Guest jasongd

why a 176 and not a 175

    Recommended Posts

    Guest jasongd

    Could anyone tell me if they say it makes no difference to your application if you get Sate Sponsorship then why do so many people apply on a 176 rather than a 175.

     

    Jason

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest guest3462

    You are more likely to get a visa on a 176 if you are older than 40 as the points required is quite a Bit lower for the 176 than the 175. That was certainy te case for us and it also meant at the time (it's changed now and you gave to do it) but we didn't need the ielts exam for the skils assessment.

    DIAC are also priority processing 176 visas at the moment so the waiting time is considerably less fr a co allocation. Obviously though it's not for free and you have to pledge 2 years to your sponsored state before you can love freely within Australia.

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest Adelaide_bound

    Because it can take 2 years for a 175 (and possibly rising quite considerably in the future) and only 6 months for a 176 (if not quicker).

     

    Simples....

     

    Julia - freudian slip? "love freely" :biglaugh:

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Could anyone tell me if they say it makes no difference to your application if you get Sate Sponsorship then why do so many people apply on a 176 rather than a 175.

     

    Jason

     

    Hi Jason

     

    DIAC do not favour the 175 visa any more. Since 2009, there has been an enormous shakeup with GSM visas for Oz and the new system favours the State-sponsored 176 visa. The DIAC website ought to make this very much clearer than it does.

     

    What is your occupation, please? That is likely to determine which visa you are eligible for and which State you ought to move to.

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Guest jasongd

    Hi

     

    I am aTelecoms Engineer who has moved into Sales and my Wife is a Hairdresser,

     

    What I have decieded is,

     

    I am starting Uni and will study for a degree by the time I have finished I will have 9 years sales experiance and aslo much needed cash in the bank then see whats happening and then apply,,,

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites
    Hi

     

    I am aTelecoms Engineer who has moved into Sales and my Wife is a Hairdresser,

     

    What I have decieded is,

     

    I am starting Uni and will study for a degree by the time I have finished I will have 9 years sales experiance and aslo much needed cash in the bank then see whats happening and then apply,,,

     

     

    Hi Jason

     

    I hear you. I take it that you are the main applicant for the visa, since your occupation seems to be in Schedule 3 of the new SOL? It sounds like you might have nominated the occupation Telecoms Field Engineer or similar and that you got your skills assessment from Engineers Australia?

     

    http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/_pdf/sol-schedule3.pdf

     

    I assume that your wife is not the main applicant because her occupation is in Schedule 4 of the new SOL, meaning that it is impossible for Hairfressers to apply for GSM visas from now on unless they have State sponsorship.

     

    I think the concern that most people on this thread have expressed (and it is certainly mine) that the Aussie Government seems to be unable to make its mind up about Immigration at present. Consequemtly, at the moment they are experimenting with the idea of allowing each of the States to choose the people who will be allowed to migrate. However the State Governments are not being given anything that could be called freedom of choice - the whole thing is being very tightly controlled by the Federal Government in Canberra, and DIAC is a Department of the Federal Government.

     

    So with the Fed Govt's new enthusiasm for trying to make out that the States will do the choosing, the upshot is that people who apply for 175 visas are being pushed out onto the ice. Recent history also shows that the Aussie Government has no compunction about making promises and then breaking them - they don't even express any guilt ot remorse when they do this.

     

    On September 1st 2007, a whole new regime was introduced for GSM visas. There was plenty of advance notice. Some people didn't want to wait for the new visas. Some of them were about to turn 45 or they scored more points under the old system than they would under the new one and so forth. There was a large last-minute spike in applications for the old visas. All the while, the Government said that they would be perfectly happy to process the applications for the old visas under the old rules.

     

    Suddenly, in 2010, the Minister for Immi announced that he was arbitrarily terminating all the GSM applications that had been made prior to 1st September 2007. The Government has offered refunds of DIAC's application fees - without any interest even though they have enjoyed the use of the money for 3 years. They refused to compensate anyone for money wasted on skills assessments, IELTS tests, medicals and so on, arguing that that money had not been paid to the Government. However the legislation appears to allow them to behave as if the relevant applications had never been made.

     

    A well known Immigration specialist solicitor in Sydney, Christopher Levingston, went into a huddle with some barristers. They think (hope) that the Court will uphold them if they sue the Minister for Immi about this. I assume that they intend to argue that although the Minister does seem to possess the power to do as he did, his opponemts will say that he has exercised the power in an unlawful manner. I'm an English qualified solicitor though I've never done any litigation. I suspect that the outcome will depend on how sympathetic the Judges are and which side they sympathise with. If he wins, CL will go down in history as being the lawyer who obtained justice for the little man. However CL himself is saying that there is a heck of a long way to go before the outcome will be known, that DIAC will fight him as hard as they possibly can, that there will be several layers of Appeal through the various Courts and so on. He is being incredibly brave to challenge the Government at all, in my view, and all power to his elbow that he is prepared to have a go.

     

    The Government relies on S39 of the Migration Act 1958 in order to justify the mass of terminations. Something like 8,000 applications have simply been terminated arbitrarily. The trouble with S39 is that it is an extremely blunt tool. It requires that the Minister must terminate all of the outstanding applications in a subclass or he must leave all of them intact. S39 dioes not give him any power to tweak or finesse who gets the chop and who doesn't.

     

    In May 2010, the Minister then made a straightforward power-grab. He introduced a Bill to Parliament, popularly known as the Cap & Kill Bill 2010. If it had been passed into Law, it would have given the Minister the unfettered power to cherry pick between applicants for all classes of visa. He tried to say that he would only use "objective" criteria but nobody with a brain belueved that. If he was going to confine himself to being "objective" his Bill could have spelt out precisely how he intended to secure the idea that he would be "objective." The Bill was completely silent about it.

     

    The Government then called the 2010 General Election before anything more could happen about the Bill. The Billl has now died a death but it is open to the Minister to introduce a new version at any time. A few months ago, I asked an Aussie solicitor called Chris McGrath whether he thinks that the idea of the Cap & Kill Bill is likely to be revived? Obviously, Chris does not have a crystal ball but he said that if it is revived, it would be an admission by the present Government that they and their predecessors have not had the wit to be able to control the immigration programme properly, so that they are having to resort to the use of retrospective and unfair tactics to achieve what should have been possible without any nastiness if they had managed the Immigration programme properly in the first place. I am comforted by Chris' opinion because it does suggest that the Government would have to think long & hard about the wisdom of reintroducing the Bill.

     

    I think that you need to keep a close and careful eye on developments because the Aussie Government has tried some incredibly nasty tactics before, very recently, so you need to be looking over your shoulder in case they decide to turn you into one of their victims, I reckon.

     

    I'm sorry that this post sounds pessimistic but I think it is important that you should understand the reasons for the pessimism.

     

    Good luck as you ride the roller coaster, my friend.

     

    Cheers

     

    Gill

    Share this post


    Link to post
    Share on other sites

    Create an account or sign in to comment

    You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

    Create an account

    Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

    Register a new account

    Sign in

    Already have an account? Sign in here.

    Sign In Now