Jump to content

You're currently viewing the forum as a Guest
register-now-button_orig.png
and join in with discussions   
ask migration questions
message other members

..and much much more!

Sign in to follow this  
virtual_bajwa

Will my application for Subclass 496 be ceased finally?

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

I know that this is really funny to ask this question but I have to because I am not getting any suitable answer from anybody.

 

WILL MY APPLICATION BE EVER PROCESSED OR IT WILL BE CEASED FINALLY?

 

High Risk Country

Subclass 496 - Skilled - Designated - Area Sponsored (Provisional)(class UZ)

Applied on 30.08.07

Occupation - Public Relation Professional (In new SOL(Sched 1,2,4))

Ack 24.1.08

C.O - 20.10.09

Med-08.08

PCC-09.09

Job veri-3.09.09

Grant-Waiting

 

In the capping and ceasing of Pre September applicants they have exempted this class from capping and Ceasing...SO what is the future of this class..?


HRC|496|30.08.07|Occup-Public Relations Profess|Ack -24.1.08|C.O.-20.10.09,11-05-2012|Med-09.09,06.12|PCC-09.09,15.05|Job veri-3.09.09|Grant-Got it Finally... on 18-June-2012:biglaugh:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Mongobear

Hi VB,

 

having this unpredictable DIAC-flunkeys in place nobody will be able to answer your questions. They could have already stamped your grant-letter to tell you that they've changed their mind again. This whole immigration process is a farce. They trim their sails to every wind apart from ours.

Which category did they put you in? Should be 4. With the current government we can either expect to be left in this category for ages or to be ceased in x years time. Your 49x subclass might be ceased earlier than the 17x applications.

Guess what, although Tony might have much stricter immi-plans I secretly hope he comes into power to sort out the ridiculous mess that Evans has created. I'm afraid he too won't have many positive options for us but at least maybe something moves and we might see some money back.

 

Good luck VB

Uli

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler
Hey guys,

I know that this is really funny to ask this question but I have to because I am not getting any suitable answer from anybody.

 

WILL MY APPLICATION BE EVER PROCESSED OR IT WILL BE CEASED FINALLY?

 

High Risk Country

Subclass 496 - Skilled - Designated - Area Sponsored (Provisional)(class UZ)

Applied on 30.08.07

Occupation - Public Relation Professional (In new SOL(Sched 1,2,4))

Ack 24.1.08

C.O - 20.10.09

Med-08.08

PCC-09.09

Job veri-3.09.09

Grant-Waiting

 

In the capping and ceasing of Pre September applicants they have exempted this class from capping and Ceasing...SO what is the future of this class..?

 

Hi VB

 

Your application cannot be Capped & Ceased under Secton 39. DIAC undoubdtedly told the Minister that it would be unlawful if he were to try to use S39 for the sc 496 applications.

 

Your application cannot be Capped & Killed without new legislation that would give the Minister the necessary powers. It could have been Capped & Killed (or at least, the Minister could have attempted to do so) under the recent Bill if that had become Law but the recent Bill has been scrapped by the Senate.

 

My personal view is that there are enough wise, sane heads in the Aussie Parliament to prevent the Minister for Immi, whether now or in the future, from grabbing as much power for him/herself as Evans wants the Minister to be able to grab. His ideas make a nonsense of the notion of having an Immigration Policy at all because he wants the whole thing to become a complete lottery. If that is what he wants then Parliament can consider the idea but if the lottery idea is decided upon then the Immigration legislation will need to be re-written from scratch because the idea would be a complete alteraton of Australia's entire philiosophy about Immigration.

 

I don't think that the Senate is foolish enough to allow the Minister of Mismanagement and Making a Mess to make an even worse Mess of the underlying philosophy via a skinny, scrappy little Bill of the type that he and his henchmen saw fit to try to rush on to the statute book in the way that he did.

 

The only bit of Australia's Immigration programme that has not become a complete farce is the situation relating to Contributory Parents as far as I can see. The CPV programme still seems to be running on rails whereas the rest of it has become a complete quagmire of uncertainty. confusion, endless delay and a total mess. I wonder whether the CPV scheme is only running on rails because the Minister of Mismanagement has not interfered with it yet?

 

Apparently the future of the idea that Australia might be seen to introduce legislation that wil work retrospectively in order to kill off perfectly valid, legitimate visa applications that Australia has already accepted now depends on who wins the Election. Apparently, if the ALP win the Election and they win 6 more seats in the Senate, they will control the Senate. In that situation, the pundits seem to believe that the Cap & Kill idea would become Law and the damage to Australia's international reputation would be ignored. I gather. Presumably this means that the ALP believe that Australia would be able to ride out the inevitable storm of negative publicity and international ill-will towards Australia.

 

Abott says that if the Coalition win the Election, he intends to slash the number of new immigrants that Australia accepts every year. Asked how he might manage thhis, Abbott has been vague. He has said that he does not intend to slash the intake of skilled immigrants and he does not intend to interfere with the Human Rights principle of re-uniting a family if that is what the members of the given family desire. Australia only accepts 13,500 Refugees/Asylum Seekers each year as it is - far fewer than almost every country in Europe, particularly the UK which accepts at least 100,000 a year accordinng to the [doctored and spun] statistics for the UK. The UN High Commissioner for Refugees will climb onto Abbott's back if he tries to cut the Humanitarian Stream, it seems to me. Therefore if Abbott's claims are a statement of the Coalition's ideological beliefs. rather than merely being empty and vague weasel words designed to win votes in the short term, I find it difficult to figure out exactly where Abbott would make his promised cuts.

 

Your visa application cannot be scrapped under the existing legislation. What will happen about that after the Election depends on who wins and what the winners then decide to do. Evans' idea is that if he offers to refund DIAC's visa application charge only - at the amount of whatever you paid DIAC three years ago and without any interest - he can claim that retrospective repayment of that money retroactively represents levelling the playing field as far as scrapping the application retrospectively is also concerned.

 

I don't trust that little bar steward of a Minister. David Wilden in London was being paid to try to get me to accept the idea that the Minister is all heart walking about on a pair of legs, apparently. I sat there and thought, "The other one's got bells on, David. You must think that I was born yesterday if you seriously think that I might fall for this feeble line in propaganda and rubbish."

 

However David Wilden is paid to try to promote the Minister's whims and to try to make them appear in the most positive possible light, so I guess that he had to try and Mr Wilden is not the real culprit anyway. Even within DIAC, Andrew Metcalfe is the real culprit - for allowing his Minister to embark on such stupid ideas - but Metcalfe can blame the Minister behind closed doors, so everybody who wields any sort of power can all pass the buck onto somebody else, meaning that all of them can sleep at night.

 

If I were a sc 496 visa applicant, I wouldn't buy into that. If you take the shekel, the legal principle of Estoppel might arise. (I have not found an Aussie solicitor who can tell me for sure whether it would arise or not. They do not seem to know, so I reckon it would come down to the Aussie Courts to make new Law by making a statement about whether or not Estoppel would arise.)

 

I think it would be cleaner and purer for a sc 496 applicant to tell a Judge, "You should not allow this, Guv, because the new legislation did not exist at the time when I made my visa application. Section 39 did exist but that cannot be used in relation to me. I have not taken the refund offered by the Minister of Mismanagement and Making a Mess because I do not believe that it is lawful for him to try to scrap my visa application in these circumstances. I have resisted and rejected his nasty, cheap little idea of a money back offer because the idea is anathema. I made a valid and lawful visa application. The Minister at the time accepted both the application and my money. The application remains valid and lawful. I want you to quash this nasty little attempt to use new, retroactive legislation to scrap my application please, Guv."

 

In your case, my inclination would be to run the argument past the Judges in Oz and see what they think. It is much harder (and it might be impossible) to run that particular argument when S39 affected the visa application at the time when the application was made. However S39 did not and does not affect you, therefore any new legislation should not be allowed to affect you either, it seems to me.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler
Hi VB,

 

having this unpredictable DIAC-flunkeys in place nobody will be able to answer your questions. They could have already stamped your grant-letter to tell you that they've changed their mind again. This whole immigration process is a farce. They trim their sails to every wind apart from ours.

Which category did they put you in? Should be 4. With the current government we can either expect to be left in this category for ages or to be ceased in x years time. Your 49x subclass might be ceased earlier than the 17x applications.

Guess what, although Tony might have much stricter immi-plans I secretly hope he comes into power to sort out the ridiculous mess that Evans has created. I'm afraid he too won't have many positive options for us but at least maybe something moves and we might see some money back.

 

Good luck VB

Uli

 

Hi Uli

 

I agree with you completely. The Minister for Mismanagement and Marking a Mess is so incompetent that Gillard ought to sack him from the job on 22nd August and be done with it. His cack-handed ideas abuut how to "reform" Australia's whole attitude towards Immigration without shutting down the whole programme of new applications for visas is what has turned the whole thing into a dog's breakfast instead of any sort of coherent, competent Policy.

 

Rudd's idea seems to have been to stand on his principles, turn purple and scream if he did not get his own way. When the screaming exhausted him, he put the toy back on the shelf so that he could play with it again on a future occasion - eg with his ETS idea. When he tried to use the miners as a new toy, they told him, "You try that and we'll see to it that your whole Government gets kicked out, not just yourself, but in the short term we also think that getting rid of you personally would be a bluddy good idea, Krudd."

 

Julia Gillard seems to have stepped in and obliged the miners. She Capped & Killed Krudd overnight in what seems to me to have been a ruthless but bloodless coup. Gillard seems to have accepted that the miners really were threatening to throw her Government out. Being a pragmatist, she settled the dispute with the miners in less than a week. She has now chosen to go to the country to ask her fellow Aussie Citizens whether they are prepared to give her a mandate to govern the place.

 

So far, I can't fault Gillard's footwork - but it is early days as yet, too. She was the Minister for the Brungle Bungle but without the interfering and incompetent micromanagement fron Krudd, she might inject some common-sense and restore Australia's hitherto good name as the country of the Fair Go. Being female myself, I do tend to respond well to Gillard's common-sense and pragmatism. Dunno whether a man would vote for her, though.

 

Fingers crossed, anyway!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Gollywobbler

Hi VB

 

According to Westly Russell RMA, it seems that at least one of the "Top Gun Migration Lawyers" is arguing that s/he thinks that an estoppel might arise if visa applicants accept any money by way of refunds. Please see this thread:

 

http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/92252-diac-refund-vac-invalid-applications-ceased-applications.html

 

I think we need to find out which of the "Top Gun Migration Lawyers" is actually saying this, and we also need to find out exactly what s/he is saying.

 

As you can see, I have asked Westly to identify his source but I doubt that he will do so unless somebody pays him in order to find out via him and his involvement. I consider that to be a grotty, scruffy little idea of the type that I expect from most RMAs - to whom ethics and legal purity appear to be alien concepts as far as I've ever been able to work out.

 

Also, Westly's source might be wrong because all of the Top Gun Migration Lawyers whom I have asked have all said that they understand what I am getting at but that they don't know whether the principle of estoppel would arise or not.

 

Nonetheless, I think that what Westly is saying is important, so I've made new threads in the "sticky" section and also in the Agents Information section. It is not rocket science to find the source information that underpins Westly's comment, it seems to me.

 

I've sent you a PM about another matter.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×