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

[hughescl]

Hi all

I'm in need of some advice for my sister. As a family they have a 176 SS visa application in they are doing their meds next week, their SS is for WA as their agent said this was their only option to get the visa application in before 1st July changes as SA had closed earlier than expected. They want to be in SA as we are here and that was their first choice of state. Is there a way after they receive the visa to reside in SA not WA or do you think they should try and contact their case officer now that the SS for SA is open? Any adive or thoughts would be greatly received

Many Thanks
Claire

[wayney34]

Hi we are in the same position as we needed to get the 176 in by july so also applied for WA, I spoke to a lady in the immigration department and she told us just to apply for sa state sponsorship and then it could be changed. Because when you look at it all it is is a number put on your visa application form.

[Riponian]

I would have thought that as the visa is SS as in they want you to work in that state! I would contact our agent and see if they can switch states as it would be harder to get to WA and not wanting to be there!!!

[hughescl]

I would have thought that as the visa is SS as in they want you to work in that state! I would contact our agent and see if they can switch states as it would be harder to get to WA and not wanting to be there!!!

Thanks the job that they have is on the SMP for SA as well as WAalso and it is high priority so they are going to drop a note to their case officer

Thanks
Claire

[Gollywobbler]

Hi All

Let us say that Bloggs has SS from WA but he would really prefer to live in SA. However Bloggs has already applied for a sc 176 visa, citing his SS from WA and he has made his visa application after 1st July 2010 but the visa has not yet been granted.

If Bloggs tells DIAC that he has changed his mind about wanting to move to WA, DIAC will have no choice but to refuse Bloggs' existing visa application because the sc 176 application must be sponsored and, in effect, Bloggs is informing the Minister for Immi that he has decided to reject the sponsorship from WA that forms the basis of his application for a sc 176 visa.

So if Bloggs is pre-grant but he decides that he really wants to move to SA instead, the proper course of action is for Bloggs to seek SS from SA and then to make a new application for an sc 176 visa, relying on the SS from SA in his new visa application. DIAC will have to be paid a new Visa Application Charge for the new visa application and the existing application can just be left to lapse. There is no legal requirement for Bloggs to withdraw the existing visa application that he has paid for and DIAC cannot require him to withdraw the existing application, so in Bloggs' shoes, I'd leave the existing application running.

That said, if the existing application was made using the on-line application system then the new sc 176 application will have to be made and submitted on paper because the e-visa system can't cope with 2 different sc 176 applications from the same applicant. So organising the second sc 176 application will be quite a pantomime and Bloggs' migration agent will demand additional fees in order to pay the agent for the additional hassle.

However if Bloggs' sc 176 visa has already been granted, with SS from WA, then up until the time when the visa is validated, Bloggs has a residual duty to inform the Minister about any "material changes of circumstance." So if Bloggs changes his mind about WA before he has validated his visa, he ought to inform the Minister about his change of heart in order to allow the Minister to consider whether or not Bloggs' change of mind amounts to a material change of circumstance. If the Minister decides that it is a material change then the Minister has the power to cancel Bloggs' sc 176 visa.

All that said, the visa is validated via Bloggs making his Initial Entry to Australia. The legislation does NOT say that Bloggs must make his Initial Entry via Perth just because he has SS from WA. He can make his Initial Entry via Adelaide if he prefers.

Once Bloggs has made his Initial Entry then the visa process is complete and DIAC drop out of the picture. There is no legal machinery whereby DIAC can interfere with where Bloggs decides to settle after he has made his Initial Entry.

So Bloggs makes his Initial Entry in Adelaide. Whilst he is in SA, he explores the local jobs, housing and schools (if relevant) scenario locally. He decides that he wants to settle in SA rather than WA. No legal machinery can interfere with his decision if he leaves it until this stage BEFORE he forms any definite intentions.

Registered Migration Agents have a duty to be legal, decent, honest and truthful with DIAC. Therefore they are apt to steer their clients away from the idea of moving States rather than explaining all the details and some of them do not know enough about the detailed law to be able to explain it to their clients. The Agent wants to avoid a situation in which his own conscience is troubling him because his client Bloggs has told the Agent something and the Agent is not sure whether it should be disclosed to DIAC. From the Agent's point of view, it is preferable to clobber Blogg's ideas and then nobody will have a potential problem with DIAC. However once Bloggs has made his Initial Entry, the migration agent drops out of the legal picture as well because, like DIAC, the Agent's job ends once the client has made his Initial Entry.

Bloggs is a Permanent Resident of Australia if he holds a sc 176 visa that he has validated. Under Australia's (written) Constitution, Bloggs can settle wherever he likes in Australia and he can move around Australia totally freely if he so wishes. So the only way Parliament can prevent Bloggs from settling in SA if he has SS from WA would be by altering the Constitution first. This sort of change to the Constitution cannot be made without a prior Referendum of all Australian Citizens. That is a safeguard that is built into the Constutition, to prevent "[legal] mission creep" by the Government.

It is too expensive to hold a Referendum about something like this and 3/4 of Aussies would not understand what they were being asked to decide or why they were being asked to make a decision about something that does not affect the Aussie's own life as far as he can see.

Policy is that if Bloggs in sponsored by WA then he should at least make a reasonable attempt to settle in WA for a couple of years. This Policy is stated in the DIAC website but the website does not distinguish between claims that are founded in Law and claims that are founded in Policy only. Policy is not Law but it suits DIAC to give third parties the impression that it is. If the new visa holder obeys Policy as well as Law, the Aussie Government does not have to furrow its own brow about him.

So to recap, it is PREMATURE for Bloggs to be seen to make any firm decisions until after he has validated his sc 176 visa but as soon as he has validated it then Bloggs is free to do as he likes.

Cheers

Gill

[trevorpayne]

If you obtain a 176 visa you can live and work anywhere in Australia as its a permanent visa.
I know it gets frowned upon as you have obtained a visa from a state that somebody else would have been desperate for.
But you can live and work where ever you wish 176.
Hope this helps.

[snifter]

Once again Gill you've given a comprehensive reply. Thank you, always good to read your informative posts :)

[ozdream]

The Migration Act saying the visa can be cancelled due to "not being good character". The same as for citizenship applicaton. Weather or not violence of commitment of livingin the sponsored state for at 2 yrs belong to "not being good character"? Some say this refer to police check. While others say not meeting the moral requirement belong to "not being good character". So confused!!

Gill's reply indicate no risk of visa cancelling without living in the sponsored state for at 2 yrs. But what about citizenship application? The visa granted notification notes being good character is necessary for citizenship application.

[Gollywobbler]

The Migration Act saying the visa can be cancelled due to "not being good character". The same as for citizenship applicaton. Weather or not violence of commitment of livingin the sponsored state for at 2 yrs belong to "not being good character"? Some say this refer to police check. While others say not meeting the moral requirement belong to "not being good character". So confused!!

Gill's reply indicate no risk of visa cancelling without living in the sponsored state for at 2 yrs. But what about citizenship application? The visa granted notification notes being good character is necessary for citizenship application.

Hi Ozdreamer

Have you studied Fact Sheet 79? If not, the link is below:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sh...9character.htm

"general conduct" means "on more than one occasion."

So which part of the character test are you fearful of failing, and why, please?

If you make too much of a fuss about this - thereby drawing too much attention to yourself - you will be inviting DIAC to wonder about whether you ever had any genuine intention of moving to SA, won't you? I would say that it is not wise to draw unnecessary attention to yourself when you would not be committing any crimes by moving State if you want to.

Cheers

Gill

[jasongd]

Hi,

I would just like to say that Gill is like a guru and as usuall a question that has been bugging has been totally put at rest by Gill's answer.


Jason