Is there a way you can live in SA if your SS is for WA?

[Gollywobbler]

A agree with that.
I think it's actually good that people don't have to stay for those 2 years in the selected state. The point is some states don't do their research carefully and they sponsor professionals who don't have much chance finding jobs in the state. Then I think it's absolutely fair to move out and look for a job somewhere else.
We got SA sponsorship and are preparing to go there, but I was informed by employment agent that there is no demand for our jobs! I knew there were not many job adverts, but she opened my eyes and now I know that we can't set Adelaide as our target place to live, no matter what. We have to consider other options too, even before arrival.
It's really sad, because we liked the idea of living in Adelaide. But the truth is we were told there is no chance to get jobs before arrival (unless we are doctors/nurses) and we're even prepared for weeks or months of looking for jobs. We're worried we can waste our savings looking for jobs in 'wrong' state - without our savings we won't be able to get a house :/
Sorry for chaotic response, hope you understand :D

Hi Lenore

Yes, I agree with you. I've heard the same things as you have.

I once helped a man who is a particular type of Computing Professional. (I know nothing about IT so I can't remember the details.) He wanted to settle in Melbourne and his particular type of IT skill was on the list for VIC. However VIC turned him down for State sponsorship, claiming that their own "expert panel" said there was no need for his particular wizardry in Melbourne. He himself had found 12 different, recent adverts for jobs in Melbourne where his own particular skill & experience would have been perfect.

So I then went through all the sponsorship Lists for all the other States and picked out all the ones where the man's particular occupation was listed. He then looked at the job-adverts in those States and apparently WA was the only place that actually needed his particular combination of skill and experience.

Cheers

Gill

[railman2404]

The information Gill has is as always exceptional and of the greatest assistance

Many Thanks

[Crushfamily]

Haven't seen this point made anywhere but those with a 176 have this little paragraph

Visa conditions
The visa you have been granted has no conditions

[Gollywobbler]

Haven't seen this point made anywhere but those with a 176 have this little paragraph

Visa conditions
The visa you have been granted has no conditions

Hi there

I'm not a migration agent so I've never seen a visa grant letter for a sc 176 visa. The information that you have provided is invaluable, in my view - so very many thanks for it.

The business of Visa Conditions is most peculiar, I reckon. I'm a lawyer so I have glanced through the relevant legislation, though not carefully.

My widowed mother has a Contributory Parent visa that was granted when she was 84. The letter solemnly said, "The visa holder must mot marry before entering Australia," and it quoted Condition 8512 or whatever it was. Luckily, I was in a humorous mood....

What on earth did these dumb mutts imagine that my mother might do? It is about 3/4 mile to the nearest Old Folks Home. Did they think that Mum might hobble down there on her Zimmer frame and kidnap some old codger out of the place?

Had I been in a stroppy mood, I'd have contacted DIAC's Directors and said, "WTF is this nonsense? I REFUSE to accept this visa unless you lot GET REAL. I demand that you expunge this ludicrous Condition from the terms of this visa grant within 48 hours, failing which I will sue the Minister for Immi for utter misrepresentation, obtaining money by deception and everything else I can think of. So get on with it - remove this daft Condition from the visa of an old lady and do so immediately."

Luckily, I was in a good mood and the boss of the local Old Folks Home is a friend, so she and I had a giggle instead.

Cheers

Gill

[AdelaideSA]

Hi AdelaideSA

I'm soooo sorry that I didn't get round to answering your question several months ago. I probably read it, thought, "I'll answer that tomorrow" and then forgot to do so.

I agree with Cooler. Cooler knows people who have simply moved to another State within the two years and so do I.

.......
Luckily, all the Policy makers reckon that they have much bigger political fish to fry than fussing about Bloggs, which means that they are also not fussing about you, hon!

Cheers

Gill

Hello Gill,

Thank you for replying and also sharing your views. It is this type of wonderful platform and discussions that can support people like us to move forward with plans of our future. Thanks once again for that.

We people who are sc176 visa sponsored, all know that there are NO VISA CONDITIONS in our visas. Like when I was a student in AUS...there are always VISA CONDITIONS like "no work right etc..".But I think the reason why people like me are confused is because thinking about the DECLARATION we signed when we applied for our sponsorship(agree to stay two years in the state). Now according to some RMAs, if we only VALIDATES our visas BUT not put the REASONABLE EFFORT to stay in the sponsoring state, then it might look like we had NO INTENTIONS whatsoever to stay in the sponsoring state the time we signed the declaration. That can lead to a FALSE DECLARATION we made when we applied for a permanent visa like any other visas for example if it proved later on that a spouse visa was issued where fake marriage certificates were provided.

That is the reason the agent is asking to show INTENTIONS of staying in the states. Now this leads to some more confusing questions,like,

1. Say for example, a person does not even shows up in the sponsoring state after s/he validates the visa any other port, WHO or WHICH DEPARTMENT is going to look for this person whether he was in the sponsoring state or not and start judge the FALSE DECLARATION and obviously at WHAT STAGE/TIME of this person's visa duration? Is that when the person applies for citizenship or WHEN??

2. If we agree that we have to make a REASONABLE EFFORT to stay in the sponsoring state, what can be the possible CHECKLIST one has to follow to prove that EFFORT. Is this "saving all your job applications, bills, copy of drivers license"?

again, the question rises, if there is no LEGAL OBLIGATION or VISA CONDITION, why a person needs to save ALL these EVIDENCES.

I think, these all terms: "NO VISA CONDITION" but "MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT" ,"probability of VISA CANCELLATION" all these are just making people like us starting wondering more about the real AUSSIE LAWS behind this..

Can you help us to understand these terms in actual LAW definitions? What can be the possible reasons really a PERMANENT VISA can be cancelled?

Once again thanks GILL....there are people who knows about these issues well BUT likes to confuse people like us( you know where I'm indicating..:D) more but you are not definitely among those ones!!!!

Regards

[Gollywobbler]

Hello Gill,

Thank you for replying and also sharing your views. It is this type of wonderful platform and discussions that can support people like us to move forward with plans of our future. Thanks once again for that.

We people who are sc176 visa sponsored, all know that there are NO VISA CONDITIONS in our visas. Like when I was a student in AUS...there are always VISA CONDITIONS like "no work right etc..".But I think the reason why people like me are confused is because thinking about the DECLARATION we signed when we applied for our sponsorship(agree to stay two years in the state). Now according to some RMAs, if we only VALIDATES our visas BUT not put the REASONABLE EFFORT to stay in the sponsoring state, then it might look like we had NO INTENTIONS whatsoever to stay in the sponsoring state the time we signed the declaration. That can lead to a FALSE DECLARATION we made when we applied for a permanent visa like any other visas for example if it proved later on that a spouse visa was issued where fake marriage certificates were provided.

That is the reason the agent is asking to show INTENTIONS of staying in the states. Now this leads to some more confusing questions,like,

1. Say for example, a person does not even shows up in the sponsoring state after s/he validates the visa any other port, WHO or WHICH DEPARTMENT is going to look for this person whether he was in the sponsoring state or not and start judge the FALSE DECLARATION and obviously at WHAT STAGE/TIME of this person's visa duration? Is that when the person applies for citizenship or WHEN??

2. If we agree that we have to make a REASONABLE EFFORT to stay in the sponsoring state, what can be the possible CHECKLIST one has to follow to prove that EFFORT. Is this "saving all your job applications, bills, copy of drivers license"?

again, the question rises, if there is no LEGAL OBLIGATION or VISA CONDITION, why a person needs to save ALL these EVIDENCES.

I think, these all terms: "NO VISA CONDITION" but "MAKE A REASONABLE EFFORT" ,"probability of VISA CANCELLATION" all these are just making people like us starting wondering more about the real AUSSIE LAWS behind this..

Can you help us to understand these terms in actual LAW definitions? What can be the possible reasons really a PERMANENT VISA can be cancelled?

Once again thanks GILL....there are people who knows about these issues well BUT likes to confuse people like us( you know where I'm indicating..:D) more but you are not definitely among those ones!!!!

Regards

Hi AdelaideSA

The one thing one must NOT do with the Law is to try to become inventive about how to interpret the wording. The average Judge is not loaded with imagination and s/he will NOT import imaginative ideas that are not contained in the strict wording of the relevant Legislation.

This RMA of yours seems to be full of imaginative ideas, isn't he? Apparently DIAC might suspect ABC and Immigration SA might suspect XYZ. The Judge would tell both of them, "PROVE IT, or forget about your subjective suspicions."

Oz and the UK are similar in that the Law is construed "contra proferentem." "Contra proferentem" means construing the wording in a way that helps the Defendant, not the Plaintiff.

If I had to listen to DIAC or Immigration SA drivelling on that they suspect that your motives were not kosher, I'd tell both of them, "Either PROVE IT or get out. Stop wasting my time and that of the Defendant."

The Government Plaintiffs know perfectly well that that is what would happen. So where is the proof of what you allegedly intended? The only documentary proof seems to be that you signed a document saying that you intended to move to SA.

Right. That's what it says and the Judge is required to assume that you signed it in good faith because there is no proof to the contrary, surely?

I'd tell your RMA to stop writing romantic novels, frankly.

The fact is that there is no relevant Visa Condition. Parliament could introduce one if they wanted to but they have not done so. So that is the Fed Govt kicked into the long grass.

Apparently Immigration SA might wave a piece of paper and allege that they suspect that you were not acting in good faith when you signed it. So? Visas are a matter of Federal Law, not SA Government Law. Federal Law does not say that you *must* move to SA, so the document that Immigration SA are waving only reflects Policy, not the Law. The Court will pay regard to Policy but it has no jurisdiction to enforce Policy. Policy is not Law and there is no legal procedure for enforcing Policy.

This really comes down to your own conscience, my friend. The only person who really knows the truth about what your intentions were when you signed the Immigration SA document is you. If your conscience tells you that it is OK to say something that you do not mean - well, I am only a lawyer. Whether or not you should tell the truth is a matter of morality, not Law. Should you feel in need of moral advice, I would recommend consulting the vicar. The Church deals with issues of morality. The Court only deals with the Law.

Cheers

Gill

[trall]

This is really interesting. Say Bloggs has a ss 176 with SA. They made a vacation trip to validate their visas in Adelaide as they were not in a position to make the move permanent at that time. They are now planning their permanent move and selling off their business, the house etc...... However, they have been finding that work in Adelaide is difficult to secure. One of them has a contact in Melbourne who can offer work, this would be a weight off their minds. Would this be possible given the comments above?

[Gollywobbler]

This is really interesting. Say Bloggs has a ss 176 with SA. They made a vacation trip to validate their visas in Adelaide as they were not in a position to make the move permanent at that time. They are now planning their permanent move and selling off their business, the house etc...... However, they have been finding that work in Adelaide is difficult to secure. One of them has a contact in Melbourne who can offer work, this would be a weight off their minds. Would this be possible given the comments above?

Hi trall

Yes - perfectly possible.

One of the biggest problems with the GSM visa programme is that Government Wheels turn incredibly slowly. So all the "in demand " lists are usually out of date by the time they are published, except for the occupations that will never become out of date, such as Nursing.

The new Skills Australia (or whatever they are called ) quango is said to be working on ways to try to predict future demand instead of just relying on lists of stats that showed what was in demand 5 years ago.

Can one predict future demand for different occupations with any certainty? Sure, for as long as the population keeps growing and ageing, there will be an on-going and increasing demand for medics. Predicting that fact is common-sense that does not require any man-made predictive tools.

I don't know whether it is really possible to devise a predictive tool that would actually work for most/all other occupations, though?

Cheers

Gill

[ali_bajwa]

Hi trall

Yes - perfectly possible.

One of the biggest problems with the GSM visa programme is that Government Wheels turn incredibly slowly. So all the "in demand " lists are usually out of date by the time they are published, except for the occupations that will never become out of date, such as Nursing.

The new Skills Australia (or whatever they are called ) quango is said to be working on ways to try to predict future demand instead of just relying on lists of stats that showed what was in demand 5 years ago.

Can one predict future demand for different occupations with any certainty? Sure, for as long as the population keeps growing and ageing, there will be an on-going and increasing demand for medics. Predicting that fact is common-sense that does not require any man-made predictive tools.

I don't know whether it is really possible to devise a predictive tool that would actually work for most/all other occupations, though?

Cheers

Gill

Now the issue is settled that staying in sponsored state is moral obligation, not a legal obligation.

But now point is, what will happen when one goes for Citizenship application. DIAC will definitely ask about Visa type and will definitely ask where the applicant has stayed for last 4 years before applying for citizenship. So, if applicants fails to prove that he had stayed in sponsored state for 2 years, what are effects on his citizenship application.

[Gollywobbler]

Now the issue is settled that staying in sponsored state is moral obligation, not a legal obligation.

But now point is, what will happen when one goes for Citizenship application. DIAC will definitely ask about Visa type and will definitely ask where the applicant has stayed for last 4 years before applying for citizenship. So, if applicants fails to prove that he had stayed in sponsored state for 2 years, what are effects on his citizenship application.

Hi Ali

None. If one has not broken any laws by moving to a State other than the sponsoring State, why should a history of lawful conduct affect a Citizenship application?

Cheers

Gill