GGx0x0 Posted October 23, 2010 Share Posted October 23, 2010 Hello everyone! Just read this on the SAAustralia forum: Hello all,I just had an email from the Manager of Skilled Migration for the ACT. She said that they are hoping to publish their SMP on 1st of November. I think they might not be the only one. Here's hoping! Regards -------------------- Stephen Dickson Registered Migration Agent | MARN: 0640511 Offices in Cape Town and Melbourne Latest | Migration Outcomes Australia - Your Australian Migration Specialist Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
clickettuk Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Interesting BLOG on my visa agents website: Visa Bureau Blog - Australia Interesting quote about ACT SS allocation: The Australian Capital Territory (ACT) have confirmed that they have been allocated 1740 spaces, which they’ve said equates to roughly 720 sponsorship places available, after the partners and dependants for applicants have been taken into account. They have confirmed that they have 690 applications either pending or already granted (but not yet finalised by DIAC), meaning their quota of 720 spaces for 2010/11 is essentially already full. The ACT has already taken the decision that any future application for sponsorship under their migration plan will be processed by DIAC in the 2011/12 year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lenore Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 Now the question is - if an applicant was granted SS - will they let him know whether it's this or next year's migration (or the next year or even later)... Getting a visa using SMPs was supposed to last for about 6 months, but I have impression that it is not feasible at the moment, and soon it will turn out that those people who exceeded limits will have to wait another year + the new queue... but won't SMPs change by then? What a mess... I still can't believe it that SMPs are not out yet, but for many jobs limits are exceeded already... On what LEGAL basis does DIAC do all calculations and makes all the decisions if it's not signed and issued officially... Maybe they should let in some lawyers, because they seem not to have any idea how to create and obey the law... I also wonder how they count the applicants - by the number of SS accepted or using the number of SS visas lodged to DIAC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest jigarercivil Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 hello friends....on 29.09.10 i have applied for south aussie state sponsership but on 21st they have announced civil engineer quota already reached at planning level...but today means 25th they have approved my state sponsership and i am also civil engineer but now civil engineer removed from interim list due to quota so civil will be in smp list or not because i want to lodge my file as sooon as possible...but they have given me ss recently so mostly civil engg in list of smp...yet i didnt recieve any official mail but online status shows application approved...so might be problem from immigration department? Now the question is - if an applicant was granted SS - will they let him know whether it's this or next year's migration (or the next year or even later)... Getting a visa using SMPs was supposed to last for about 6 months, but I have impression that it is not feasible at the moment, and soon it will turn out that those people who exceeded limits will have to wait another year + the new queue... What a mess... I still can't believe it that SMPs are not out yet, but for many jobs limits are exceeded already... On what LEGAL basis does DIAC do all calculations and makes all the decisions if it's not signed and issued officially... Maybe they should let in some lawyers, because they seem not to have any idea how to create and obey the law... I also wonder how they count the applicants - by the number of SS accepted or using the number of SS visas lodged to DIAC? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stubee Posted October 25, 2010 Share Posted October 25, 2010 I will never give up its just my son is 18 in Dec but still in college for 2 years and if we don't hear in that time then he cant come on our visa and that then will be the time when we will have to give up . My son is 19 now but we were told he could still be on our application because he was under 18 when we applied. Hope that's true?!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGx0x0 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 This was just posted on the SAAustralia Forum!! Okay so I spoke to Julianne today from ACT Skilled and Business Migration and this is what she said: They hope to the have the SMP signed off this week by DIAC. Then a small formality with Mr Stanhope and its all systems go. What this mean for you all that have been waiting is: ACT sponsored applications will be moved to priority 2 processing with DIAC Applications will be processed by date so the oldest application first, so the older the application to sooner the result (hopefully) NB NB NB: What she did say was that an email had been sent out to all persons who’s visa’s were still outstanding with DIAC , that they had to re-affirm their commitment to ACT otherwise that ACT would WITHDRAW their sponsorship. This had to be done by the 28th October 2010. If you have not done so I suggest that you contact them ASAP. The Client Manager ACT Skilled and Business Migration Phone: (+61 2) 6207 1957 Email: businessmigration@act.gov.au Regards Connie :hug: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest kittymeow Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Very brilliant and detailed explanation. Thanks GGx0x0. We shall better start off another thread to keep track when the time arrives see if they are really process in chronological order! Either way, you are having good chance to get CO very SOON with your 175 or 176 application Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 A further signal that the SMPs are imminent in this MIA message received today: Important GSM Decision Ready Checklist update David Stewart, Program Director, General Skilled Migration, DIAC South Australia has provided the following advice to the MIA: You will be aware that Brisbane General Skilled Migration (GSM) currently have a trial of a Decision Ready Checklist (DRC) which gives priority allocation to GSM eLodged onshore applications lodged by Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) that are declared via the DRC to be decision ready. Currently only GSM applications in Priority 3 and those not subject to the Minister's Processing priority Direction can be lodged with the DRC. When State Migration Plans (SMPs) are introduced, priority in allocation must be given to GSM applications in Priority 2 and from that time only Priority 2 applications and those not subject to the direction will be able to be lodged with the DRC. Any Priority 3 DRC applications not yet allocated at that time will be allocated only when all Priority 2 applications (DRC and non DRC) have been allocated and will be allocated in order of date of receipt, ie they will receive no priority. This has the potential to inconvenience clients as there is a possibility that health and character clearances may expire before such applications are allocated and decided. You and your client should consider this in making any decision to lodge Priority 3 GSM applications with a DRC prior to the introduction of SMPs. Stewart also provided answers to two questions from MIA National President Sharon Harris: 1. Do you have any idea of timing for the release of the SMPs? I assume from this notice that they may be any time soon.Nothing informed regarding the timing for release of the SMPs; just know that, as program requires 24,000 grants, we need to get going soon. 2. In relation to health clearances, as they are the most costly, would it be possible to consider further extension of the validity of healths if a person has not departed Australia? Case officers would apply the flexibility allowed by policy regarding the extension of health and character checks in such circumstances. Note, we have allocated all Priority 3 onshore applications received before 1 May 2009, so it will be some time before we start processing cases lodged in late 2010. And worth noting that merely being in a state's group of sponsored applicants is no guarantee - except possibly for the ACT - that your occupation will be in the SMP for your state for this program year or that DIAC will reach your occupation in this program year. Each SMP is expected to include quotas for occupations and in some cases a file will be processed more quickly just by virtue of being a Schedule 3 occupation. But good luck to everyone. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scottntina Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Thanks George as always, your fab !!! best glimmer of hope for a while... Tina and Scott Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 A further signal that the SMPs are imminent in this MIA message received today: Important GSM Decision Ready Checklist update David Stewart, Program Director, General Skilled Migration, DIAC South Australia has provided the following advice to the MIA: You will be aware that Brisbane General Skilled Migration (GSM) currently have a trial of a Decision Ready Checklist (DRC) which gives priority allocation to GSM eLodged onshore applications lodged by Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) that are declared via the DRC to be decision ready. Currently only GSM applications in Priority 3 and those not subject to the Minister's Processing priority Direction can be lodged with the DRC. When State Migration Plans (SMPs) are introduced, priority in allocation must be given to GSM applications in Priority 2 and from that time only Priority 2 applications and those not subject to the direction will be able to be lodged with the DRC. Any Priority 3 DRC applications not yet allocated at that time will be allocated only when all Priority 2 applications (DRC and non DRC) have been allocated and will be allocated in order of date of receipt, ie they will receive no priority. This has the potential to inconvenience clients as there is a possibility that health and character clearances may expire before such applications are allocated and decided. You and your client should consider this in making any decision to lodge Priority 3 GSM applications with a DRC prior to the introduction of SMPs. Stewart also provided answers to two questions from MIA National President Sharon Harris: 1. Do you have any idea of timing for the release of the SMPs? I assume from this notice that they may be any time soon.Nothing informed regarding the timing for release of the SMPs; just know that, as program requires 24,000 grants, we need to get going soon. 2. In relation to health clearances, as they are the most costly, would it be possible to consider further extension of the validity of healths if a person has not departed Australia? Case officers would apply the flexibility allowed by policy regarding the extension of health and character checks in such circumstances. Note, we have allocated all Priority 3 onshore applications received before 1 May 2009, so it will be some time before we start processing cases lodged in late 2010. And worth noting that merely being in a state's group of sponsored applicants is no guarantee - except possibly for the ACT - that your occupation will be in the SMP for your state for this program year or that DIAC will reach your occupation in this program year. Each SMP is expected to include quotas for occupations and in some cases a file will be processed more quickly just by virtue of being a Schedule 3 occupation. But good luck to everyone. Cheers, George Lombard Morning, George I'm only on my first cup of coffee (when I need a whole bucket of coffee/tea before my brain cells show any sign of agility first thing in the morning. Plus I have to leave shortly to get to a meeting which is likely to take all morning and might coninue after lunch, so I'm thinking about that as well. However my knee-jerk reaction is that what David Stewart is saying does not make sense?????? Suppose we have a fully-qualified, British trained, experienced doctor of medicine. S/he has passed through the AMC/APHRA requirements and has done whatever is necessary to obtain Australian recognition for his/her medical specialty. S/he also has close family in WA. David Sewart seems to be saying that my hypothetical doctor will not be able to apply for a family-sponsored sc 176 visa. Instead, the doctor will have to remain outside Australia unless WA agree to give this doctor sponsorship under WA's SMP. According to Mr Stewart, it will not even be possible for the doctor to apply for a GSM visa unless s/he first obtains SMP sponsorship from WA. If I were the hypothetical doctor, I would tell the Australian Federal Government to go and boil itself in oil and I would contact the Australian media. I would contact Peter Mares in particular, to make sure that he understands the utter and Aussie-patient-threatening stupidity of the latest nonsense announced by DIAC. I would also contact the Immigration authorities in Canada, the USA and in NZ. No other sane country chooses to employ boneheads in its Immigration Department in this fashion, so if I were the doctor I simply would not put up with Mr Stewart and his lofty proclamations. In what possible way can Joolya justify treating a British doctor badly when her own Government admits that they are so desperate to attract doctors that they have resorted to trying to poach foreign doctors whose own countries' Governments have paid a fortune for them to be trained in those overseas countries? Apparently the sick and needy in Australia are not sick enough to need doctors after all, according to the illogical stupidity of the claim allegedly made by Mr Stuart. No worries. There are plenty of sick people in the USA, Canada and NZ instead so if I were the hypothetical British doctor, I would tell Joolya to put this particular rattle into her pram and to play with it quietly whilst I offer my own skills, experience and hideously expensive but world-attractive training to a country with a more deserving and competent plus a less arrogant and spoilt Government than the Australian Government. I would absolutely tell the Aussies to shove it until their Government brought out the red carpet for me and strewed it with freshly-plucked rose petals, frankly. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
George Lombard Posted October 26, 2010 Author Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi Gill, David Stewart is saying that they'll give priority to Priority 2 files between now and the end of the program year and that given the relative inaction on those files since 1 July there'll be a bit of a flurry for selected state sponsored applicants - not all. Your Dr Spock will need to wait until all the other Doctors sponsored by WA and who applied before him have their visas granted. I assume Julia won't mind where the doctors come from as long as they'll work in the Kimberley so the fact of him being British is irrelevant. His WA family can visit him while he's undertaking a stint in Rwanda for Medecins sans Frontieres - and that will prepare him quite well for the Kimberley. The quotas for doctors and their ilk will probably quite high and possibly the states will use their off-list quotas to get as many in as they can. A bit more troubling for some other occupations though. Suggestions are that we might know all about this by Monday. Cheers, George Lombard Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stealth Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi Gill, David Stewart is saying that they'll give priority to Priority 2 files between now and the end of the program year and that given the relative inaction on those files since 1 July there'll be a bit of a flurry for selected state sponsored applicants - not all. Your Dr Spock will need to wait until all the other Doctors sponsored by WA and who applied before him have their visas granted. I assume Julia won't mind where the doctors come from as long as they'll work in the Kimberley so the fact of him being British is irrelevant. His WA family can visit him while he's undertaking a stint in Rwanda for Medecins sans Frontieres - and that will prepare him quite well for the Kimberley. The quotas for doctors and their ilk will probably quite high and possibly the states will use their off-list quotas to get as many in as they can. A bit more troubling for some other occupations though. Suggestions are that we might know all about this by Monday. Cheers, George Lombard thanks sir for the information. Can you kindly comment on the confusion that whether priority 3 people who have COs allocated since long and going through security checks and/or medicals and PCC clearance phase[presumably last stages],will be disturbed by this or not[when SMP comes alive]??? Does this pose hindrance to those applicants or not? thanks!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SHANO7 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Cat 4 Sponsored applicants ?????? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest nowrs Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi George Just received an information that as soon as SMP will be released they will stop Cat 3 ? Will they stop allocation of Case Officers to all cat 3 applicants ? I lodged my 175 visa application in November 2008 and I know that they have been allocating Case Officers to the October 2008 applicants now. I would be devastated if they stop now. thank you in advance regards Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGx0x0 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi George Just received an information that as soon as SMP will be released they will stop Cat 3 ? Will they stop allocation of Case Officers to all cat 3 applicants ? I lodged my 175 visa application in November 2008 and I know that they have been allocating Case Officers to the October 2008 applicants now. I would be devastated if they stop now. thank you in advance regards Where did you receive this information from? Yesterday DrivingMissDaisy posted the following on the 'Category 3's - where are you now' thread: Yes, I asked my Agent this today. They said that SMP will be Cat 2 and will be processed along side Cat 3. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taz2008 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 A further signal that the SMPs are imminent in this MIA message received today: Important GSM Decision Ready Checklist update David Stewart, Program Director, General Skilled Migration, DIAC South Australia has provided the following advice to the MIA: You will be aware that Brisbane General Skilled Migration (GSM) currently have a trial of a Decision Ready Checklist (DRC) which gives priority allocation to GSM eLodged onshore applications lodged by Registered Migration Agents (RMAs) that are declared via the DRC to be decision ready. Currently only GSM applications in Priority 3 and those not subject to the Minister's Processing priority Direction can be lodged with the DRC. When State Migration Plans (SMPs) are introduced, priority in allocation must be given to GSM applications in Priority 2 and from that time only Priority 2 applications and those not subject to the direction will be able to be lodged with the DRC. Any Priority 3 DRC applications not yet allocated at that time will be allocated only when all Priority 2 applications (DRC and non DRC) have been allocated and will be allocated in order of date of receipt, ie they will receive no priority. This has the potential to inconvenience clients as there is a possibility that health and character clearances may expire before such applications are allocated and decided. You and your client should consider this in making any decision to lodge Priority 3 GSM applications with a DRC prior to the introduction of SMPs. George Lombard George Is this DRC still only for onshore or are they extending it to offshore now too? Thanks Tasha Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 thanks sir for the information. Can you kindly comment on the confusion that whether priority 3 people who have COs allocated since long and going through security checks and/or medicals and PCC clearance phase[presumably last stages],will be disturbed by this or not[when SMP comes alive]??? Does this pose hindrance to those applicants or not? thanks!!! Hi Stealth I'm not George Lombard but I suspect that he does not know the answer to your question as yet. It will depend on what turns out to happen in practice. However, Mr Stewart has remarked that a visa applicant in your own situation will probably experience "inconvenience." In other words, your CO will be told to dump your own visa application and to leave that gathering dust whilst the CO concentrates on Priority 2 applications instead. According to Mr Stewart, if the ensuing delay goes on for so long that your meds and pccs expire, you will just have to suffer the "inconvenience" of obtaining (and paying for) new meds and pccs at some unspecified time in the future. There is a precedent for DIAC's doing just this. On 17th December 2008, Minister Evans announced that GSM applicants whose occupations were going to be on his CSL from 1st January 2009 would received processing priority over all other GSM applicants from 1st Jan 2009 onwards. DIAC watered this down. DIAC said that the newly-announced arrangements would not apply to anybody who had heard from a CO prior to 31st December 2008. On 16th March 2009, the Minister suddenly decided to scrap his first experiment with the CSL and to produce a new CSL, with the new CSL becoming effective as soon as it was announced. DIAC remarked that they were in the middle of doing the final processing on some of the applications where the person's occupation was on the first CSL but it was not on the second CSL. They assumed that the Minister would want them to finish processing those applications, exactly has they had been doing with the cases where a CO had contacted the visa applicant on or before 31st December 2008? The Minister had a fit. Apparently he intended that everybody who was in touch with a CO but whose occupation was not on the new CSL would be dumped. He added that this would also be the case for anybody who had heard from a CO before 31st December 2008 but whose visa had not been granted before 16th March 2009. Loads of visa applicants who were disadvantaged completely by the Minister's sudden edict made formal complaints to the Commonwealth Ombudsman. The Ombudsman was very sympathetic. He told them that he understood completely the sorts of disadvantages and the financial and other "inconvenience" that they had suffered. However the Ombudsman remarked that in spite of his own personal sympathy for the people affected, he (the Ombudsman) had no legal power to do anything except sympathise. He could not invoke the Ombudsman's powers to intervene and to demand fair play because the decision to cause the "inconvenience" had been made by the Minister, not by DIAC. The Ombudsman has no power to criticise the actions and decisions of a Minister and in the situation described above, the Minister was the wrongdoer, not DIAC. DIAC themselves were just as sympathetic as the Ombudsman was but DIAC could do nothing. DIAC's own knuckles had already been rapped when they had tried to treat visa applicants with courtesy, consideration and fairness. The Minister had overruled DIAC and had decided that treating visa applicants abominably badly is a totally acceptable way for the Australian Government to behave and to be seen to behave . The Minister's attitude was, "If you don't like the way the Australian Government has chosen to muck you about, you can withdraw your visa application if you wish but we will hang on to 100% of the money that you have paid us if you withdraw the application. If you don't want to withdraw your visa application then put up and shut up instead." They've got you corralled and cornered, my friend. The only way out of the corner for you and for thousands of others like you is to abandon all thoughts of moving to Australia. Either find a country with a less abhorrent, uncivilised Government or stay in your country of origin if you prefer. The Australian Government is not offering you any other choices about this. The smart money will copy Dr Bernhard Moeller. He stuck to his guns and argued with the Australian Government until they changed their own legal practices. granted Dr Moeller and his family's PR visas, instituted a Public Inquiry by the Joint Standing Committee on Migration and made headline news in the Australian and International media. Having rubbed the Australian Government's nose in it in every possible way, Dr Moeller then moved his entire family to the USA instead. That left the inhabitants of Horsham (a small town in VIC) in a mess but their Government had caused it so Dr Moeller decided that he was justified in leaving a section of Australia's population (sick, suffering souls since Dr Moeller is a doctor of medicine) in the lurch. He moved to the USA with his family and the conduct of the American Government was 100% impeccable. He decided that he had had enough of a bunch of immigrant Aussies demonstrating all the worst attributes of a typical Australian redneck, so he gave the immigrants running the Aussie Government their come-uppance. The clear message to the Australian Government is, "Don't mess with a doctor if that doctor happens to be German because you will get the worst of it in the skirmish that he will cause...." However, Dr Moeller is a wealthy German doctor. He could afford to give the Australian Government a run for their money and he has helped thousands of would-be immigrants who want to move to Australia because he has forced international public scrutiny of the Health requirement for migration to Oz and 99.9 of that scrutiny, including in Australia, is critical of the Australian Government. Dr Moeller has been a tremendous force for good for any would-be immigrant who has a disabled child. If some sick Australians have suffered because he left Horsham, the Aussie Government caused that problem so it is up to them to solve it - without Dr Moeller. Very, very few prospective immigrants are in as strong a position as Dr Moeller is/was, though. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Where did you receive this information from? Hi Connie George obtained his information from the Migration Institute of Australia (the MIA.) He says so in his post. The MIA website is below, so that you can see who they are: Migration Institute of Australia Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stealth Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi Stealth I'm not George Lombard but I suspect that he does not know the answer to your question as yet. It will depend on what turns out to happen in practice. However, Mr Stewart has remarked that a visa applicant in your own situation will probably experience "inconvenience." In other words, your CO will be told to dump your own visa application and to leave that gathering dust whilst the CO concentrates on Priority 2 applications instead. According to Mr Stewart, if the ensuing delay goes on for so long that your meds and pccs expire, you will just have to suffer the "inconvenience" of obtaining (and paying for) new meds and pccs at some unspecified time in the future. Cheers Gill very very meaningful and thought provoking words by you!!! highly appreciable!!! 1-Word "inconvenience"can not do justice to actual suffering and devastation though 2-May i ask one question...i am in current SOL[electronics engineer],applied 176[family sponsored]..may i ask one question...is it possible for me to apply for SMP[any state] and then get my application changed to 176 SS[under SMP] at this stage of processing to keep my visa application alive??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 George Is this DRC still only for onshore or are they extending it to offshore now too? Thanks Tasha Hi Tasha The DRC game is an experiment by DIAC which extends to applications for onshore GSM and other skilled visas only. It does not apply to any offshore visas as yet. Alan Collett confirmed in another thread the other day that although the DRC trial was originally used with onshore GSM visas only, it has recently been extended to onshore applications for ENS 856 and RSMS 857 visas as well. On the one hand, anything that will hurry things up for a visa applicant who is already in Australia is a good thing. The Australian Government is helping itself to tax-income from those people so the very least it can do is to offer them every possible assistance with their visa applications in return for their taxes. On the other hand, the practice of encouraging DRCs means that DIAC are not telling the truth in their own statement below: Migration Agents – Applications & Forms Quite apart from the abhorrence of an Australian Government Depatment telling lies to and misleading the whole world via that Department's own website, there is evidently a significant discrepancy between what the MIA claims to believe about the DRCs and what Mr Stewart claims to believe about them. According to Mr Stewart, DRCs are only possible in cases where an RMA has lodged the original visa application. According to the MIA's Notice to all of its RMA members, a DRC can be lodged by any RMA, whether that RMA lodged the visa application or not. http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/91264-any-agents-could-please-confirm-update-email-mia.html The MIA gave its members to understand that the DRCs represent a significant new business opportunity for themselves. Many of the MIA's RMA members have seized that business opportunity for themselves and have made a substantial amount of money out of lodging DRCs even though the RMA who is now concerned with making a skekel for himself has often had no involvement with the original visa application. Jamie Smith is a well-known MIA tadpole on here. I asked what sort of "professional" body would ever dream of suggesting to its members that they can make money for themselves out of preying on somebody else's misfortune? Only a body that is just as spivvy and grotty as some of its members would ever stoop to such despicably low standards of conduct of its own, and such a body could not be called a "professional" body by any stretch of the imagination. According to Jamie, the MIA were merely "naive." They were too "naive" to realise that some of their members would behave like spivvy little sewer rats because of what the MIA had said, apparently. Genuine professionals are not naive, for a start. They can see what will happen if they publish a Notice that is as irresponsible as the MIA's Notice about the DRCs, so genuinely professional bodies desist from making any such comments in the first place. Those of their members who wish to behave like spivvy little sewer rats will find the ways to do it and will then do it all by themselves. The very last thing that they need is the sort of encouragement that they were provided with by the MIA in its allegedly "naive" Notice. Despite this alleged "naivete," though, the MIA has been able to persuade DIAC to extend the business opportunity for its members and it has duly notified its members of this extended business opportunity, so Alan Collett confirmed to me the other day: http://www.pomsinoz.com/forum/migration-issues/97458-desision-ready-applications-leapfrogging-older-856ens-applications-argh-3.html The Law Council of Australia might well have told the MIA about the latest extension of the business opportunity but it is very unlikely that Alan is a member of the LCA and thus heard about it direct from the LCA because Alan is not a legal practitioner. He is a chartered accountant who also happens to be an RMA and an MIA member. My guess is that the MIA are running scared of their own "naivete" and so they have decided to try to blame the LCA for the next round of public disapproval about the whole DRC racket. DIAC are the MIA's willing accomplices in this despicable little racket, though, and DIAC should know better than to tell the world blatant lies on their own website. Via one of his DRC-only clients, I have been told the name of an RMA who has done the only honourable thing possible. Apparently this RMA did lodge a DRC for the client who told me about it but the RMA concerned acted pro bono and did not charge anything for his own involvement with the DRC lodgement for the cient concerned. He had not acted for the client in lodging the visa application in the beginning - the client did not use a migration agent for that part of the proceedings. I thought about naming the RMA concerned - because he and his conduct are worthy of the highest possible praise and approval. Acting pro bono is the only honourable way to square this thing off. On the other hand, it would not be fair for me to name him because all the other DRC applicants who want a leg-up for free would instantly beat a path to the poor man's door if I named him on here, I suspect! For that reason, I decline to give the name of the very worthy and honourable RMA involved. He knows who he is and the rest of the world does not need to know, it seems to me. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GGx0x0 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Where did you receive this information from? Hi Connie George obtained his information from the Migration Institute of Australia (the MIA.) He says so in his post. The MIA website is below, so that you can see who they are: Migration Institute of Australia Cheers Gill Hi Gill I am not referring to George's post I am referring to nowrs post were he says: Just received an information that as soon as SMP will be released they will stop Cat 3 ? I was wondering who told him this. regards Connie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi Gill I am not referring to George's post I am referring to nowrs post were he says: "Just received an information that as soon as SMP will be released they will stop Cat 3?" I was wondering who told him this. regards Connie Hi Connie Sorry - my mistake, not yours. The idea that they will "stop" processing Cat 3 applications is half-right and half-wrong. They will certainly suspend the processing of Cat 3 applications until all the applications in Cat 2 have been processed and/or the quota of 23,000 State sponsored applications for 2010-2011 has been reached, whichever happens first, I suppose: Migration Program Statistics - Statistics - Publications, Research and Statistics Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Gollywobbler Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 very very meaningful and thought provoking words by you!!! highly appreciable!!! 1-Word "inconvenience"can not do justice to actual suffering and devastation though 2-May i ask one question...i am in current SOL[electronics engineer],applied 176[family sponsored]..may i ask one question...is it possible for me to apply for SMP[any state] and then get my application changed to 176 SS[under SMP] at this stage of processing to keep my visa application alive??? Hi Stealth I agree with you that "inconvenience" is a weasel word to use in this situation. That is why I put it into inverted commas. When did you apply for your visa, hon? If you applied for your sc 176 visa prior to 1st July 2010, then the legislation would not prevent you from changing it to an application for a State sponsored sc 176 visa if you are able to secure SS from one of the State Governments. The question is whether you will be able to obtain the State sponsorship. For example, you will have been required to score 6.0 or more in all 4 of the Modules of the IELTS in order to lodge your visa application. If one of the States offers to consider sponsoring Electronics Engineers, the State in question might well lift the IELTS bar to 7.0 for the occupation concerned. So you might have to do another IELTS Test before you can apply for sponsorship from the relevant State. I don't think that the SMPs will be the end of the story. I think that Evans' Grand Vision is/was to create a situation in which almost every GSM visa applicant will be forced to reapply for a GSM visa in due course. "Due course" will be once the person can meet the new, higher, Points Test, can meet any new IELTS bar and has received SMP sponsorship from one of the State Governments. In the meantime, I think that the Cap & Kill Bill 2010 will be resurrected and enacted. That will enable the Government to get rid of the huge backlog of GSM applications and to start again with the whole thing, in the way that Evans means it to go on. After about a year, the promised refunds might actually be paid out but if it were me, I would not rely on a promise of interest-free repayment of a tiny amount of my money at an unspecified date in the future. That is nothing but a vague promise to repay an interest-free loan at some stage. None of the applicants whose applications have already been capped and ceased have received a single dime of their loan money back as yet. Which is a totally disgraceful way for the Australian Government to behave but it is a disgraceful Government, in my opinion, so I guess I should not be surprised. Cheers Gill Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest JK2510 Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 In the meantime, I think that the Cap & Kill Bill 2010 will be resurrected and enacted. That will enable the Government to get rid of the huge backlog of GSM applications and to start again with the whole thing, in the way that Evans means it to go on. Hi Gill, I know these quotes are just your opinions but who do you think will be affected the most by these possible plans the government have? I don't think that the SMPs will be the end of the story. I think that Evans' Grand Vision is/was to create a situation in which almost every GSM visa applicant will be forced to reapply for a GSM visa in due course. "Due course" will be once the person can meet the new, higher, Points Test, can meet any new IELTS bar and has received SMP sponsorship from one of the State Governments. Do you think that this would affect any applicants on the new SOL? This whole visa process at times feel like it's far from over but somedays it feels like the end is in sight. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest stealth Posted October 26, 2010 Share Posted October 26, 2010 Hi Stealth I agree with you that "inconvenience" is a weasel word to use in this situation. That is why I put it into inverted commas. When did you apply for your visa, hon? If you applied for your sc 176 visa prior to 1st July 2010, then the legislation would not prevent you from changing it to an application for a State sponsored sc 176 visa if you are able to secure SS from one of the State Governments. Cheers Gill i applied in January 2010 and got CO in February 2010... currently my Form 80 is not "met"everything else is "met" including medicals,pcc,work experience etc... ASIO confirmed to have received the referral and it is "external checks" as stated by CO lately!!! my IELTS: L:7.5,R:7.5,W:6.5,S:7.5 Overall:7.5 anyways i was browsing through various forums as i do all the time,came across this post by someone in response to this question of clash between cat-3 and SMP... This is how and where rumours start! If you look at the priority processing guidelines, it clearly states that CO's will take Prio1, followed by Prio 2 and so on. Within the prios, the order wil be on first come, first serve basis. Prio 1 is ENS and RSMS, both require employer sponsorship - as mentioned, this is rare. Prio 2 is State or territory sponsored. States sponsor only certain occupations for a certain period and generally require proving high amounts of funds (15-25 AUD per applicant), therefore making these applications a small number too Prio 3 is all other cases. The guidelines state that it can take up to 18-24 months, so read the details on the immi website again. comments??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.