State Migration Plans - Numbers to be limited

[George Lombard]

The ACT has today advised that it will contact all currently ACT sponsored General Skilled Migration applicants to confirm that they are maintaining their commitment to the ACT, and giving them 28 days to so indicate. This applies to anyone who has a current subclass 886 or 176 application with the Department and who is sponsored by the ACT.

 

As you are aware, the State Migration Plan, that we hope to have finalised by end October, will limit the number of 176/886 visa applicants that the ACT Government is able to nominate. Government sponsorship will also become more valuable as DIAC implement their processing priorities and non sponsored applicants join the end of the queue.

 

We are currently contacting all ACT Government clients who have a pending 176/886 visa application. We are seeking confirmation of their employability in the ACT and their genuine, ongoing commitment to living in Canberra. A copy of the email below has been sent to your clients personal email address.

 

 

The indication is that each state may only be able to sponsor a specified maximum number of visas in each calendar year, and so therefore after winnowing their lists the states will be forced to rank candidates. The implication is that not everyone currently sponsored by a state will receive the benefit of priority processing under the State Migration Plans. It may be that the states can withdraw sponsorship for people already sponsored but I think the legislation on that is ambiguous and probably DIAC would hesitate to allow that to happen where people have already expended thousands of dollars in costs. On the other hand it's most likely that the legislation does allow the states to be choosy with respect to who gets included in the State Migration Plan, since that is ultimately just a question of prioritising.

 

Hold onto your hats people this might be a bumpy ride.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[George Lombard]

A couple of things have become clearer today:

 

a) Some states are going to find it much harder to meet their targets than others, meaning that applicants sponsored by some states are going to be waiting that much longer than applicants sponsored by other states under less pressure.

 

b) None of the states are able to say anything at the moment - the words "lock down planning phase" might be appropriate - since the SMPs are about to be announced and they will need to be prepared to meet the demands of that moment.

 

c) The Minister is going to be attending the national conference of the Migration Institute of Australia in Sydney next week so will have an opportunity to make an appropriate announcement.

 

d) Some states with lower demand might initially share available places in their quota with states which have higher demand. Eventually there might be a higher volume of applications for those states with presently unused demand given that sponsorship by those states might lead to visa grant more quickly.

 

e) By putting a limit on the number of state sponsored applications there will now be scope for other applications to be processed more quickly, depending on their place in the queue for each priority category. During the last 12 months of the last Minister the switching backwards and forwards between priority groups was particularly unprofessional, this solution might leave some of the cake for everyone.

 

f) No indication that any states are failing to include existing sponsored applicants in their SMPs - the issue is how to manage the prioritisation.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[Jag Khairra]

One of my clients did not proceed with 487 despite getting the nomination from regional NSW as a Cook in 2009. He has now received his 485 visa and we were able to re-validate the nomination by sending a request to the authority.

 

 

VIC is sending verification emails regarding the status of 886 applications and whether clients are working for the same employer who offered them jobs or working in their nominated fields? We get one email every 6 months or so for every client and this has been happening since early 2009 (applications lodged in 2008). The verification could be for "investigations undertook by VIC govt in some occupations" and "to filter out non-genuine applicants and keep only genuine ones who are working in their nominated fields".

[Alan Collett]

Until offshore skilled visas contain a condition stating that the main applicant must work in his or her nominated occupation I really do think that efforts by the Federal Government to micro-manage the skilled program in this level of detail are faintly ridiculous.

 

Ditto the absence of a visa requirement that applicants must reside in the State or Territory that sponsored them.

 

And if anyone from Government is reading this ... can you finalise the SMPs PDQ please?!

 

Best regards.

[melbournegirlinny]

Totally agree with you Alan. Wish I could say it's just stupid, wheel spinning but unfortunately it does have a negative effect on people who want state sponsorship.