| || |
If people on here read the same being said about them on an africansinadelaide forum, they would be screaming blue murder.
Last edited by adelaidenow; 26-02-2013 at 09:10 AM. Reason: typo
well I think rules are rules, they are there for a reason & the couple to be deported should have adhered to their visa rules that they were well aware of. Yes I sympathise with the ordeal they are facing, however I also feel they should be accountable for their own negligence
"Nobody can go back and start a new beginning, but anyone can start today and make a new ending"
ANMAC assessment submitted 2/2/12 received 19/4/12. Skilled Nominated (Permanent) subclass 190 visa applied 12/9/11 granted 2/11/12. AHPRA registration applied 18/5/13 eligibility received 12/7/13. 3 week visa validation & research visit 21/9/13. Leave one way to Adelaide 23/02/14!!!! Start new job 24/03/14!!!
They must have known the conditions of their visa, if they were unsure then they should have asked the question. DIAC are approachable and a desk clerk could have told them the rules. Are we sympathising with them because they are British or because they broke the rules.
Sorry for being blunt but its my opinion.
I know it's petty, but when I saw the Celtic badge on his shirt I smirked and felt a little glad that I will be sharing the country with one less from the dark side..
Angus 33 - Regional Manager Pharmaceuticals/Medical, Kate 34 - Primary Teacher, Logan 5, Jacinta 3 , Vetassess applied 10/01/2012 Approved 28/02/12 IELTS 9/9/9/9 9/2/12 Applied SA SS 5/3/12 SS offered 1/4/12 176 Visa applied 12/4/12 CO Assigned 21/4/12 176 VISA Granted 16/05/2012!!! Reccie 23/3 - 9/4/13 LOVED IT!BIG MOVE - 8/1/14
Sorry, I have very little sympathy for them. Regardless of whether they only live a couple of miles from where they should live, at the end of the day they breached the terms of their visa. If DIAC let every Tom Dick and Harry breach their visa terms, there is no point having the visa at all. And if they let this couple off as a one off, then what is to stop the next person who ignores their visa restrictions from appealing for the same reasons, saying this couple were let off, so why not themselves?
I am sure 99% of us on here all know the restrictions of our/our partners visas and stay within them. Why should this couple get away with breaking theirs when a lot of people try very hard to stay within the terms of their own.
And bergkamp10 - your comment WAS racist. What makes Brits have any more right to legitimate Centrelink payments than Africans, Asians or whomever? I am a born and bred Australian (hubby is on a 309), and I see you both as immigrants to my country, and you're no more special than any other immigrant from any other country just because you're British. If DIAC have decided that an immigrant, regardless of where they are from, have met whatever requirements they have to be granted with a visa that gives them the right to claim benefits of any type, then I don't have a problem with it, and if you're an immigrant yourself, or want to be, then neither should you.
309 partner visa for hubby: Lodged July 3 2012, CO assigned July 3 and medical requested, July 24th medical submitted, visa approved Jan 2nd! Departed London 5th Feb 2013, arrived in Adelaide via Thailand 16th Feb.
Samantha 35, Ian 35, and Finn 9 months.
Doing this is sometimes a fatal error.a desk clerk could have told them the rules
Westly Russell Registered Migration Agent Number 0316072
The couple should have been watching 'Border Security' then they would realise that Australia does not stand for any messing about or excuses ha ha.