2231-79 Computing Professional (ICT Recent Graduate) and the new priority

[Guest xuankefeng]

Looks like we have no way out !howeve ,I had a look at thier new pasa guidelines , they did not specify group c applicants needs to apply assessment within 6months after completion ?

 

If you want to get the working experience exemption, you must apply your skill assessment within 6 months after the completion.

[Guest xuankefeng]

You're kidding right? Not being able to go on holiday to Europe is an abuse of your human rights? Get real!

 

No, not that serious. Once every year is fine, but depends on their state of mind at that time. But continuously apply is impossible.

[Guest chajath]

You're kidding right? Not being able to go on holiday to Europe is an abuse of your human rights? Get real!

 

Generally, if you require a sort of 'exit visa' for people to travel overseas, then its a human right abuse. There are only handful regimes on earth who do that, North Korea being one.

 

Now, BvA has never been intended to be a visa to be held for 3+ years. But this government, under the leadership of Minister Evans, do require people to do that. In such situation, BvB requirement has become something very close to a sort of exit visa. If you have to prove before a junior officer everytime you are to visit overseas, that you met the requirement the government set for people to be able to travel overseas, then its a genuine human rights concern.

[Guest Seb]

You're kidding right? Not being able to go on holiday to Europe is an abuse of your human rights? Get real!

 

I am not kidding. Not when Australia is an original signatory of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Here's a section of Article 13:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

As chajath has already explained above, the fact that you have to give 'substantial reason' to a Junior DIAC Officer to travel overseas, is itself a human rights concern, especially when the definition of 'substantial reason' is left at the sole discretion of that Junior Officer.

 

Furthermore, Article 24 states:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

If everyone has the right to leisure, am I not also entitled to go on holidays wherever I want, whenever I want? It is a genuine human rights concern when a Junior Officer gets to decide whether one has the 'right' to travel overseas.

 

Furthermore, there are other serious limitations or rather restrictions to the BvA visa. Since the BvA is not a substantial visa on its own, you can't gain employment, open a bank account, apply for a credit card or mobile phone contract, or even rent a house. It is indeed human rights abuse when the Government requires onshore applicants, whose lives are already in limbo, to wait another 2-3 years on such a draconian BvA visa.

 

Sue, how would you feel if you were stranded onshore in limbo and you were then told that you have to wait another 2 years for them to get it right? What you should also be concerned about is that if this Government is allowed to abuse the human rights of others, then who knows if it is not going to abuse the rights of its own citizens next?

[linus44]

Believe me, I read 11 pages of this thread to find out if anyone has asked a question which i have. Unfortunately nobody has asked it. Anyway, please be kind if i ask or write any inappropriate stuff.

 

I have completed Post Graduate Diploma in ISM on 19th july 2010 and now getting the documents ready to apply for the skill assessment. As many of you have mentioned earlier in the thread that Group C will get the 3rd priority, and therefore i am hoping to assess my skill under any of those five occupations listed in Group C. One of you have also mentioned that ACS will examine the subjects of the course I've studied and will successfully access the degree in the nominated occupation if i have done 65% of the subjects related to that occupation.

 

Prior to Post graduation i have also done B.IT, majoring in Systems. I am a bit confused whether to choose ICT Business analyst (ANZSCO 261111) or System Analyst (ANZSCO 261112), because these two are the perfect occupations i fit into. Also, bit worried because there is no guarantee for the successful assessment. I know i could get successful assessment under the Group B, but genuinely speaking, i don't want to end up waiting for years to get a PR.

 

Can anyone tell me what are the things i should consider to get a successful assessment under the Group C?

 

Any help would be highly appreciated.

 

Thanks

[Guest ssmakani2009]

Dear Friends

This is the Response I got from ACS

 

reply

 

 

 

Dear Sanjay,

 

 

 

 

You must lodge a new PASA application.

 

 

 

Important: Certified copy of proper and detailed employer references provided with the application must justify your expertise in the nominated occupation.

 

 

 

Qualifications must meet assessment criteria outlined in PASA Guidelines and its Addendum and be highly relevant to the nominated occupation.

 

 

 

Full documentation is required to be submitted with your application.

 

 

 

Kind regards,

 

 

 

original mail

 

Name : Sanjaykumar

Previous application Reference no.

 

Dear SIR/MADAM,

 

I completed my Master of Information System and my degree have been assessed in ASCO code 2231-79(Recent Graduate) by ACS 12 March 2009.

 

I would like to know that, will my occupation fall in new SOL or not?. If my occupation fall in new SOL which ANZSCO code will apply to me according to new SOL.

 

Can I re validate my degree with respect to ANZSCO code ?

 

I am very confused regarding this codes because of DIAC priority processing arrangement.

 

I hope that you will give me favorable response in this matter.

 

Thanking you,

 

Sanjay

[Guest ssmakani2009]

Dear Friends,

 

I got My State sponsorship under Agricultural Engineer From NSW Regional under 487 visa Category on last Friday.

 

I am on 485 visa, I have already apply my PR under 2231-79 (ICT recent Graduate) in April.

 

I have completed my Professional YEAr

 

My Question is

 

Can I apply 487 based on SS that i mentioned above unDER Agricultural Engineer,

 

Because I worried about Closely related terms e.g. IT and Agricultural Engineering are not closely related to each other.

 

I Already have SS in Agricultural Engineer but this closely related terms resrict me to apply under subclass 487.

 

I need good advise if any one have.

 

Thanks in Advance

 

Sanjay

[Guest true blue sue]

I am not kidding. Not when Australia is an original signatory of the Universal Declarations of Human Rights. Here's a section of Article 13:

(1) Everyone has the right to freedom of movement and residence within the borders of each state.

(2) Everyone has the right to leave any country, including his own, and to return to his country.

 

As chajath has already explained above, the fact that you have to give 'substantial reason' to a Junior DIAC Officer to travel overseas, is itself a human rights concern, especially when the definition of 'substantial reason' is left at the sole discretion of that Junior Officer.

 

Furthermore, Article 24 states:

Everyone has the right to rest and leisure, including reasonable limitation of working hours and periodic holidays with pay.

 

If everyone has the right to leisure, am I not also entitled to go on holidays wherever I want, whenever I want? It is a genuine human rights concern when a Junior Officer gets to decide whether one has the 'right' to travel overseas.

 

Furthermore, there are other serious limitations or rather restrictions to the BvA visa. Since the BvA is not a substantial visa on its own, you can't gain employment, open a bank account, apply for a credit card or mobile phone contract, or even rent a house. It is indeed human rights abuse when the Government requires onshore applicants, whose lives are already in limbo, to wait another 2-3 years on such a draconian BvA visa.

 

Sue, how would you feel if you were stranded onshore in limbo and you were then told that you have to wait another 2 years for them to get it right? What you should also be concerned about is that if this Government is allowed to abuse the human rights of others, then who knows if it is not going to abuse the rights of its own citizens next?

 

The only 'rights' held in abeyance are the right to travel out of Australia while you are waiting to see if your visa application is successful. You already have a right to leave Australia and to return to your country of origin. However, you applied for a visa here knowing the obligations you were under to remain in Australia while DIAC determined your status. There is no human rights abuse. If you think of others living in countries where there really are human rights abuses like torture, slavery, political imprisonment, then I think you'll see you're overreacting.

[Guest chajath]

The only 'rights' held in abeyance are the right to travel out of Australia while you are waiting to see if your visa application is successful. You already have a right to leave Australia and to return to your country of origin.

 

However, when you have a job here, relatives living here, and your whole life planned on a basis that DIAC would process the application in a reasonable amount of time, it isn't simple as that.

 

However, you applied for a visa here knowing the obligations you were under to remain in Australia while DIAC determined your status. There is no human rights abuse.

 

On the other hand, if you accept an application, and say its good to go, passing all the requirements, points needed etc, then in the absence of any terms, you create a reasonable assumption/induce applicants to believe that the application will be processed in a reasonable amount of time. Many of us, myself included, lodged applications well before this Government published the expected timeline that we are to wait 2+ years.

 

If we were presumed to agree on the _conditions_ attached to 885 application (and I find your use of word 'obligation' a little strange) it was in such assumption. And if DIAC significantly change its position to alter such assumption, and if we are detrimentally relying on such assumption, then there is a genuine case for arguing that this condition is not what we have agreed to be abound. (And yes, equitable estoppel is where I am getting at)

 

It is usually a matter of fact and degree, may I suggest.

3~6 months of extraordinary visa status = people would usually be ok with that

3+ years visa status = many people would at least have an alternative planning to living in Australia in such condition

Expectation of 3~6 months extraordinary visa status turned out to be 3+ years of such condition = Hey, we have a problem.

 

If you think of others living in countries where there really are human rights abuses like torture, slavery, political imprisonment, then I think you'll see you're overreacting.

 

Over the last few decades, the concept of human rights has broadened to encompass such general rights as rights to leisure, as the post above has pointed out.

[Guest true blue sue]

However, when you have a job here, relatives living here, and your whole life planned on a basis that DIAC would process the application in a reasonable amount of time, it isn't simple as that.

 

 

 

On the other hand, if you accept an application, and say its good to go, passing all the requirements, points needed etc, then in the absence of any terms, you create a reasonable assumption/induce applicants to believe that the application will be processed in a reasonable amount of time. Many of us, myself included, lodged applications well before this Government published the expected timeline that we are to wait 2+ years.

 

If we were presumed to agree on the _conditions_ attached to 885 application (and I find your use of word 'obligation' a little strange) it was in such assumption. And if DIAC significantly change its position to alter such assumption, and if we are detrimentally relying on such assumption, then there is a genuine case for arguing that this condition is not what we have agreed to be abound. (And yes, equitable estoppel is where I am getting at)

 

It is usually a matter of fact and degree, may I suggest.

3~6 months of extraordinary visa status = people would usually be ok with that

3+ years visa status = many people would at least have an alternative planning to living in Australia in such condition

Expectation of 3~6 months extraordinary visa status turned out to be 3+ years of such condition = Hey, we have a problem.

 

 

 

Over the last few decades, the concept of human rights has broadened to encompass such general rights as rights to leisure, as the post above has pointed out.

 

If you are working and get days off and you also get holiday time, then that is classed as leisure time. Again, not being able to take a holiday overseas is not a human rights abuse. Why don't you ask DIAC if you are ever likely to get PR. At least that way you would know where you stand and would be able to plan for your future.

[Guest chajath]

If you are working and get days off and you also get holiday time, then that is classed as leisure time. Again, not being able to take a holiday overseas is not a human rights abuse.

 

Now the argument is getting circular. Taking a holiday oversees sounds like a luxury then a sort of right to be given. However, I believe there still is a genuine human rights concern (and I won't go as far to suggest this is a case of _abuse_, which tend to polarise the issue) in having to apply for a permission every time you want to go overseas.

 

Why don't you ask DIAC if you are ever likely to get PR. At least that way you would know where you stand and would be able to plan for your future.

 

We are doing that. However, frequent changes of policy makes it harder to come up with a concrete plan for the future. Plus, initial representation that DIAC made still remains as a separate issue.

 

@true blue sue, I'm not quite sure what sort of point you are trying to make, but now we understand the issues and differences in opinion, I think this is a good place to close this line of conversation.

[Guest Jane1991]

43.2 Clients waiting offshore for the grant of their GSM application.

Clients who have returned to their home country after lodging an onshore GSM application may seek a Tourist visa to re-enter Australia if they do not hold a valid BVB.

Visitors & Deregulation Section supports the facilitation of entry on Tourist visas for GSM applicants who have been assessed as meeting the GSM criteria and advised that their visa will be granted on re-entering Australia.

Offshore applicants for GSM visas who have not been advised that their GSM visa will be granted should not be granted a Tourist visa. Allowing clients in these circumstances to re-enter Australia raises the expectation that the GSM visa will be granted and may lead to a prolonged stay onshore without a substantive visa.

 

Anyone who thinks they are being forced to stay in Aus need to lay off on the vicodin.

[User Name]

Why don't you ask DIAC if you are ever likely to get PR. At least that way you would know where you stand and would be able to plan for your future.

 

 

Do you seriously think that people here are happily waiting and dont raise that question to DIAC on a daily basis? Please don't act all naive, you clearly know what the issues are given you post in threads where major problems are highlighted.

 

Having living in Australia with freedom to go on or out and no unnecessary restrictions, you will never ever be able to feel how bad this uncertainty feels like. So please don't rub salt on the wound. If you do not like immigration/migrants, there are plenty of forums for your 'niche' group.

[Guest chajath]

Anyone who thinks they are being forced to stay in Aus need to lay off on the vicodin.

 

Its not a case of forced stay. Its rather a case of people having made that call based on the belief (based on the representation made by DIAC) that the PR application will be processed in a reasonable time, now faces a situation that is closely analogous to 'exit visa'.

[Guest true blue sue]

Do you seriously think that people here are happily waiting and dont raise that question to DIAC on a daily basis? Please don't act all naive, you clearly know what the issues are given you post in threads where major problems are highlighted.

 

Having living in Australia with freedom to go on or out and no unnecessary restrictions, you will never ever be able to feel how bad this uncertainty feels like. So please don't rub salt on the wound. If you do not like immigration/migrants, there are plenty of forums for your 'niche' group.

I have no problem at all with migrants, my husband is a migrant and most of my friends are from countries other than Australia. My future DIL is a prospective migrant. What I don't like is some of the comments posted here abusing the Australian Government and elected ministers because some people look like they won't get PR. It doesn't exactly endear you to Oz.

[Guest TheStig]

Why don't you ask DIAC if you are ever likely to get PR. At least that way you would know where you stand and would be able to plan for your future.

 

If only life was so simple and DIAC was so transparent.

[User Name]

I have no problem at all with migrants, my husband is a migrant and most of my friends are from countries other than Australia. My future DIL is a prospective migrant. What I don't like is some of the comments posted here abusing the Australian Government and elected ministers because some people look like they won't get PR. It doesn't exactly endear you to Oz.

 

Yes, there are people that slander the government even when they do the right thing. I for one support the measures they took against cooks/hairdressers. But I do not support any retrospective measures against people who already applied and are already in pipeline.

 

You wouldn't like it if your husband applied as IT, and then someone Tom, Dick and Harry gets his visa after nominating a 'new ANZSCO' and that your husband was a victim of bad timing. Thats just one issue this thread highlights. I strongly believe people have right to protest that.

 

Maybe DIAC or Minister made a mistake, everyone does. But they don't even want to rectify it after being informed over phone/email.

 

A decent immigration system is where all applications is processed in reasonable time frame, less bureaucracy, people being well aware of stakes involved (long/short processing time), visa requirements etc.

 

That fact that majority of people have to use an Agent or wait for agents to clarify key changes is an indication how rotten the system is.

 

In another forum, I had an argument with a bogan migrant from UK who was giving tough luck attitude to people complaining of being dumped to bottom of priority processing. Her point was, you dont have any right to protest, you apply and sit and wait. If it comes you are lucky, if it doesn't tough luck.

 

I personally think its not that straight forward. Applying for visa costs at least $2525. I think its gone up a bit now. That visa fee is pretty high by global standards. As the simple law of trade, you pay for something, you are expected to get something back. When we pay the amount of $2525 to DIAC, we are paying for them to assess our application in line with the the requirements and processing time they indicated.

 

Now when you change the requirements or processing time AFTER you paid the money, and apply it to those who already paid it as well as prospective migrants, that is WRONG.

 

I'll give you some harmless comparisons.

 

Its like going to a cafe, being charged $3 for a cup of coffee, then being told, oh this group here is very important, we will serve them before you.

 

OR

 

Going to a restaurant, ordering your menu, and half way through the chef decides to change the menu, gives you something totally different.

 

Many Aussies like to use the term "how Australian" is something. I think DIAC's attitude and management system is 'un-Australian'. Its a bureaucratic ****hole, no element of fairness, and everything over-complicated. It's comparable to third world government departments to say the least. Only difference is that DIAC doesn't take bribes.

[Guest Jane1991]

Its not a case of forced stay. Its rather a case of people having made that call based on the belief (based on the representation made by DIAC) that the PR application will be processed in a reasonable time, now faces a situation that is closely analogous to 'exit visa'.

 

 

The representation was a rough estimate and DIAC always carries a disclaimer suggesting that actual processing time can vary significantly.

 

DIAC never made a contract that they would process the visa in 5 hours or 5 years. They gave an estimate and attached a disclaimer.

 

People went in with full knowledge of the uncertainties. I am not anti-immigration but rather an applicant myself. If these ex-students have put themselves in a limbo its out of choice not compulsion. DIAC never told them they have to stay onshore.

[Guest chajath]

DIAC never made a contract that they would process the visa in 5 hours or 5 years. They gave an estimate and attached a disclaimer.

 

People went in with full knowledge of the uncertainties.

 

But retrospective changes do come as a shock and you don't generally expect that sort of underhanded amateurism from the government of civilised society such as Australia.

[Guest TheStig]

If these ex-students have put themselves in a limbo its out of choice not compulsion. DIAC never told them they have to stay onshore.

 

So if applying for a GSM visa is considered putting oneself in a limbo, then maybe no one should apply for a visa.

 

Now who exactly in their right frame of mind would put themselves in this predicament? I believe most applicants here are well educated graduates from Universities in Australia and are gainfully employed in relevant jobs in their fields. Is this a risk that they would willingly put themselves in? I know I wouldn't. Point of the matter is that if the applicants had knew that it was going to be such a long wait, I believe none of them would apply for PR to begin with. End of the day, there are many other countries with transparent processing out there that would welcome the onshore skilled graudates with open arms. I personally know of 1 who had applied for a PR in Australia in Jan 2009 and applied for PR in Canada 6 months after. She got her Canadian PR 7 months ago.

[User Name]

The representation was a rough estimate and DIAC always carries a disclaimer suggesting that actual processing time can vary significantly.

 

DIAC never made a contract that they would process the visa in 5 hours or 5 years. They gave an estimate and attached a disclaimer.

 

People went in with full knowledge of the uncertainties. I am not anti-immigration but rather a an applicant myself. If these ex-students have put themselves in a limbo its out of choice not compulsion. DIAC never told them they have to stay onshore.

 

Just wondering, based on that argument DIAC can also shelve your application indefinitely. If that happens would you be saying the same thing?

 

My opinion is that, yes it can vary but with reasonable timeframe while striving to reduce any delay. DIAC under ministers direction hasn't made any of that effort. Simply shelving applications like coffins after funeral isn't the way to go.

 

Government isn't doing anything illigal. I am sure CE runs past his ideas before DIAC lawyers before dishing it out. But is it immoral? Absolutely.

 

Not every transaction we do in life is done via contract. When you order in a restaurant, lodge tax return and what not, you don't sign a contract stating the services will be provided exactly on this date or that date. But if tax office says you'll get your refund in 14 days you don't expect 1.4 years even though it too can vary. Same deal here.

[Guest Manj]

To apply in Group C (for ANZSCO) do you need to have completed your degree within past 6 months?

 

For old SOL 2231-79 (ICT Recent Graduate) i believe that was the requirement.

 

Anyway, new classification means another $2525 + $400 just to get into group 3. I recall someone saying there is a significant number of ENS so I doubt that group will get processed as fast as some people are making it out to be.

 

 

Don't bother mate...just a waste of money...keep you hard saved money without donating it to DIAC, just to be in category 3

 

you never know....few WEEKS down the line they may decide to shuffle things again!!

:biglaugh:

 

To apply in Group C (for ANZSCO) do you need to have completed your degree within past 6 months? --- YES the educational qualification you obtained should not lapse 6 months!!

____________________________________________________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

[User Name]

Don't bother mate...just a waste of money...keep you hard saved money without donating it to DIAC, just to be in category 3

 

you never know....few WEEKS down the line they may decide to shuffle things again!!

:biglaugh:

 

To apply in Group C (for ANZSCO) do you need to have completed your degree within past 6 months? --- YES the educational qualification you obtained should not lapse 6 months!!

 

I agree. I wouldn't bother unless its ENS.

[Guest Manj]

But is it immoral? Absolutely.

 

 

 

 

How they intepret immoral is ...if they were inconvinineced in a foreign country then it's all about where is the 'FAIR Go' that is 'Immoral' and that and this

 

But if we are inconvinienced then there is NO MENTION about immorality.....:biglaugh:

 

________________________________________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

[Guest psharma]

Don't bother mate...just a waste of money...keep you hard saved money without donating it to DIAC, just to be in category 3

 

you never know....few WEEKS down the line they may decide to shuffle things again!!

:biglaugh:

 

To apply in Group C (for ANZSCO) do you need to have completed your degree within past 6 months? --- YES the educational qualification you obtained should not lapse 6 months!!

____________________________________________________

CAT (4), 885 applied 2008 AUG, ICT - Recent graduate NEC, IELTS 8.0, NAATI qualified, Currently employed as a ICT Project Officer

 

 

 

True, I have checked with an agent.