHEERS Hi Babboo, I feel so sorry for all the Pre September 2007 applicants who have been capped and ceased. keep fighting until the end. You must make your voice heard. John Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tcillc Posted June 7, 2010 Share Posted June 7, 2010 I'm not sure whether the figures refer to the calendar year or programme year. The September 23rd changes will have distorted things, and I'd expect this to be more apparent when the 2010 figures are released in 12 months time. Hi Graemsay The figures are for calendar year 2009. T Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest spurious Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Let us all poll some funds and collectively file a suit in the competent court of law against this legislation if it is passed in the Australian assembly... I am ready to take the initiative and with your help fight this out...Virtual Bajwa, Rahul and all..... CHEERS With the best will in the world, you won't win, and you shouldn't bother. If you qualify under the new system, re-apply. If you don't, write it off as something you weren't able to do. An application is not a right, and you knew full well you were subject to legislative changes. As harsh as it is, and I do understand your predicament, if you made plans beyond the point of call, before you got your visa, then more fool you. When you - or anybody - lodges a visa application, you do so by faith, not by reason. You do so in the full knowledge that things may change during the processing time. That can be a tough pill to swallow, but it's a pill you knew you had to, nonetheless. If things changed while you were waiting, it's down to blameless bad timing - not your fault, not the DIAC's fault, just one of those damned things. This forum is full of enough people who believe they're owed something to want to migrate to another country. No. You makes your application, you takes you chance, If you told your employer, sold your house or made any other unchangeable plans before you knew for sure what was happening? Well, that's bad planning and I'm afraid that's the harsh truth. As for money 'lost', well, wait to see what'll happen, but it looks likely a lot of people with no option than cap & cease will get all their money back. Fingers crossed for everyone, but realism is a virtue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffster Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 With the best will in the world, you won't win, and you shouldn't bother. WRONG An application is not a right, RIGHT and you knew full well you were subject to legislative changes. WRONG, VERY WRONG As harsh as it is, and I do understand your predicament, if you made plans beyond the point of call, before you got your visa, then more fool you. WRONG - Try NOT making plans when you've been waiting 1, 2 or 3 YEARS for something that was supposed to take 3-6 MONTHS. When you - or anybody - lodges a visa application, you do so by faith, not by reason. You do so in the full knowledge that things may change during the processing time. SO UTTERLY WRONG AND ENTIRELY MISSING THE POINT OF EVERYTHING WE ARE FIGHTING FOR. That can be a tough pill to swallow, but it's a pill you knew you had to, nonetheless. WRONG If things changed while you were waiting, it's down to blameless bad timing - not your fault, not the DIAC's fault, just one of those damned things. COULDN'T BE ANYMORE WRONG You makes your application, you takes you chance, It's an application for a visa, not bloody a lottery ticket! If you told your employer, sold your house or made any other unchangeable plans before you knew for sure what was happening? Well, that's bad planning and I'm afraid that's the harsh truth. As for money 'lost', well, wait to see what'll happen, but it looks likely a lot of people with no option than cap & cease will get all their money back. WRONG - If anyone gets ALL their money back I will eat my hat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Jane1991 Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I would have to agree that residency is not an entitlement that can be secured by paying 2500$ . Just because one makes an application does not mean it has to be approved. We make a choice and take the risks. Retrospective law making has been practiced in civil cases in many countries and Australia will not be the first one to do so. If I get the PR good enough... If I don't I work overseas ... The truth be told that if the government feels it can be sued it will find other ways to kick people out ( by going through work history of onshore grads ( 20 hours work limit )... restrict the inflow of new applicants ... and leave unwanted old applicants in the pipeline. It could potentially restrict work hours of those on BVA to 10 hours citing slowed economy and high 5.8 % unemployment. It would make it look "Australians first" and close in the election gap between Abott and Krudd due to the differences in immigration political posturing. A thousand ways to manage it Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzieland Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I would have to agree that residency is not an entitlement that can be secured by paying 2500$ . Just because one makes an application does not mean it has to be approved. We make a choice and take the risks. Retrospective law making has been practiced in civil cases in many countries and Australia will not be the first one to do so. If I get the PR good enough... If I don't I work overseas ... The truth be told that if the government feels it can be sued it will find other ways to kick people out ( by going through work history of onshore grads ( 20 hours work limit )... restrict the inflow of new applicants ... and leave unwanted old applicants in the pipeline. It could potentially restrict work hours of those on BVA to 10 hours citing slowed economy and high 5.8 % unemployment. It would make it look "Australians first" and close in the election gap between Abott and Krudd due to the differences in immigration political posturing. A thousand ways to manage it I agree with you that residency is not what you can purchase for $2,500.00. I also agree that just because we make an application, it does not mean that it has be approved. HOWEVER, I did not enter the system just to be told that your application will never ever be processed and that you will never have a result. I filed my application based on what was promised to me. We are not telling the Government not to reject an application but we want it done the right way !! and this is definitely not the right way. I need to have the right to appeal. With the cap and cease, I loose that right. The Australian Government obviously wishes to chose this way because they know that otherwise, they stand NO chance if an appeal is made in the MRT. Just to let you know, we are not arguing that the Government should not make any changes, but when a deal is made it is made and you have to have the integrity to play the game in the right way to the finish. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Jetster If your employer is willing to sponsor you, I suggest that you take that option. The costs are only or the lodgement of the employer's application, your application will be moved across and you will not have to pay another lodgement fee. Cheers Chris. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alucard Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 As for money 'lost', well, wait to see what'll happen, but it looks likely a lot of people with no option than cap & cease will get all their money back. So, what about loss of opportunity cost? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Princess Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 So, what about loss of opportunity cost? I presume you have studied economics as well as me!!!:biglaugh: Steph xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Minsiter has already said that only the lodgement fee will be returned on the basis that all other costs were not to DIAC. It was always my understanding that a visa will not be granted unles all relevant criteria are met, but that a visa must be granted if all relevant criteria are met. Seems not any more. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Princess Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 The Minsiter has already said that only the lodgement fee will be returned on the basis that all other costs were not to DIAC. It was always my understanding that a visa will not be granted unles all relevant criteria are met, but that a visa must be granted if all relevant criteria are met. Seems not any more. I thought the same, although the changes don't affect me yet (only in first semester of a 3 year degree) I am happy to support anyone it does. These changes are also likely to affect me in 3 years time, unless I get a sponsor.... Steph xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alucard Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I presume you have studied economics as well as me!!!:biglaugh: Steph xxxx :biggrin: Nah, but we might well have chosen Canada over Australia, so a cheesed off by the amount of flip-flopping going on. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
User Name Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 With the best will in the world, you won't win, and you shouldn't bother. If you qualify under the new system, re-apply. If you don't, write it off as something you weren't able to do. An application is not a right, and you knew full well you were subject to legislative changes. As harsh as it is, and I do understand your predicament, if you made plans beyond the point of call, before you got your visa, then more fool you. When you - or anybody - lodges a visa application, you do so by faith, not by reason. You do so in the full knowledge that things may change during the processing time. That can be a tough pill to swallow, but it's a pill you knew you had to, nonetheless. If things changed while you were waiting, it's down to blameless bad timing - not your fault, not the DIAC's fault, just one of those damned things. This forum is full of enough people who believe they're owed something to want to migrate to another country. No. You makes your application, you takes you chance, If you told your employer, sold your house or made any other unchangeable plans before you knew for sure what was happening? Well, that's bad planning and I'm afraid that's the harsh truth. As for money 'lost', well, wait to see what'll happen, but it looks likely a lot of people with no option than cap & cease will get all their money back. Fingers crossed for everyone, but realism is a virtue. You see spurious, there are many bogans in Australia. And what's worse than those bogans are immigrant-hating immigrants. I can somewhat understand where bogans come from occasionally but people like you, I cant. Normally I don't bother arguing but I will make a few point: 1) 99.999% of people don't apply unless they actually meet the criteria which is very black and white in DIAC website. And once they meet the criteria, they should be applied according to that criteria. People have been migrating to Australia since 17th century in hundreds and now by tens of thousands. Govt should know that any decision they make with regards to immigration will affect the country's future and thousands of lives. Hence when they allowed cookery and hairdressers on MODL and used PR as bait to lure international students, it screwed up Australia's reputation as quality education provider and destroyed many lives due to the recent changes. 2) Change during processing time should never apply to those who applied. You don't go to a restaurant, look at the menu, order something, only to be told by waiter halfway through waiting for entrée that menu has changed along with price and you either won't be getting your meal because it no longer exists or what you'll get will be vastly different. It doesn't work like that. And it shouldnt work like that all the more in Australia where rule of law and fair go is valued to the utmost. 3) Migration involves peoples life. Its not a lottery. Yes there are victims of bad timing. Many people who by the time get their documents and just about to apply, and bang the rules change. I can understand those. But for those who already applied, went through enormous hassle selling properties getting documents ready only to be "ceased". If you think thats ok and simply "bad luck", mate you got serious issue. There is a difference between "bad luck" and deliberately ruining life. Its not subtle. Bottom line is, Rudd and Abbott is most welcome to change immigration. Thats their job, thats what they get voted and paid for - to fix these systems. But when you change more frequently than 3 month baby's nappies, there is something definitely wrong. Obviously they screwed up. and also, if you do change, it should never be applied retrospectively. Thats what all the noise is about this bill. So whats the solution? Simple: get off your asses, fire your spin doctors and hire more case officers start PROCESSING. Maintain the cap on offshore to stop the system bloating, not keep people waiting. Theres goes a saying, "if you have dug yourself into a hole, then stop digging". Backlog wont get smaller by keeping people waiting, but by processing applicants as common sense tells you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Princess Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 :biggrin: Nah, but we might well have chosen Canada over Australia, so a cheesed off by the amount of flip-flopping going on. I know what you mean, I don't know whether to continue to pay international student fees over here for the next 2.5 years, or cut our losses now, and go somewhere else. My degree is still transferrable within the first 12 months. The only problem, is that my daughter is really settled and I don't know if I want to uproot her again, and hubby is settled at work and they certainly wouldn't want him to leave!! They wish he could work longer than the visa restrictions as they can't find his kind of experience over here :arghh: Steph xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Alucard Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I know what you mean, I don't know whether to continue to pay international student fees over here for the next 2.5 years, or cut our losses now, and go somewhere else. My degree is still transferrable within the first 12 months. The only problem, is that my daughter is really settled and I don't know if I want to uproot her again, and hubby is settled at work and they certainly wouldn't want him to leave!! They wish he could work longer than the visa restrictions as they can't find his kind of experience over here :arghh: Steph xxxx See, that's why I think they should do interviews. You're on your way to get an Australian qualification, your hubby has Australian experience and working in his field, you've seemingly settled well - if it was up to me, you would be getting some kind of priority/better chance of getting your permanent residency visa. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jeffster Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Jetster If your employer is willing to sponsor you, I suggest that you take that option. The costs are only or the lodgement of the employer's application, your application will be moved across and you will not have to pay another lodgement fee. Cheers Chris. Thanks Chris, My problem is that I would, according to my agent, have to apply for an offshore visa which would end up costing over $1500 to fly to NZ for a stamp/sticker. Add to that meds and PC's (as mine are prob out of date) and agency fee and it is easily a few thousand dollars, again. People will say I am stupid but I just refuse on principle to pay another cent towards my application or the Govt when I have already paid $5000 for the first one, am paying tax with no rights to ANY benefits and will still have to wait 6-8 months for the visa anyway. As an Agent do you really think it would be so difficult for my employer to send DIAC the relevant letters. contract etc. and TRN number for my 886 then DIAC find my application, cross out 886, write 856/857, assign CO and reduce the backlog by one more? Because that is the only difference really, between an 886 and 856 - a number and a handful of documents from an employer, everything else is the same right? It's not rocket science but this is the Government we're talking about! DIAC are encouraging people to look for sponsorship to get them out of a mess caused by the Govt and then are expecting them to fork out even more $$$ Has anyone pointed it out to them that they really are not making things any easier for them or us? I will always have ENS to fall back on if I get capped so I count myself a lot luckier than most. Thanks again. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ozzieland Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 You see spurious, there are many bogans in Australia. And what's worse than those bogans are immigrant-hating immigrants. I can somewhat understand where bogans come from occasionally but people like you, I cant. Normally I don't bother arguing but I will make a few point: 1) 99.999% of people don't apply unless they actually meet the criteria which is very black and white in DIAC website. And once they meet the criteria, they should be applied according to that criteria. People have been migrating to Australia since 17th century in hundreds and now by tens of thousands. Govt should know that any decision they make with regards to immigration will affect the country's future and thousands of lives. Hence when they allowed cookery and hairdressers on MODL and used PR as bait to lure international students, it screwed up Australia's reputation as quality education provider and destroyed many lives due to the recent changes. 2) Change during processing time should never apply to those who applied. You don't go to a restaurant, look at the menu, order something, only to be told by waiter halfway through waiting for entrée that menu has changed along with price and you either won't be getting your meal because it no longer exists or what you'll get will be vastly different. It doesn't work like that. And it shouldnt work like that all the more in Australia where rule of law and fair go is valued to the utmost. 3) Migration involves peoples life. Its not a lottery. Yes there are victims of bad timing. Many people who by the time get their documents and just about to apply, and bang the rules change. I can understand those. But for those who already applied, went through enormous hassle selling properties getting documents ready only to be "ceased". If you think thats ok and simply "bad luck", mate you got serious issue. There is a difference between "bad luck" and deliberately ruining life. Its not subtle. Bottom line is, Rudd and Abbott is most welcome to change immigration. Thats their job, thats what they get voted and paid for - to fix these systems. But when you change more frequently than 3 month baby's nappies, there is something definitely wrong. Obviously they screwed up. and also, if you do change, it should never be applied retrospectively. Thats what all the noise is about this bill. So whats the solution? Simple: get off your asses, fire your spin doctors and hire more case officers start PROCESSING. Maintain the cap on offshore to stop the system bloating, not keep people waiting. Theres goes a saying, "if you have dug yourself into a hole, then stop digging". Backlog wont get smaller by keeping people waiting, but by processing applicants as common sense tells you. Very Well Said !!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Susan Wareham McGrath Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I know what you mean, I don't know whether to continue to pay international student fees over here for the next 2.5 years, or cut our losses now, and go somewhere else. My degree is still transferrable within the first 12 months. The only problem, is that my daughter is really settled and I don't know if I want to uproot her again, and hubby is settled at work and they certainly wouldn't want him to leave!! They wish he could work longer than the visa restrictions as they can't find his kind of experience over here :arghh: Steph xxxx Hi Steph What work does your husband do? Best regards Susan Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graemsay Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 I think that a lot of what Spurious says is, unfortunately, correct. I'd better qualify this before Gollywobbler calls me smug again. The skilled immigration programme is run to deliver Australia with the skills and workers it feels it needs, and not those who think the country needs them. The size of the backlog means that DIAC can cherry pick the sort of applicant it wants. Attempting to sue the government could be counterproductive. The legal types here might disagree, but I work on the principle that going up against someone in court who has more money, lawyers and gets to make the rules isn't going to end well. Instead, try to meet some of the changes that DIAC has implemented: If you are on a family sponsored visa then try to get a state or employer nomination. DIAC have said several times that migrants arriving on these visas have poorer outcomes for employment, and are most likely to be capped and ceased. If you are in a low priority category, try to find a state or employer sponsor. I'd expect that these are less likely to be terminated. If you don't have a IELTS pass then study and take the exam. DIAC believe that poor English harms a migrant's employment chances. While you're at it, if English isn't your first language look at taking one of the tests to allow you to claim additional points for a "Community Language". If your points fall below the threshold for one of the current visas then try to ways of covering the shortfall through IELTS, sponsorship, more experience or whatever. If you have the option of studying for a higher level qualification then take it. There is talk of recognising degrees in the future points system. Making yourself as attractive as possible to DIAC is probably going to be cheaper and easier than getting into what will probably be a long court case. It might not necessarily be fair, but if it gets the outcome you're after then who cares. Jeffster, why not speak to DIAC directly (i.e. without the help of your agent) and see what the situation is with sponsorship. It might be possible to get your employer's nomination attached to the existing 886, which would bump you up the priority queue. If your agent is looking for thousands of dollars to handle that then I'd sack them right now. As for the other costs (medicals, PCCs, flights to NZ), you might need to pay for them in any case. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Graemsay Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Jeffster, take a look at this thread on another migration website. Should I lodge a second application under ENS Subclass 121/856? : British Expat Discussion Forum It looks like it'll be pretty straightforward to swap your application over. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Purple Princess Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Hi Steph What work does your husband do? Best regards Susan Hi Susan, I think we have been down this route before, unfortunately his job is not classified anywhere, he is an Industrial Door Engineer (basically fits and services massive industrial doors), in Oz, he is fitting garage doors (due to the heat in QLD). He has over 18 years experience which apparently is unheard of over here and he was a sub contractor in the UK for over 16 years. That's why we have decided to stay on the student visa and spend over $300k on living for the next 3 years!!!! Steph xxxx Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Christopher McGrath Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Thanks Chris, My problem is that I would, according to my agent, have to apply for an offshore visa which would end up costing over $1500 to fly to NZ for a stamp/sticker. Add to that meds and PC's (as mine are prob out of date) and agency fee and it is easily a few thousand dollars, again. People will say I am stupid but I just refuse on principle to pay another cent towards my application or the Govt when I have already paid $5000 for the first one, am paying tax with no rights to ANY benefits and will still have to wait 6-8 months for the visa anyway. As an Agent do you really think it would be so difficult for my employer to send DIAC the relevant letters. contract etc. and TRN number for my 886 then DIAC find my application, cross out 886, write 856/857, assign CO and reduce the backlog by one more? Because that is the only difference really, between an 886 and 856 - a number and a handful of documents from an employer, everything else is the same right? It's not rocket science but this is the Government we're talking about! DIAC are encouraging people to look for sponsorship to get them out of a mess caused by the Govt and then are expecting them to fork out even more $$$ Has anyone pointed it out to them that they really are not making things any easier for them or us? I will always have ENS to fall back on if I get capped so I count myself a lot luckier than most. Thanks again. I understand your feelings, but dont cut your nose off etc etc. If you really want to come to Australia, do what you need to do to get here, within reason of course. If you had first of all lodged an ENS application, your new costs of doing it now will be the same. You have already paid the lodgement fee for your application, all that would be required is a lodgement fee for the Nomination application, which is $445, nothing further for you. Of course your medicals etc may be out of date, but that would have happened in any case. Be guided by your agent as you seem to have one and if he has your confidence, not by Gremsay who seems to have issues with agents, probably because he/she isnt one. What visa are you currently on, student or 457? Fron an email I got from DIAC tonight, DIAC guidelines for ENS is 5 months for an ETA country, and 7 months for a non-ETA country. Well documented applications are usually faster. I remember an old Jewish saying from when I lived in London, "You will remember the quality long after you forgotten the price" Cheers Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted June 8, 2010 Share Posted June 8, 2010 Hi Steph What work does your husband do? Best regards Susan Hi Susan Your question is addressed to Steph, Mrs RichSalt. A few months ago, I sweated blood for Mr RichSalt, I assure you! He fits industrial doors - huge great doors that you might see on an aircraft hangar, for example. He does not fit the patio doors that lead to a domestic backyard. The first migration agent whom he asked said that he would be classified as a "Home Handyman" under the ASCO Code. That was obviously nonsense so I set about trying to find Mr RichSalt in ASCO somewhere. After about 4 hours, I came to the conclusion that he must be some sort of Fitter but I couldn't pin it down any more narrowly. I suggested asking Roger Laws, in Canberra, who used to be a senior TRA Assessor. It took Roger 30 seconds to say that Mr RichSalt is a "Fitter - not elsewhere classified" according to ASCO. Since he was "nec," it was then obvious why I hadn't been able to find him! I will never forget those huge doors and Mr RichSalt as a result, I assure you!! Investigation revealed that LOADS of employers in QLD would hire Mr RichSalt like a shot but they are not necessarily the types of employers who would be eligible to sponsor a migrant for a visa and even if they are technically eligible to sponsor, they might well refuse to get involved with the hassle of doing so. The couple decided on a Student Visa for Mrs RichSalt. Doing that would put Mr RichSalt into the right location, he would be allowed to work for 20 hours a week, he would be able to make friends with the employer and in the early days, the employer wouldn't have to do anything except hire Mr RichSalt for a job starting on the following Monday. That bit seems to be working OK so far as the actual employment is concerned, but whether it would lead to an agreement to offer an employer sponsored visa still remains to be seen. Therefore I can understand Steph's point of view completely. She is executing the "back-up plan," if you like, at vast expense and the new Visa Capping Bill means that her back-up plan might not work in the end. 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.