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

[Guest 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

[Guest 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!!!

[Guest 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

[Guest 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-sheets/79character.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

[Guest 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

[Guest hughescl]

Hi Gill thanks so much for your reply very indepth great help to my sister Claire

[Guest Big Bob]

Hi Gill

That explanation was incredible.. but I have a different question for you...I applied for ACT state sponsorship in May 2011.. They have sponsored me this month after 3 months ...While I was waiting for ACT application outcome I got my new skill assessment from ACS and luckily that code was in SA SMP list... So just as a backup option (whatever) I applied for SA state sponsorship and am expecting an outcome of it this week...I did all this just to make sure I have sponsorship from at least 1 state before state quota in my occupation fills up & my past experience with SS was real bad (I got rejected from Victoria after 6 months of waiting- no demand;sure waste of time).

 

I am waiting for SA SS outcome as personally I prefer Adelaide over Canberra as Canberra has job complications (security clearance issues).

 

I am not sure what do I do with ACT sponsorship if I get approved from SA?

 

Is there any need to inform ACT CM Department that I wanna withdraw or something?

 

If "Yes" then I am scared to tell them as they asked in application form "Have you applied for SS in any other state which at that time I answered "no" but later on i did and never updated them (As I applied for SA).

 

Is their any need to update ACT or they gonna update DIAC or something?I am not sure what to do at this point. I am kinda worried and need real help.

 

thanks in advance

regards

Bob

[Gollywobbler]

Hi Bob

 

I don't see a problem so I think you should try to relax, hon.

 

I'd suggest that you sit tight and wait to see if SA offer you State Sponsorship. If they do, then make your visa application with the sponsorship from SA.

 

If you want to, you could then inform the ACT that - as a matter of courtesy - you are letting them know that you have decided not to proceed with applying for a visa based on the ACT's offer of sponsorship. That is all that the ACT need or want to know.

 

Good luck with your application to Immigration SA. Please would you be kind enough to let me know once you have received the formal Offer from them? Thanks.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Big Bob]

Hi Bob

I don't see a problem so I think you should try to relax, hon.

I'd suggest that you sit tight and wait to see if SA offer you State Sponsorship. If they do, then make your visa application with the sponsorship from SA.

If you want to, you could then inform the ACT that - as a matter of courtesy - you are letting them know that you have decided not to proceed with applying for a visa based on the ACT's offer of sponsorship. That is all that the ACT need or want to know.

Good luck with your application to Immigration SA. Please would you be kind enough to let me know once you have received the formal Offer from them? Thanks.

Cheers

Gill

Thanks Gill... I appreciate that... Will sure update you with the same..

Kind regards

Big Bob

[Guest AdelaideSA]

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

 

 

Hello Gill,

 

I'm new in this forum. I was looking in the forums to get answers regarding sc176 visa obligations. After reading through several forums, I found out that

your answer is by far the best answer one can expect. And I'm sure all of the forum friends will agree.

 

I want to share my situation. I'm a SA sponsored sc176 visa holder. I'm trying to get a decent job in my nominated occupation for around 3 months now but with no luck. Unfortunately like many others, I do got some good response in WA, NSW but didn't took that risk(?) thinking of the 2 years obligation.

Now after doing a fair amount research, I think I'll try to look in other states more firmly.

 

When I discussed the issue with my RMA, he suggested me to at least try for another 3-4 months to avoid suspision of an earlier false declaration.(The declaration that we signed about 2 years staying when applying for SS). The reason he mentioned that the only way the visa can be cancelled if it is proved that there was a false or misleading information provided previously while applying for visa. So, he suggested to try here for 3-4 months so that

the SA State government never ask DIAC to cancel the visa.

 

So, what I'm asking that is there really any way that SA government can ask DIAC to cancel the visa specially in my case where I'm already staying in this state for more than 3 months without any luck.

 

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

[coolerking]

Hello Gill,

 

I'm new in this forum. I was looking in the forums to get answers regarding sc176 visa obligations. After reading through several forums, I found out that

your answer is by far the best answer one can expect. And I'm sure all of the forum friends will agree.

 

I want to share my situation. I'm a SA sponsored sc176 visa holder. I'm trying to get a decent job in my nominated occupation for around 3 months now but with no luck. Unfortunately like many others, I do got some good response in WA, NSW but didn't took that risk(?) thinking of the 2 years obligation.

Now after doing a fair amount research, I think I'll try to look in other states more firmly.

 

When I discussed the issue with my RMA, he suggested me to at least try for another 3-4 months to avoid suspision of an earlier false declaration.(The declaration that we signed about 2 years staying when applying for SS). The reason he mentioned that the only way the visa can be cancelled if it is proved that there was a false or misleading information provided previously while applying for visa. So, he suggested to try here for 3-4 months so that

the SA State government never ask DIAC to cancel the visa.

 

So, what I'm asking that is there really any way that SA government can ask DIAC to cancel the visa specially in my case where I'm already staying in this state for more than 3 months without any luck.

 

Your answer will be highly appreciated.

 

 

You're here? If so, just go, it is not a problem and I know many who have done. I know one family who wrote to DIAC/State and they said it was not an issue.

 

All the best,

Cooler

[Guest AdelaideSA]

You're here? If so, just go, it is not a problem and I know many who have done. I know one family who wrote to DIAC/State and they said it was not an issue.

 

All the best,

Cooler

 

 

Hi Cooler,

Thanks for your reply....yes, from all these posts...it seems it shouldn't be an issue.....

[Gollywobbler]

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.

 

I know at least one RMA who believes that the Government should legislate so that DIAC can force people to stay in the sponsoring State for a minimum of 2 years. My RMA friend believes that this sort of firm, clear approach would prevent all the agonising that hundreds of new migrants like you do every year.

 

I know what she means and I do agree with her that if the Government wants to be able to control something then it is up to the Government to introduce some new legislation to deal with whatever the politicians are worrying about. Ask a politician and s/he would whine, "Parliament hasn't got time to deal with this one, very small-scale issue. Us pollies are too busy [making a serious mess of] dealing with issues that are much more important than this one!"

 

If I were going to be allowed to put my own two penn'orth into the debate, I'd argue:-

 

1. Australia ceased tp be a penal colony in 1841. We do not want to go back to those inglorious beginnings.

 

2. The strength of the modern Australian economy is built upon the fact that we permit the free movement of people within the 8 States & Territories. Let us say that Bloggs is a new migrant, sponsored by SA on a sc 176 visa and Bloggs is a Mining Engineer. Superficially, Bloggs seems to be attractive to SA because BHP Billiton own the Olympic Dam mine (which is about 500kms NW of Adelaide) and BHP are about to expand the Olympic Dam mine massively. However, BHP have interviewed Bloggs and say that his particular mining skills are better suited to mining iron ore than to mining the uranium that is being retrieved from Olympic Dam. BHP owns iron ore mines as well but the iron ore is found in WA. There are no large iron ore deposits in SA. What is the point of keeping this highly skilled man Bloggs trapped in SA when apparently his skills would be more useful in WA? What do we want? Economic growth and prosperity for Australia or trying to imprison Bloggs in SA for 24 months? It makes no sense not to pack Bloggs' bags for him and buy him a map that shows the locations of the iron ore mines in WA.

 

3. Bloggs is so unhappy in a place where his real skill is no use that he has resorted to getting a job as a street sweeper in Adelaide. Whilst he's sweeping the street, a native-born Aussie is sitting at home in Adelaide, on the dole because the Aussie doesn't have any real skills. So - it is more sensible to send Bloggs to WA and send the Aussie out to sweep the streets in Adelaide, surely?

 

4. How much money are the Federal Government and the State Governments prepared to commit to chasing around keeping Bloggs trapped in SA for 24 months? Remember, the money belongs to the Aussie Voter - who is also the Aussie Tax-payer. The Aussie would surely say, "Send Bloggs to WA! I'll even pay for his air-fare myself but DO NOT waste my money on trying to keep him trapped in SA!"

 

5. What is the point of wasting tons of public money simply so that we can all recycle Hot Air about such a tiny, trivial issue as this one? By the time the Great & Good have stopped exchanging Hot Air, Bloggs' 24 months will have expired and he will have moved to WA in any case, so what on earth are we doing wasting our own time - and public money - on even discussing this question?

 

6. Grrrr!

 

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

[Guest Guest8609]

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.

 

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

[Guest Rachael Reeve]

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.

 

I aslo agree with you, we have been told by our agent that if you have sponsership for SA it does not mean you have to stay there. He did say they not be very happy but there is nothing they can do.

[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

 

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

[Guest railman2404]

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

 

Many Thanks

[Guest 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

[Guest 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..) more but you are not definitely among those ones!!!!

 

Regards