Gollywobbler

Hi TheMacs You do not have to live in the same State as your Sponsor. You can live anywhere you like on a sc 176 visa. Clearly, your Aunt's age is unlikely to cause any problems! On the Sponsorship form, they do ask how many bedrooms are in the Sponsor's house etc - again, it is not realistic for someone who lives in a bedsit to sponsor a family of 4. Please have a read of Form 1277, below so that you are sure about it all: http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/pdf/1277.pdf Please have a look at the Clients Service Charter as well: http://www.immi.gov.au/about/charters/client-services-charter/standards/ It is quicker to process a State sponsored sc 176 application than a Family sponsored one though I can't remember the exact timelines and anyway DIAC alter the promised timelines every few months! As against that, if it were me, I would run with a Family sponsor if the alternative would be to hang around until after 1st July 2012, only to have to get involved with the Expression of Interest idea. Cheers Gill

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

Your cousin cannot sponsor you for a sc 176 visa. Your retired Aunt could do so: http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/176/eligibility-state-terr-rel-spon-02.htm The thing with a family sponsor is that the sponsor undertakes to provide basic shelter, food, clothing etc if the sponsored family members fall on hard times during their first 2 years in Australia. This is because the new migrants are very unlikely to be able to claim any Benefits from Centrelink during their first two years. The Sponsor is not actually means-tested. However if your Aunt is 99, the Case Officer would (or should) query whether it is realistic for such an elderly lady to try to shoulder the potential responsibilities of sponsoring you. This sort of query is not intended to be hostile - the CO would merely be trying to protect everybody by making sure that all of them really understand what they are proposing to do. It is too late to complain after the visa has been granted, so the time to make sure that the family understands the sponsor's obligations is whilst the visa application is being processed. So if your Aunt is very old, I would expect a query from your CO but at the same time, the CO will keep a sense of proportion because the main applicant for the sc 176 visa is also a highly skilled person, whose skills have been assessed and the Government has decided that his/her skills are needed, ergo the main applicant ought to be able to get a job without too much hassle and so forth. Hope this helps. Cheers Gill

Hi Fresh A TV company that has a permanently established base in Australia would probably be able to get you into Oz on a temporary sc 457 visa: hthttp://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/skilled-workers/sbs/ However, it would only be a temporary visa. One cannot predict whether the same employer would be able and willing to nominate you for PR in Australia. Somebody like a TV company is likely to use one of the large accountancy firms in order to get the visas for their employees to go all over the world. All of the large firms like KPMG have in-house visa departments and in Australia they employ Registered Migration Agents. So I suspect it is a matter of chatting with the right person in HR when the moment is right for the chat and both of you can spare enough time. Your distant relly in the NT cannot help unless s/he is able to get you a suitable job and an offer of employer-sponsorship to go with it. It would be worth contacting your relly just to enquire because one never knows..... Your sister in NZ cannot help unless you want to go to NZ yourself? Several RMAs of my acqaintance (Kiwis themselves) have told me about an Idea. Apparently Bloggs emigrates to NZ. He then becomes a Permanent Resident of NZ and later he becomes an NZ Citizen. NZ Citizens are entitled to a special visa automatically, whenever they arrive at a port of entry to Australia. Armed with this special NZ visa, a Kiwi is entitled to live in Australia indefinitely, do any job that he wants to do etc. However, the Kiwi does NOT become a Permanent Resident of Australia so he is not entitled to any State Benefits or the Australian State Age Pension. A Kiwi who wants to become a PR in Australia has to go through the same process as everyone else in order to emigrate to Oz instead of simly turning up brandishing a Kiwi passport. I vaguely understand how it is supposed to work but I'm not sure whether it is really of any long term value unless one is already a Kiwi. If one has to emigrate to NZ and become an NZ Citizen first then this idea sounds a bit long-winded and not terribly satisfactory to me? Cheers Gill

Hi David Is there any reason why the couple would not be able to get a Prospective Marriage Visa, please? http://www.immi.gov.au/migrants/partners/prospective/300/ http://www.immi.gov.au/allforms/booklets/1127.pdf I know very little about PMVs and Partner visas but there is some stuff about PMVs on page 30 et seq of the Booklet in the link above. I believe that it is not a fiddly visa and that everything is written on the tin, as it were - ie, written on the DIAC website. Cheers Gill

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

Au contraire, I have NOT ignored the point of the good doctor's query. He is in the UK and he wants to know whether or not he should move out to Oz. How can one discuss that without discussing the NHS? I must admit that I am not pleased to hear (from you) that SA is so discriminatory about treating private patients better than it treats Medicare patients. Luckily, my own family has not had a similarly unfortunate experience in WA. Cheers Gill

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

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

Hi Dr Scotland I am a lawyer, not a medic of any description. I am also a cynical old bag. In Australia, they have a most peculiar concept. Apparently, the Australian Idea is that medics should treat a sick person quickly and keep them alive rather than b*ggering around watching clocks and filling out forms instead. They tend to regard it as being quite a Quite Good idea to try to keep the Aged patients alive. Which is where I, personally, enter the fray. My mother is now 91 and she now lives in Perth, WA. The Medicare doctors and nurses can't do enough for her. The NHS would have killed her off years ago, for sure. They might not actively have hastened her death but the NHS sure wouldn't have done anything to lengthen her life, my old son. It INFURIATES me that successive British Governments have allowed the NHS to become so crummy. I have high BP - inherited from Mum. I ought to take pills but I don't bother. Why not? I don't bother because I would prefer to die quickly from a heart attack than to b*gger around with the NHS. My GP is an absolute darling - she puts up with me, for one thing! However, she doesn't argue when I point out that I am actually more likely to drop down dead from an entirely unrelated infection in Southampton General - which is just plain filthy, especially in the patients' loos - than anywhere else. I have become resigned to the idea that me and Medicine do not mix because I live in the UK. Unlike Call Me Dave, I am not a millionaire because I didn't inherit as much wealth from my Dad as he did from his Dad. I'm female so occasionally I have a vague wander about, looking for lumps. However, even if I found one I wouldn't do anything about it because I believe that Mind Over Matter has become a lot stronger than the NHS. It is appalling and I think that you would do much better to go out to Oz than to stay in the UK. Cheers Gill

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

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

Hi Fresh If the employer in Sydney is offering to sponsor you for a visa then grab it with both hands. With employer-sponsorship, the employee-immigrant just has to take pot luck about the location of the job. Sydney is a Grade A place in which to spend a few years anyway. Also, once you are in Oz, on an employer-sponsored visa, it will be much easier to persuade an employer in another State to take a serious interest in you. What is, say, 4 or 5 years out of a whole lifetime? You can always move to Adelaide later on. Bye the bye. It does not seem to be necessary to be genuinely loaded with Talent in order to be able to get a Distinguished Talent visa. Charlotte Church is rumoured to have obtained one, after she had really turned into a has-been in terms of her talent. However, DIAC ony know about visas. It would not be attractive, nor would it be Politically Correct, for DIAC to try to chunter about Art and Ms Church's level of Distinction in her chosen Artistic Field. Enough Aussie show-biz celebrities etc insisted that Ms Church is still exceptionally Talented, so her visa was granted without a fuss, I heard. Notoriety does help with that, though, as does having friends in High Places. Would a Distingushed Talent visa be a possibility for you, please? http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/specialist-entry/visa-options.htm Les Mighalls over in Melbourne has managed to obtain a couple of Distinguished Talent visas for clients of his so it might be worth picking his brains? Cheers Gill

Hi Bruce You are asking two different questions, hon, being: Q1: When can I apply for Citizenship? A1: http://www.citizenship.gov.au/ You have to have spent at least 1461 days and nights with your feet on Australian soil in order to qualify for Citizenship. (365 x 4 +1 to cater for every 4th year being a Leap Year. 4 years, in other words. (If the number I have worked out is wrong, please blame Bill Gates because I used Excel to do the sums for me.) However it does not have to be unbroken years. Let us say that during your first 5 years as a PR, you take several holidays abroad so Australia needs to have been your only or main base until you have spent the magic 1461 days and nights physically on Aussie terra firma. It might take you 4.5 years to reach the magic total. The way they work it out is that every person who is not an Australian Citizen has their passport date-stamped on every entry to and exit from Australia. The passport is then swiped so that the DIAC computer can keep an exact track of the non-Citizen's entry to and exit from Oz. and Q2: Do I have to stick with the employer who is sponsoring me for my RSMS visa even after I have obtained Citizenship? A2: Perish the thought! Technically the obligation is to stay with the sponsoring employer for a total of 720 days or 2 years after you have reached Oz and started work. However as a matter of Policy, DIAC will not try to cancel an RSMS visa if the parties have managed to put up with each other for 12 months. A LOT of RSMS visa holders don't even get as far as completing 12 months - either they leave the job or the RSMS employer kicks them out. There is no Condition on an RSMS visa that requires the visa holder to work for the sponsoring employer for any set length of time. Also, a second employer is not bound by the terms of his employee's RSMS visa so a second employer does not assume any Immigration Law obligations. I know two British ladies who were both employed by the same employer and the employer sponsored each of them for RSMS visas. Within 6 weeks, both ladies concluded that they had landed themselves with the Employer From Hell so they walked out after just 6 weeks. The employer dobbed them both in to DIAC. DIAC trotted out the boilerplate - they sent their usual Notice of Intent to Consider Cancellation (known as an NOICC for short.) However the real question that DIAC were considering is S137Q of the Migration Act 1958. S137Q says that the Minister may cancel an RSMS visa if the employment arrangements with the sponsoring employer fall apart. The operative word is "may," not "must." In reaching his conclusion, S137Q requires the Minister to consider whether the employee has made a "genuine effort" to fulfil the employment obligations that gave rise to the visa. What is a "genuine effort?" The term is not defined in the Migration Act, so what is it supposed to mean? I was quite worried about this with one of the two ladies because she had ostensibly been hired to work as a Medical Administrator. When she reached the employer, it turned out that all the employer actually wanted her to do was to work as a poorly-paid Assistant-in-Nursing in an Aged Care Home. How can one make a "genuine effort" to do a job that has turned out not to exist? The question vexed me but it didn't vex DIAC. According to DIAC's logic, if the job doesn't exist then clearly the employee has made a genuine effort to do it but his/her willingness has been thwarted by the non-existence of the job. That is not a matter within the employee's own control so the employee has clearly made a "genuine effort." Hmmmm. I wouldn't interpret the wording so generously but what the hell! DIAC confirmed that the Minister does not intend to cancel this lady's RSMS visa. I presume that the employer was left to spit nails! Cheers Gill

Hi Andy The Agent identified that you would be eligible for a subclass 176 visa, sponsored by the State Government of South Australia: http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/176/ The sc 176 is part of the GSM Program. (GSM = General Skilled Migration.) For a GSM visa, you need a skills assessment from the relevant body and you also need to be able to attain at least 65 Points. However it is not necessary to have an Aussie employer who is willing to sponsor you for an employer-sponsored visa instead. If you gp down the GSM route then my advice is that you should get on with it, pronto! The reason is because first you have to get the skills assessment which will include an IELTS test, I expect. The IELTS tests are held in the UK but not terribly frequently. Once you have the skills assessment, then you have to apply for State Sponsorship next. It is necessary to complete both of these steps before you can apply for a GSM visa. The rules are going to change completely on 1st July 2012. With effect from midnight on 30 June/1st July 2012, it will no longer be possible just to make a voluntary application for a GSM visa. As soon as the new rules come in, it will be necessary to submit an Expression of Interest and then wait for the Australian Government to invite you to apply for a GSM visa. Most Agents are advising people to hurry and apply for their GSM visas before the new rules take effect. The Aussie Visa system is not intrinsically difficult and it is not inherently difficult to understand it, either. However it does need a newcomer to the process to be able to devote enough spare time to swotting over the DIAC and related websites to make sure that s/he understands exactly what to do, in what order etc. Some people can't spare the time needed. Others give up trying to do it without help because they are sure they cannot get their brains round it all by themselves. In either situation, a competent, experienced migration agent can help because s/he has done it all before etc. If you decide to use a migration agent, please make sure to use an agent who is personally registered with the MARA: https://www.mara.gov.au/agent/ARSearch.aspx?FolderID=394 Read up about the sc 176 and see how you feel, I suggest. The link for your occupation is below: http://www.immi.gov.au/asri/occupations/r/registered-nurse-mental-health.htm It is not difficult but it is quite fiddly & detailed if you have never dealt with an Aussie visa before. Read the words and then decide whether or not you need a Registered Migration Agent to give you a hand. It is perfectly possible to start the process on your own and instruct an RMA later on if you then feel that you need a hand. Cheers Gill

Hi Mis I have no personal experience that would be relevant to you but please see the link below: http://www.centrelink.gov.au/internet/internet.nsf/individuals/settle_pay_permres.htm Generally, a new migrant can't claim Special Benefit during his/her first 2 years as a Permanent Resident but if something like a bush fire destroys the new migrant's home (and all his/her money under the mattress, presumably) then SB can be claimed. Also, all new migrants are able to get immediate help with the costs of involved with caring for children. It might take time for the new migrant to find a job etc. It is not reasonable not to help the new migrant's children during that time. Also, you are an Australian Citizen so there are very few restrictions on what you could claim, I would guess. As long as your wife sticks with you, there probably wouldn't be any real problems in practice. Cheers Gill

Hi Chris I am thrilled to hear your good news. You really do deserve the visa after everything your family has had to endure recently. I'm sorry it has taken me several days to post. I've been out of range of a computer, for once! Again, very well done, that young man! Cheers Gill

Hi Kris and Waterboy If SA Water can help us to identify the occupation then it is worth asking them. It is also worth being nice to them in case they might be willing to consider employer-sponsored immigration. Many thanks for the idea and the link, Kris. Cheers Gill

Hi Waterboy Thanks for replying so promptly. Yes, a Student Visa would be a possibility and if all else fails, it might be the only possibility. Student visas are quite cheap and easy to do on your own. However, that is just the visa! It is also necessary to become an International Student for a minimum of 2 years. Let us say that you wanted to study Bricklaying. The college fees would be around $18,000 AUD a year ($36,000 in total) and there are other expenses on top. This used to be a guaranteed route to permanent migration to Oz. Then it became not viable at all for a couple of years. DIAC have recently changed the relevant law again and I think that the latest scheme will actually work better than its original predecessor. However, because of the costs it would be silly not to examine whether we could get you a skilled visa instead. It might not be possible but if we don't investigate, we will never find out! I'm not a migration agent, so I am not going to pat you on the head and say, "Gimme £1,500 and I'll deal with everything for you." What I do is to show people how they can do things by themselves. I happen to believe that it is reasonable for other people to discover how to do this without trying to charge them anything. DIAC believe so as well, to which end the DIAC website is by far the best of its type that I have ever come across. That said, understanding the DIAC website requires several hours of intensive effort, cold towels and strong coffee, in my experience! This visa stuff is a head-banger until you get used to how it all works. I'm too lazy to do it for you but I am not too lazy to show you how to do it by yourself. Even if you end up with a Registered Migration Agent to help you, the client who can get the best out of his agent is the one who has a pretty good understanding of the whole thing himself. Rite! Skilled Visas for Oz. There are 2 types - one is skilled independent migration (also known as the General Skilled Migration programme or GSM visas.) GSM visas do not require an Aussie employer to sponsor the immigrant. There are other hoops to jump through instead with the GSM Programme. However they are the best option to consider first because if it is possible to get a GSM visa then it is not necessary to muck about trying to find a willing, eligible and co-operative employer at this stage. If GSM is not a viable option then it is worth considering employer-sponsored migration instead. If that is also a non-starter then one should consider a Student visa as the option of last resort, if you like. An Aussie who wants to become a Bricklayer can do so for about 1/3 to 1/4 of the amount that it costs an International Student to do it. So! GSM visas. These depend on 4 things, being: 1. Nominating an occupation that is in demand in Australia; 2. The wannabe immigrant MUST hold the right academic or trade qualification - is s/he must have the Piece of Paper; 3. S/he also needs work experience on top and the paper qualification must be relevant to the type of work experience; 4. S/he also needs to score at least 65 in the Points Test for GSM. Therefore, in that order: 1. The Occupation in demand in Australia: http://www.immi.gov.au/asri/a-z.htm The ASRI list is for GSM migration. It is partly a simplified version of ANZSCO but also partly, ASRI has been adapted so that it will help someone who wants a GSM visa. There is much more flexibility with employer-sponsored migration but we need to stick with the GSN Programme to start with. http://www.immi.gov.au/asri/occupations/e/earth-science-technician.htm Your Earth Geezer! According to ASRI, this person "Collects and tests earth and water samples, records observations and analyses data in support of Geologists or Geophysicists." Is that what you do or do you operate a machine that produces desalinated water, please? (A migration agent would ask for a copy of your CV but I don't see why you can't read the relevant documents and then compose a CV by yourself. Shoe-horns are useful tools in ways that one might not expect but it is no use to claim that Bloggs is a brain surgeon because DIAC expect factual corroboration from Bloggs' employer, plus there are now stringent penalties for bogus documents or information! Anyway the Skills Assessment authority for Brain Surgery is the Australian Medical Council, so one does not have carte blanche to be completely silly about this.) Therefore what you actually do at work must not be too different from what ANZSCO describes for the occupation concerned. You have read about the Earth Geezer in ANZSCO. Does it sound similar enough, do you think? 2. The Paper Qualification: ASRI says that an AQF Diploma will do as the minimum academic qualification. (AQF = Australian Qualifications Framework.) An AQF Diploma is the rough equivalent of an NVQ4 in the UK. You say that you completed 3 years of a degree course but did not complete it. Were you a full-time Student at a Uni that someone has heard of? If yes, did they give you anything to prove that you had completed the first 3 years of your degree? If not, would you be able to get them to cough up anything now if you were to ask them? As long as there is something useful to go on, the relevant Skills Assessment authority is VETASSESS. They are a nightmare on legs imho but that is because I have no hands-on familiarity with their latest Roolz & Procedures. This is where a top-notch Registered Migration Agent can be very handy and can provide Value For Money because an experienced RMA understands VETASSESS. (Allegedly the Aussie Government is even more bureaucratic than the British Gummint, though I find it hard to imagine how!) VETASSESS have been told to become very fussy. You need General Occupations, so please start here: http://www.vetassess.com.au/migrate_to_australia/assess2_my_qualifications.cfm The qualification must be relevant to the occupation and both elements must be proven to the satisfaction of VETASSESS. If you think this is easy so far, think again because the details are here! http://www.vetassess.com.au/migrate_to_australia/qa2_nominating_occupation.cfm We are looking at the possibility of saying that you have the equivalent of an AQF Diploma, which makes our Earth Geezer Group C, OK? http://www.vetassess.com.au/migrate_to_australia/qa2_nominating_occupation.cfm#CGroup Let us assume that Vetassess will say that whatever you manage/have managed to choke out of the Uni is not quite "Highly Relevant." Then please work out the rest! Vetassess do not guess! Good God no! Bureaucracy never takes wild guesses! Australia relies on a instrument of torture known as the Country Education Profiles (CEP.) An RMA with experience of working with British visa applicants will have a copy of the current CEP for the UK. I'm too mean to spend £50 or so on a sub for the CEP when I am not going to make any money out of it, but I've seen the CEP for the UK. http://www.aei.gov.au/Services-And-Resources/Services/Country-Education-Profiles/About-CEP/Pages/default.aspx Start with the freebie for Syria, so that you can see how the CEP works: http://www.aei.gov.au/CEP/Subcontinent-and-the-Middle-East/Syria/Pages/default.aspx It is a Bureaucratic Nightmare, like I said, and the one for the UK is no better. Let us say that you stidied at the University of Rutshire. Every possible qualfication that they dish out is listed in the CEP, with a rough description of what the student has to do to achieve each qualification. Then you read across to the next column which tells you what the AQF equivalent is. It is possible that your partly completed degree in Biomedical Science has produced a Piece of Paper or that the Piece of Paper could be produced and that Vetassess would agree that the Piece of Paper is the equivalent of the AQF Diploma according to the CEP. That's where I'm hoping to get you to with this. If it wouldn't be possible to get you a Skills Assessment then it would not be possible to get you a GSM visa, so we need not worry about Items 3 & 4 on my list for the minute. If you decide that you are not an Earth Geezer after all, you need to consider whether you are some other type of Geezer listed in ASRI, OK? Then you repeat the intellectual process that I have described! It is impossible just to zip through this stuff quickly. Cold towels and hot coffee are essential, in my view. Please could you see what you think so far and then say whether you think we might have a GSM goer on our hands? Many thanks Gill

Hi Waterboy Let's start with the easy option. Do you reckon that both you and your wife would count as the Remaining Relative in your respective families, please? The link is below but before I paste that, the important thing to understand with the Family Stream in visa law is that it is not aimed at you - the prospective immigrant! The reason for allowing reliies to immigrate from outside Australia is so as to improve life for the Aussie rellies, if you see what I mean. http://www.immi.gov.au/migrants/family/115/ Please read the "Who is this visa for" section very carefully - if necessary, please read it out loud because that is the easiest way to ensure that you understand the jargon and what it means. The usual problem with H&W enquiries is that one of them has no rellies apart from the rellies in Oz. However the other spouse has at least one close relly who does not live in Oz. H&W are deemed to be one "family unit" which means that the in-laws count against both halves of the couple. If Remaining Relly is not a goer, how old are each of you, please? Would Working Holiday Visas be possible? http://www.immi.gov.au/visitors/working-holiday/417/ I'm not sure about your occupation. I know what reverse osmosis is, which is a huge start for the totally non-scientific Gill! However I'm not sure whether being a Reverse Osmosis Operator counts as a skilled job or a semi-skilled job in Oz. To find out, you need to wade through ANZSCO first: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Product+Lookup/39D53FC6385D8659CA2575DF002DA638?opendocument I reckon you need to start roughly in the area of my link above but if that looks hopeless when you delve into it, try further down in the list of Major Groups: http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/Latestproducts/1220.0Contents0First Edition, Revision 1?opendocument&tabname=Summary&prodno=1220.0&issue=First Edition, Revision 1&num=&view= I very much doubt that your occupation will be listed specifically as "Reverse Osmosis Operator." It is more likely to be "Water Treatment Technician" or something like that. Finally, whereabouts in Oz are you hoping to settle? Some of the major cities in Oz rely on huge desalination plants. I believe that Perth does and they are building a huge one near Melbourne. I think there are quite a few large desalinators - capable of providing de-salinated water to a medium-sized town (say 30,000 households) but I don't know whereabouts most of the desalinators are. That's enough from me for the time being. Please let me know what you discover? Cheers Gill

Hi again, Najia I'm a lawyer, not a doctor. I've only got a vague idea about what cystic fibrosis really is. As far as I know, it would normally count as a "disability" rather than a "disease" but I am by no means certain about this. It could be that it is a "disability" but there can be medical problems for the patient as well - I don't know and you would need to ask a doctor in order to be certain about any of this - which you have probably already done. I'm certain that you know much more about cystic fibrosis than I do. I've tried to search AustLii to find some MRT cases or Court cases that have involved a visa applicant with cystic fibrosis. I've even tried calling it muscovidiscosis or whatever (I got the word from Wiki) but AustLii keeps saying zero results. http://www.austlii.edu.au/form/search/search1.html I don't believe that. Either your child's condition has never resulted in an appeal to the MRT or I am using the wrong keywords and the MOC calls the condition something else, or AustLii is not working fully because it is the weekend and the IT guys might be doing maintenance work to Austlii. Try again on Monday and see whether you can get some sense out of AustLii, I would suggest. Confine it to a search in the Migration Review Tribunal only. The earlier, Immigation Review Tribunal, was closed in about 1999 so anything in that is too old to be trustworthy nowadays. Ideally, you want to find some relevant MRT cases that were decided after November 2005 and where thecase report cites Robinson v MIMIA, which became the leading court case about PIC 4005 when it was decided in Nov 2005. The MRT is bound by decisions in the Courts but it is not bound by the results decided in another MRT. However none of the important court cases have involved cystic fibrosis, so anything that is directly relevant has happened in the MRT only. You can see that it all becomes extremely complicated (even for me, a lawyer by trade.) I am only qualified in England & Wales. I'm not qualified in Australia as well and I've only got a vague idea about how the Aussie legal system works. A vague idea is not good enough when one is in the same position as you, which is why I never claim to be a migration agent, even though I am in the UK so I could set myself up doing Aussie visas if I wanted to. George Lombard is also not a legal practitioner in Oz but he has a degree in Australian Law, he thinks in the same way as any legal practitioner and he is every bit as good at it as an Aussie legal practitioner. The fact that he is technically only an RMA is irrelevant in his case though it is an alarming fact with some of his RMA competitors, who can fill out forms but haven't any sort of a real clue about Australian Law. If you decide to consult George, he's a lawyer, not a doctor. However a GP works with him part time and obviously she can understand all the medical reports etc relating to your son. With one of them understanding the Law in great depth and the other one understanding the medical aspects properly, together George and the GP are a very strong team, plus they know which specialist doctor in Sydney to approach for an Opinion. They don't just guess at it vaguely! One of the possibilities in your position is not to apply for a sc 176 visa. Presumably the intention is that one of the State Governments will sponsor either you or Hubby for the sc 176 visa? The problem with that is that although a State Government is capable of being the front man in an Appeal to the MRT - legally it is possible - in practice the State Governments ALL refuse to get involved with MRT appeals where the problem is that one of the visa applicants has a medical condition. So what that means is that if your application is refused on medical grounds because of your son's condition, you will not be able to appeal to the MRT, which in turn means that you can't complain formally in any other way either. So legally, the strongest way to do this is to get an employer-sponsored subclass 457 visa first. Use that to go to Australia. Once you are in Oz, the employer sponsors you either for an onshore ENS visa or an onshore RSMS visa. In this situation, the Health State Waiver kicks in. Under the State Health Waiver, if the MOC reckons that it would cost between $21,000 and $100,000 to provide the necessary help for your son, the State agrees to bear the theoretical costs and the MOC is then happy. This is already Law, following the case of Dr Moeller in 2008. However, it might not be possible to find an employer-sponsor who would be willing to co-operate with the visa strategy and it might not be necessary in any case if your son's medical condition would not take him above the $21,000 threshold, there is nothing to worry about anyway. Therefore I think that someone in your situation should consult an RMA (and I would recommend George Lombard for this) because it is not realistic to expect the lay visa applicant to become a medical and a legal expert rolled into one! It would be far easier if you, George and his GP all joined forces. You are important - you know the child and in your shoes, I would not allow so-called visa experts to hijack my child, in effect. The child is not a walking Medical Condition, no matter what anyone else thinks. He is a whole child who just happens to have a medical condition - which is not the same thing. Above all, though, consult a Panel Doctor. The PD's job is only to report his/her findings to the MOC. The PD is not involved in making the decision. However the experienced PDs usually have a pretty shrewd idea of when the MOC is likely to make difficulties and when that is not likely to happen. It is nonsense to say that lawyers alone can provide all the necessary advice. It needs lawyers and doctors working together if possible. Cheers Gill

George Lombard is one of very few RMAs who is genuinely deeply interested in the Health requirement and he is particularly good when a child is involved. George knows all about the JSCM Inquiry etc. The JSCM recommend changing the relevant Law completely. Apparently the JSCM are very influential and their recommendations are usually followed. I asked George how long it is all likely to take? He said, "At least 5 years and quite likely considerably longer if DIAC decide to make difficulties about it." Having seen how long DIAC have been taking over the purely administrative issue of increasing the "significant cost" threshold figure, I don't think you and I should be holding our breaths about how long they might take to react to a kick up the jaxi from the JSCM! It was impossible for the JSCM to single out "Disability" and to treat that differently from a disease because for migration purposes, Australia still relies on the "medical model" of Disability. The idea of the "medical model" is that it doesn't matter whether the problem is a Disability or a Disease. It is still going to cost money to the Public Purse one way or another. The JSCM had the Great & Good breathing down its neck! The Law Institute of Victoria were particularly vociferous. The Royal Australasian College of Physicians (rumoured to despise DIAC) pointed out that the main carers of someone with a disability are usually members of his/her close family and that this does not usually cost the Government anything. The Human Rights lawyers turned out in force to argue that the Aussie Migration Treatment of Disability contravenes both the spirit and the wording of the UN's Convention on the Rights of Persons with a Disability (known as the CRPD.) However the law allows Australia to discriminate against prospective immigrants in this way, though the JSCM said strongly that as a matter of public policy, Australia should stop doing so. All that said, the Chairman of the JSCM pointed out that lots of us can wish for lots of things but it is the Aussie Tax-payer who will get the bill for the costs if Australia decides to Enable itself! I think he is right. The average Aussie knows nothing about Immigration, imagines that Immigration = Boat People and certainly doesn't want to have to foot the bill for any increases in the costs of Immigration. The tax-paying Aussie Voter thinks the costs are already far too high and the Politicians have to appease the Voters if they want to be re-elected in 2013! That's enough for this first reply to you. Cheers Gill

Hi Najia Thanks for your query. Unless you are prepared to do LOADS of research on your own - and make sure that you get that right - I think it would probably be easier if you get a Registered Migration Agent either to handle the whole of the sc 176 application for you or at least get an RMA to handle the Health requirement part of it for you. No law says that you can't instruct an RMA to do nothing except deal with the Health requirement for your son alone. That bit depends on finding an RMA who is willing to accept such a limited scope to his/her instructions. The RMA whom I would choose in your shoes is George Lombard in Sydney: http://austimmigration.com.au/site/?q=node/1 I don't know how much his fees would be and I don't know whether he would be prepared to accept very limited instructions only. If you do the whole thing on your own then the following information is crucial:- 1. The relevant Health requirement for a sc 176 visa is Public Interest Criterion 4005. There is no possibility of a Waiver of the strict wording and provisions of PIC 4005. 2. The issue between yourselves and DIAC would be whether your son's medical condition would be likely to result in "significant cost" to the Aussie Public Purse. This can be direct medical costs for monitoring his condition etc but it can also include the costs of "community services." These community services can be the show-stopper in visa terms because one example would be the costs if your son needs any special help at school. If he needs such help, it is expensive to provide it because the relevant Education Department can be required to pay for a special assistant to attend to him whilst he is at school. Another possibility is that when he grows up, he might not be able to live completely independently, might not be able to get an "ordinary job" that does not involve any notion of 'sheltered employment' etc. (Sheltered employment is really only occupational therapy for the people who need it. Superficially they appear to be doing something useful but the reality is that it costs the Government a fortune to pay the specialist carers/supervisors who look after them whilst they are doing something useful. With normal employment, the objective is that the employer will make a taxable profit as a result of the normal employment and the employee will pay tax on his wages. With sheltered employment, the employees are often in receipt of Disability Support Pension, someone might be able to claim a Carer's Allowance for looking after them whilst they are at home, the State might be paying all or part of the sheltered employee's rent and so forth, so the Government actually subsidises the cost of providing sheltered employment pretty heavily, ergo it leads to a large cost with no profits involved. Nonetheless, it fits the "social model" of Disability - which is that a disabled person can usually do something useful and so he should be allowed to stay in the community and do whatever he is cabable of doing, regardless of cost.) 3. This term "significant cost" is not defined in the migration legislation. However the Suits decided in about 1999 that the threshold figure should be $21,000 AUD or more over the visa applicant's first 5 years in Australia if the applicant is aged under 75 and PIC 4005 applies to the visa s/he has sought. (If the visa applicant is 75 or over - eg an applicant for a Parent visa - then "significant cost" is deemed to mean $21,000 or more during the person's first 3 years in Australia.) Two important developments have occurred since 2008:- A. In May 2009, DIAC told the Senate Estimates Committee that they think this $21,000 threshold is too low nowadays. DIAC said they believed that it should be increased to $100,000 over the visa applican's first 5 (or 3) years in Oz. In May 2009, the Minister for Immigration was Senator Chris Evans. DIAC told the Estimates Committee that they thought Senator Evans would agree to increasing the threshold to $100K but DIAC needed to hear from "other Government Departments" about the proposed increase before they could recommend it to the Minister. This is all recorded in the Hansard Transcript of the Senate Estimates Committee hearing in May 2009. B. In Nov 2008, Senator Evans and the Minister for Disability jointly asked the Joint Standing Committee on Migration to investigate the Migration Treatment of Disability: http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/mig/disability/index.htm At a Public Hearing in Canberra in March 2010, the JSCM asked DIAC what was happening about increasing the threshold figure for PIC 4005? DIAC said that they were still waiting to hear from other Government Departments but they did not indicate which other Departments or how much longer the deliberations between officials is likely to take. An RMA friend of mine asked DIAC about this informally in the middle of 2011. They said that they were still not in a position to be able to recommend that the Minister for Immi should increase the threshold and confirmed that it still remains at $21,000 AUD, as described above. Again, DIAC did not indicate how much longer is is all likely to take. You should scour - and I mean scour - some of the Submissions to the JSCM (particularly DIAC's own Submission at #66.) You should also read at least the 2 Hansard Transcripts of the Public Hearings in Canberra in Feb and March 2010. The main witness at both of those Hearings was Dr Paul Douglas, who is the Chief Medical Officer of the Commonwealth. He is the immediate boss of all the MOC doctors and Dr Douglas is known as the CMO. The CMO gets his own orders from Mr Matt Kennedy, who is the Head of DIAC's Health Policy Section. Peter Vardos is DIAC's overall Head of Policy, so Mr Vardos is Mr Kennedy's boss. Eventually in June 2010, the JSCM produced the Enabling Australia Report. That recommends that the Government of Australia needs to change its whole attitude with regard to the Migration Treatment of Disabled Persons in particular and with regard to the Health requirement for migration generally. As of today, there has been no official Government Response to the Enabling Australia Report. .......[to be continued in my next post.]

Hi Syed Thanks and good luck, my friend. The bit that you can deal with right now is your father's eyesight. In your shoes, I would get him the best possible medical advice straightaway, to make sure that his eyesight doesn't get any worse and that anything else relating to his diabetes has been brought under control fully before you try to do anything else. http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/sinodisp/au/cases/cth/MRTA/2008/897.html?stem=0&synonyms=0&query=parent%20visa%20%20%204005%20%20%20diabetes Please have a look at the Report of the MRT case in the link above. It seems that Mrs Thyagarajan had a number of medical problems. I have no idea whether the other problems described stemmed from or were related to her diabetes in some way - I don't know enough about Medicine to be able to judge that. I hope that reading the MRT report will give you a clear idea about how "DIAC's mind," works, if you like, in cases where someone's medical condition is an issue. Best wishes Gill

Hi Chris It does sound to me as if your daughter's doctors have said all the right things and the MOC probably realises that it would be a good thing to get her out to Australia, where she can be outside more, can regain her strength and has a chance to try to forget all the bad things that have happened to her recently. Even the Aussie Prime Minister (she is of the Strine Twang that is so exaggerated that it infuriates me every time I listen to the woman) brags that she only went to Australia because her parents took her there when she was 4 years old. Apparently she lived in Barry, which is a port in the Bristol Channel. In the 1960s, when Joolya was 4, Barry was a damp, dirty hole of a place because most of the coal from South Wales was still leaving Wales via Barry back then. Apparently Joolya had very bad asthma - probably made worse by living in a home heated only by coal fires. The Welsh doctors apparently said that they thought the climate in Oz would be better for Joolya. According to my sister, who lives in Perth, the Welsh doctors should have been throttled because Australia hasn't committed enough evils for it to deserve Joolya! Just keep your own daughter away from politics, I would suggest! Apparently Joolya's own father held very left-wing political views etc, which seems to have inspired Joolya to imagine that she would be a blessing to the Antipodean continent! "Don't let Joolya foolya," as the tee-shirts say! Cheers Gill