11 Responses to “Australian Occupation and Skills in Demand List to be overhauled”

1. Katie says:

   December 1, 2009 at 2:29 pm

   Hi all
   There’s a GOOD news for u

   Finally some news of hope for all those affected by the September 23 changes to priority processing of Australian visas.

   Members of the forum Poms in Oz met with David Wilden, the Minister-Counsellor for Immigration of the Australian High Commission in London to outline their fears and voice opinions of all those affected by the changes.

   The September 23 changes meant that those applying for state sponsored visas, including those already in the process, were told that they no longer qualified for priority processing and may have to wait a further three to four years for their visas to be finalised.

   Many visa applicants were furious as a large number of them had paid thousands of pounds, been allocated case officers and sold their houses in anticipation of receiving their visas within months
   Five representatives from Poms in Oz were finally granted an audience with Mr Wilden after a protest was planned outside the Australian High Commission.

   Mr Wilden told the five that all applications from Categories 1 to 4 were now under control. For Category 5 applicants, he estimated that there were around 3,500 applications where the occupation was not on the Critical Skills List (CSL) but who had received state sponsorship. These applications, he assured the five, were now beginning to be processed.

   The applications would be processed in order of the dates they were lodged. A first come, first served basis.

   Mr Wilder said that the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) would not say how long the processing would take, as applications which come under the CSL would still have to be processed as a priority, but it is thought that applicants will not now have to wait as long as previously thought.

   No doubt the government are trying to smooth over the bad press it has received both in Australia and the UK over the controversial changes in which applicants were also told that no refunds would be issued should they withdraw their applications.

   The news, whilst not offering anything definite, does seem to hold a glimmer of hope for state sponsorship applicants. Potential migrants to Australia are now hoping for more good news when the DIAC reveals the new Future Skills List later this month.

   Reply
2. Katie says:

   November 21, 2009 at 3:25 pm

   WOOOOOONNNNNDDDEEERRRFFFUUULLLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!!
   13 November 2009
   Submission on
   General Skilled Migration (GSM) Program
   Background
   As the peak professional organisation representing Registered Migration Agents in Australia,
   the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) is in a unique position to see the ramifications of
   these General Skilled Migration (GSM) processing procedures for:
   - applicants and registered migration agents;
   - for perceptions of Australia and the Australian Government; and
   - Australian society.
   The GSM program is the largest single Australian migration program but it is no longer
   meeting skilled labour demands efficiently. Approximately half of all primary applicants are
   international students with little or no skilled work experience. Some 80% of applications
   specify Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL) occupations but tend to be mainly
   accountants, cooks and hairdressers ignoring the full spectrum of more than 100 MODL
   professions.
   The ineffectiveness of the GSM program to meet Australia’s skills shortages has resulted in
   the introduction of a priority processing regime. Initially, priority was given to applications
   with State/Territory government sponsorship and then to applications with nominations on a
   new Critical Skills List (CSL).
   There are far more applications for General Skilled Migration already in the pipeline than can
   be granted each year. As of October 2009 there were over 130,000 applicants in the system
   but a total annual program size of 65,000 places.
   The GSM processing backlog will continue to grow if no action is taken. In 2008-09, more
   than 320,000 student visas were granted1 representing a 15% increase on the previous
   year’s intake. International students can usually apply for GSM on completion of two years
   study in Australia. This legitimate pathway, combined with the relative ease of onshore
   applications and permission to stay in Australia on bridging visas during processing, has
   been used to induce international students to study in Australia. Education is now Australia’s
   third largest export earner.
   The lack of acknowledgement of the link between education and migration has been of
   concern to the MIA for some time. We raised this issue in our submission to the 2006 Birrell
   Report on Skilled Migration. Three years later, the Department of Immigration is facing public
   criticism as a result of inaction despite the warnings.
   1“Offshore and Onshore Grants for 2008-09 (PY) including eVisa grants, excluding permission to
   Work (PTW) and Change of Provider (COP) Grants”, Department of Immigration and Citizenship,
   http://www.immi.gov.au/media/statistics/study/_pdf/2008-09-offshore...
   (accessed 13 November 2009)
   2
   The Problem
   Processing priority for General Skilled Migration applications is in danger of being a bandaid
   solution to systemic problems in the program. When the Minister announced changes to
   processing priorities in September 2009, there was a warning that non-CSL applications
   would not be processed before 20112. This ignores the impact on many non-CSL applicants
   who have been in the system for 18 months or more when the announcement was made.
   Such bandaid solutions have unintended consequences. The MIA has grave concerns about
   the consequences of the processing priorities as they have been implemented. A vast
   number of applicants will be waiting for perhaps several years in a state of uncertainty about
   their future. It appears GSM program settings have been changed to one of administrative
   delay in the hope that the problem (too many applicants for too few places) will give up and
   disappear.
   It is reasonable for potential applicants to have taken the Department’s published service
   standards for processing times into consideration when deciding whether to apply. These
   applicants have paid the visa application charge (VAC) and associated costs of up to $1100
   on skills assessments, language testing, police and health checks. Until the priority
   processing regime came into force, these people had a reasonably clear indication of the
   time it might take to have their applications processed and of prospects of their success.
   Many GSM applicants, whose applications were about to be processed after already being in
   the pipeline for a considerable amount of time, have been requested by case officers to
   undergo further police and health checks, as previous ones had expired. Even as these
   further checks were being conducted, the processing of many of these applications was
   suddenly stopped following the Ministerial direction. [See Attachment 1 for examples.]
   This has caused many GSM applicants further expense and great uncertainty. Those not on
   the new priority processing lists will have the expense of further health and police checks,
   English language tests, or renewal of skills assessments when their applications are
   eventually finalised. These additional expenses are an unfair burden on applicants when it is
   not the applicant’s fault for extreme delays in the processing system which has led to their
   initial checks expiring.
   Of particular concern are onshore applicants who are recent graduates of Australian
   educational institutions. These individuals have taken the opportunity provided by the
   Australian Government to avail themselves of the GSM pathway to permanent residence in
   Australia. While that particular pathway does not guarantee permanent residence, it does,
   nevertheless, present a valid opportunity to seek permanent residence. While technically the
   Student Visa Program and the GSM Program are separate programs, to claim that they are
   distinct is spurious and disingenuous. It is well established that the study pathway to GSM is
   specifically designed for overseas students in Australia.
   2 “Updated Priority Processing Effective from 23 September 2009” Department of Immigration and
   Citizenship http://www.immi.gov.au/skilled/general-skilled-migration/pdf/faq-pr...
   (accessed 13 November 2009).
   3
   Government policy about that pathway was quite clear:
   “From 1 July 2001, successful Australian-educated overseas students with ICT and other
   qualifications in high demand will be allowed to apply for, and be granted, permanent
   residence under the Skilled-Independent and Skilled-Australian Sponsored categories
   without leaving Australia. This initiative builds upon previous measures designed to
   retain successful overseas students with qualifications that are in shortage in Australia
   and who are sponsored by Australian employers, including waiving work experience
   requirements for those who have obtained Australian qualifications in the six months prior to
   lodging their visa applications and giving bonus points to applicants with Australian
   qualifications.” [Announcement of policy, Ministerial media release, 29 January 2001]
   If that pathway inadvertently encouraged a huge number of GSM applications (not to
   mention a growth industry in poor or misleading migration advice and scandalously
   inadequate “education” institutions), that is not the fault of GSM applicants. The fault lies with
   those who had the power to monitor and correct the situation and failed to do so.
   Australian governments have allowed a situation to arise where there are more applications
   than can be accommodated or processed. As a result it has implemented a priority
   processing regime that is particularly unfair in dealing with a problem that is not the fault of
   current applicants. It is also a most inefficient method of dealing with Australia’s skills
   shortage.
   The current priority processing regime creates numerous serious problems:
   1. Employability on Bridging Visas
   Although onshore applicants are generally on Bridging Visas with permission to work, they
   often have great difficulty in obtaining work as many Australian employers prefer their
   employees to hold, or to be certain of gaining, permanent residence. If a GSM application
   were to be refused, the applicant would need to leave Australia within 28 days, and an
   employer would lose an employee. Consequently, international students are in a very
   vulnerable position, and may be tempted to take any employment available, even if the
   conditions are not favourable.
   2. Interruption and damage to careers.
   If GSM applicants are in Australia and unable to obtain work in their nominated occupation,
   they are likely to find employment difficult when they are eventually granted permanent
   residence, as they may not have been able to maintain their expertise or keep abreast of
   new developments in their chosen occupation. A substantial gap between graduation and
   the start of a career, as many GSM applicants will experience, could complicate or destroy a
   potential career, and makes a mockery of the GSM program.
   4
   3. Damage to Australia’s social fabric
   Having a very large number of people on Bridging visas for several years, unable to obtain
   satisfying work or advance their careers, is a recipe for frustration and resentment at best,
   and social unrest at worst. This is a disgraceful initiation into Australian life for potential
   Australian permanent residents or citizens. It also flies in the face of ideals and values that
   are espoused by the Australian government, and which once made Australia an attractive
   choice for potential migrants.
   4. Damage to Australia’s reputation
   Thousands of people, who in good faith paid visa application charges with the quite
   reasonable expectation that the applications would be finalised within published service
   standard times, will be waiting indefinite lengths of time for a decision to be made about their
   GSM visa applications. These people are not being treated with dignity, compassion, and
   fairness. .Australia’s reputation as the country of opportunity, where governments act
   reasonably and fairly, has been considerably tarnished.
   To draw an analogy, if Registered Migration Agents accepted fees from clients and then
   made unilateral decisions to not provide the services until some unspecified time in the
   future there would be a public outcry led by an outraged DIAC and the Office of the MARA.
   5. Australia’s skills shortages not being met – loss of quality applicants
   (a) Australia is being denied the immediate benefit of young people with excellent skills
   which Australia needs. Many current and potential highly skilled and genuine applicants will
   justifiably see the current priority processing regime as grossly unfair and forego the
   opportunity to become permanent residents.
   When faced with a delay of two to three years in the processing of their application, why
   would quality applicants persist with their applications for migration to Australia when they
   have other migration options or good employment prospects in their home country?
   (b) Currently, of the occupations on the CSL that require a bachelor degree, only
   accountants, teachers, nurses and engineers are realistic options for international students.
   Are these the only skills Australia now requires?
   6. Lives and plans damaged
   Thousands of currently enrolled overseas students who are paying large fees to Australian
   education providers and who intend to use the perfectly legitimate and government designed
   pathway to permanent residence have had their plans derailed.
   7. Splitting Families
   (a) It is common for students to get married after completion of their qualifications in
   Australia. In this case, it is generally not possible to include the new spouse in a GSM
   application after lodgement. As the wait for permanent residence can be two years or more,
   GSM applicants may be unable to sponsor their spouse to join them in Australia for a
   significant period of time.
   5
   (b) In some cases the extremely long delays in processing times will mean that an
   applicant’s child, who was a dependent child when the application was lodged, will no longer
   be dependent when the application is finally processed and will therefore not be able to
   migrate with the parents. This is a shameful result of the priority processing regime.
   8. Clear advice about Australia’s GSM program is impossible
   Registered Migration Agents are unable to provide any certain advice to clients who are
   current or prospective GSM applicants. While the Australian Government has the right to
   make changes at any time, and responsible migration agents have always informed clients
   of this, the current radical and retrospective changes are beyond what is reasonable and
   make sensible advice impossible.
   9. Distortion of Education and Migration Program
   Attempting to “cherry pick” GSM applicants seems to have unintended consequences. This
   occurred a few years ago when Information and Communications Technology (ICT)
   occupations were removed from the MODL and Accountants were retained. The ICT
   students who stuck their ground came out with 115 points and walked the path of capital
   investment – only to be thwarted there. Their colleagues who abandoned ICT for accounting
   now have Australian citizenship whether they chose to work as an accountant or not.
   The priority processing regime will also encourage international students into an even
   narrower band of occupations than the MODL did. The only occupation on the CSL that can
   be done in two years via a conversion course based on an unrelated undergraduate degree
   is Accounting.
   Under the current priority processing regime ICT students know they will be waiting for at
   least two years if they apply for GSM. ICT professionals currently studying in Australia will
   look at the CSL and hear success stories of prioritised Accountants with IELTS 7 who get
   PR in two weeks. They will in all likelihood transfer to accounting courses.
   Should students choose to take these options, which are not necessarily in their or
   Australia’s best interest, it is not necessarily because they are being advised to do so. Most
   of these students are knowledgeable enough to work things out for themselves, and to take
   whatever legitimate pathways they can find to a permanent life in Australia – as many of us,
   or some of our forebears, did.
   10. Unacceptable and unfair additional costs
   Most GSM applicants, whether CSL or not, must complete health and police checks and
   English language tests prior to the lodgement of their application. Many of these checks and
   test results will certainly expire well before processing of the applications has even
   commenced.
   Many applicants who have been requested to complete medicals by the Department of
   Immigration have now been informed that their applications have been put on hold. This is
   because their applications were state nominated (previously the highest level of priority) and
   are now lower down in the new priority list. These applicants, whose applications have been
   99% finalised, will now most likely need to do their medicals all over again.
   6
   Medicals are not cheap – the cost is generally about $300 per family member. English
   language tests are similarly priced.
   Many applicants may have skills assessments or State or Territory sponsorships repeated or
   renewed at significant extra expense – if they are still eligible.
   11. Overseas Travel problems
   The bridging visa issued to students does not have travel rights – if the students with GSM
   applications lodged depart Australia, they risk refusal of their application. It is possible to
   apply for a Bridging visa allowing travel, but this involves extra cost and evidence of the
   reason for travel. The maximum period of travel is in general three months. Even though the
   Department is not actively processing their applications, and employment prospects in
   Australia can be bleak, students are effectively forced to stay in Australia to await grant of
   their visas.
   12. Lodgement of Frivolous Applications
   The long processing times may result in lodgement of more frivolous applications which
   have no chance of success. This is because onshore applicants can remain in Australia on
   bridging visas with full work rights during processing of their applications – no matter how
   long this takes. If their application is refused, they may then appeal to the Migration Review
   Tribunal (now taking 12 months or more), the Federal Court or the Minister. By the time the
   appeal process is complete, the applicant may have been in Australia for 5 years or more
   with work rights.
   We are already seeing increased numbers of GSM applications at the Migration Review
   Tribunal. International students may also be victims of unscrupulous operators who may
   knowingly lodge applications with no chance of success – as processing times are so long it
   may be many years before they experience any fallout from their dodgy practices.
   13. Loss of “Safety Net” for 457 holders
   People who are sponsored for 457 visas by their employers are restricted to working only for
   their sponsoring employer. Such people are already employed in Australia and in many
   cases have sufficient points to qualify for General Skilled Migration.
   Whilst the employer can sponsor for permanent residence through the ENS program, the
   GSM program has always been a “safety net” for 457 holders. Many employers are reluctant
   to sponsor for ENS as it means that the employee is no longer “tied” to the employer. GSM
   was a way of qualifying for permanent residence even if not supported by an employer.
   Many 457 holders who have lodged GSM applications also face unreasonable processing
   delays which means that they are forced to stay with employers longer, even if the
   employment conditions are not favourable.
   7
   14. Risk of Further Retrospective Changes
   The Minister has indicated that the GSM program will be undergo further review. It is entirely
   possible that changes could be retrospective and continue to affect people whose
   applications have already been lodged. For instance, if the Points Test pass marks are
   increased, this would affect all people whose applications have not yet been assessed.
   Given the huge number of applications in the system already, any retrospective changes
   could result in further significant hardship and inequity for many people.
   The MIA makes the following recommendations:
   1. Deal fairly and transparently with the applicants in the GSM pipeline.
   2. Automatically place all GSM applicants on a skill matching database to enhance the
   possibility of their obtaining employment, and perhaps gaining employer sponsorship, thus
   giving them the opportunity of getting out of the GSM limbo.
   3. Undertake a thorough review of the GSM program – clarify the objectives and ensure the
   settings reflect these and are relatively consistent over time.
   4. Further changes to the GSM Program should be made after genuine consultation with all
   stakeholders, including the Migration Institute of Australia. Any changes should be clearly
   explained and made with fairness as a criterion.
   5. Exemption from priority processing should be given immediately to those applications
   which were about to be finalised and for which further health and police checks had been
   requested.
   6. If the priority processing regime is to be continued, there should be a parallel processing
   regime for longstanding applications. This should begin with identifying outstanding GSM
   applications that were allocated case officers before priority processing was introduced.
   7. Introduce a more rigorous skills assessing regime to eliminate any applicants in the GSM
   application pipeline who have no intention of pursuing their nominated occupation.
   8. Refunds should be available for GSM applicants who wish to withdraw their applications
   rather than remain uncertain of their future for an indefinite period of time.
   9. DIAC should regularly publish up-to-date statistics about the number of applications in the
   GSM pipeline and estimated processing times for applications. This would not only be a
   reasonable measure to provide current and prospective applicants, but may also reduce the
   number of GSM applications.
   10. Provide greater funding and resources to the Adelaide Skilled Processing Centre should
   be provided so that applications can be processed faster. The object is to allow only the
   queuing in the pipeline of worthwhile applications. Instead of “parking” applications until
   allocation to a case officer for decision after a number of years, all applications could be
   instead immediately vetted to determine if the application is likely to be successful and to
   identify other characteristics.
   a) Improperly documented or otherwise obviously flawed applications could be immediately
   eliminated, reducing the pipeline content dramatically.
   8
   b) The application pipeline content could be effectively indexed by the following, thereby
   permitting rapid clearance from the pipeline:
   i) Present Deployment
   Consider a permanent residence application in a specified period of time if an applicant is
   currently in Australia, working (with a local or overseas work history of over 12 months) in
   the claimed occupation and now holding a temporary visa permitting work (eg 457, 422,
   even 417). The applicant is already counted inside Australia’s workforce, albeit
   temporary. Then to queue them and then count them as a threat to the local workforce is
   effectively a double or spurious count. The ENS process also is inefficiently cluttered with
   those (not all) that may be eligible for “transfer” to that stream. Avoid the clutter by rapid
   decision on the GSM application itself. To not do so is double work caused elsewhere to the
   Department.
   ii) Others such as Language Skill 7 and over in the IELTS and Sponsorship by an Australian
   relative.
   These as very good predictors of success and/or, having a family reunion element, should
   receive priority processing in the “pipeline”.
   The rapid analysis of the characteristics of those filing GSM applications and profiling them
   early, will allow DIAC to match what is being achieved in attracting migrants/permanent
   residents to Australia and to be attentive and timely in making any needed variation in its
   policy settings going forward. Good management requires measurement and performance
   assessment that is timely. A change from the “parking” protocol is clearly needs to be
   changed to “immediate evaluation”. The visa application charge warrants that. And the root
   causes of problems must be courageously addressed, urgently. Resourcing or funding the
   processing centre will fix that and avoid duplication in ENS processing. Otherwise it is
   management with the lights off.
   The Migration Institute of Australia is certain that the Minister and the Department aspire to a
   higher level of client service in the matter of the GSM crisis. In the short term the current
   priorities and policy settings dysfunction are definitely bringing about dismay in the minds of
   applicants as regards the conduct and fairness of the Commonwealth. This can hardly be
   your intention or wish. It is hoped that the Institutes recommendations can assist the Minister
   and the Department. The feedback of the Institute is that the apparent failure of
   consideration for the VAC’s paid, may trigger applicants seeking redress.
   The MIA believes that you must engage in an open and inclusive public debate on what the
   objectives and settings for the GSM program should be. Its position as the largest single
   Australian migration program, and therefore its influence on the manifold dimensions of
   Australia’s future, demand nothing less. It must not continue to suffer the reprehensible
   neglect or ad hoc changes it has experienced in recent times.
   9
   ATTACHMENT 1
   Examples of Applicants caught in the pipeline
   Until 23 September 2009 these applications would have received priority processing
   because of State sponsorship and were close to being finalised. Applicants are now
   confronted with the prospect of their visa applications not being further processed until late
   2012 at the earliest.
   Case 1
   Applicant for visa subclass 176 – sponsored by West Australian Government
   Occupation: Bricklayer
   26 February 2009 – Application lodged
   July 2009 – Applicant underwent medicals and provided Police clearance from The
   Netherlands
   24 August 2009 – DIAC request for Australian Federal Police (AFP) clearance
   29 September 2009 – Applicant provided AFP clearance
   Case now in limbo
   Case 2
   Applicant for visa subclass 176 – Sponsored by South Australian Government
   Occupation: General Electrician
   20 July 2009 – Application lodged
   25 August 2009 – DIAC request for Police clearance from The Netherlands and request to
   undergo medicals
   28 August 2009 – Applicant underwent medicals
   1 September 2009 – Applicant underwent medicals
   7 September 2009 – Applicant provided Police clearance
   Case now in limbo
   Case 3
   Applicant for visa subclass: 475 – Sponsored by South Australia Government
   Occupation: Business and Information Professional (nec)
   3 August 2008 – Application lodged
   15 August 2008 – Form 47A provided to ASPC
   January 2009 – Applicants provided Police Clearances from The Netherlands and underwent
   medicals
   20 February 2009 – DIAC request for evidence of sponsorship by SA, which had not been
   received by the ASPC
   8 April 2009 – DIAC request for form 47A for one of the secondary applicants which had
   gone missing within the ASPC
   15 July 2009 – DIAC request for further information regarding the dependency of one of the
   secondary applicants, due to time of decision requirement
   20 July 2009 – DIAC request for signed withdrawal letter for one of the secondary applicants
   24 August 2009 – DIAC informs that application is undergoing checks or clearances from
   other agencies which will delay the processing of the application.
   10
   Case now in limbo
   Note: This visa application has had three case officers. The first case officer had started
   processing the application but processing stalled during the time that the application was
   allocated to him/her. The first and second case officers were replaced due to reorganisation
   within DIAC.
   Case 4
   Subclass 176 application – sponsored by Western Australian Government
   12 November 2008 – Application lodged
   18 August 2009 – DIAC request for health and character checks
   1 September 2009 – Health check finalised. Character check not finalised
   Case now in limbo
   Case 5
   Subclass 475 application – sponsored by Queensland Government
   23 December 2008 – Application lodged
   27 July 2009 – DIAC request for military discharge certificate and employer reference
   20 August 2009 – Employment reference sent to DIAC
   14 October 2009 – Military discharge certificate sent to DIAC
   Case now in limbo
   Case 6
   Subclass 176 application – sponsored by Western Australian Government
   30 June 2009 – Application lodged
   18 August 2009 – DIAC request for health and character checks
   24 September 2009 – Health check sent to DIAC
   27 October 2009 – Character check sent to DIAC
   Case now in limbo

   Reply
3. Shohan says:

   November 2, 2009 at 6:15 am

   Hi there to all the applicants,

   I think is it very reasonable to consider about the
   applications that lodged before 23rd of Septmber
   2009 because the applicants did noy know such rule.
   If the applicants knew such rule they would never
   have lodged the application paying such amount
   to the Australian government.
   So please be fair with the applicants who lodegd
   before 23rd September 2009

   regards

   Shohan

   Reply
4. Ronnie Kenzie says:

   October 3, 2009 at 7:47 am

   Have applied under visa category 175, skilled migrant since June 2008. At the beginning of January, was on the CSL. Then, in March, my job was removed and figured under the MODL. Feel really stressed, now they are saying not before 2012, that is minimum 4 years it would have taken. If i knew that would be the case, would never have applied and which is more, no refund can be made. They just put a knife under your throat. Any chance that those who lodged their application last year be processed according to previous law with time they approximately gave. It is true of the recession but still, they cannot invite others to lodge their visa whilst they cannot process those who have already lodged. If we have to wait for 4 years, how long might they have to wait a day?8 years!That is a drastic change and really very bad.
   Thanks

   Reply
   • Gurvinder says:

     November 3, 2009 at 8:42 am

     It is true. My case is same as that of you. Actually, this is not our fault. Fault is in the immigration. And they are putting knife for the things on the troat of people for their own fault. They are unable to process the applications faster and they are blaiming people for that. Those who should suffer, that is those who dont have sufficient skills and english language requirements are now settled in Australia while those who are applying now according to strict Australian Laws, are suffering. Very bad Australian Immigration. Very Bad!!!!

     Reply
5. lordfair says:

   September 24, 2009 at 1:21 pm

   Yes ModL is being over-hauled. But I assume that days of CSL are not numbered yes it could be changed. Accountants with even over band 7 can tucked away but all this would have happen before atleast Dec 31 2009 or Feb 28 2010. I substantiate this claim by a single line mentioned for Accountants that those who do not manage to get 7 in all competencies of ILETS a strange phenomena , considering they have altelast study 2 years here in English in Australia can opt for Skill migration Internship programme . Now this progrannge was started for first time by unis acroess Australia in Feb 2008 and atlest take 1 year to complete .

   I wonder whether DIAC will have the initiative to fine tune CSL or remove it before giving chance to these SMIP applaicants who have spent 12,000 to 18,000 on fees no chance to avail proirity processin g time to put them in queue 3 or 4 ?

   On side Note

   Currently there seems to be a long delay, compared to pre- January 2009, in getting the final visa grant letter even after all dcouments have been sent to DIAC and the online status shows MET for all items. To our knowledge this is due to the following reasons. There may be others, which we do not know about.

   1. For High Risk Countries extra checks are being carried out both to verify employment references and also to do charcater checks. Character checks, which is done as part of Security Check, is more extensive and thorough than it was before.
   2. After the Case Officer has completed working on an application, the application is passed on to a Decision Maker. The Decision Maker goes through the file and gives the final decision before the Case Officer can issue the final letter, explaining the decision on an application. The adding of a separate Decision Maker seems to be a new stage.

   Advice to prospective applicants for Skilled Migration

   Our advice to prospective applicants for skilled migration is that before applying and commiting your hard earned money
   you should first fird out in which processing queue (1,2,3, 4 or 5) your application will fall.

   If I were you I would not apply if my application fell in procerssing queues 4 or 5. By falling in these queues you will not know
   when your application will be processed. Therefore, instead of letting your application fee (A$2000 plus) get stuck you should wait and/or
   prepare so that you can fall either in Queue no. 2 or 3. It can be done in the following way:

   Advice for Accountants and External Auditors

   either
   (a) seek sponsorship from a state to be in queue level 2 OR
   (b) improve English and resit the IELTS exam to score 7 or more in each of the four components to fall in queue level 3

   Advice for IT professionals

   (a) first of all get four years work experience in IT
   (b) try to get one year’s work experience in an IT specialisation which is currently mentioned in the MODL to fall in the queue level 3
   (c) try to get a state sponsorship to fall in the queue level 2

   Advice for Engineers & Health Professionals

   (a) Currently most engineering and health occupations are in the Critical Shortate List. Thus you will be in queue level 3. For applicants who are in queue level 3, case officers are being assigned pretty quickly. If you wish to move to queue level 2 then you should try to get sponsorship from a state .

   Advice for Other professionals

   (a) check the state sponsorship lists. If your occupation is in the state sponsorship list then try to get a state sponsorship- queue level 2
   (b) if your current occupation is not in the CSL, if you are still intgerested in applying for migraation to Australia then try to prepare for an occupation which is on the CSL and/or on the state sponship list.

   DO NOT WASTE YOUR HARD EARNED MONEY BY APPLYING WHEN YOU WILL NOT FALL in QUEUES 1, 2 or 3. If you are not in these three queues it may take a few years before your application will be assigned to a Case Officer for assessment.

   Reply
   • Mark says:

     September 27, 2009 at 10:21 pm

     Thanks for your detailed comment lordfair

     Reply
   • Mr.Rakesh Vengalil says:

     October 2, 2009 at 11:55 am

     Dear Lordfair,
     I have obtained State Sponsorship from Government of Western Australia under Visa sub class 176 for the trade occupation Agricultural Adviser.Can u please tell me under which que status I belongs to??????…Please reply

     Reply
6. shane says:

   September 24, 2009 at 5:43 am

   Dear Sir,

   I have lodged my application on the 27th of August 07 (subclass BQ 138) I have a twin in perth who has sponsered me but has of now I have not recieved any information on my immigration papers. Kindly let me know as to when I would get some information. When will papers to be handed over to a case officer.

   Looking forward to your propmt reply.

   Regs
   Shane

   Reply
7. ANIL MEHRA says:

   September 17, 2009 at 7:06 am

   Dear Sir,

   My wife has Lodgement my case on Date: 29 June 2009, Under the
   Application Type: Class VE, Subclass 176 Skilled – Sponsored.

   Question : When will the case offices will verifiy the Job. Is he/She is comming to the current working place where She is working Now or also going to the old company’s where She has worked.

   Just confirm me (APROX. TIME MONTH) in which month they will verifiy the job, So that She will inform or remind the old companies HR-Person.
   So that they will remember that in the past year’s She also worked in there company.

   She has applied under Skill – APPRAEL CUTTER.

   Best Regards
   Anil Mehra

   Reply
   • leoJ76 says:

     September 22, 2009 at 5:21 am

     i have aplly for the same category of visa, and same job, apparel cutter since may 2008 and im still waiting to get a C/O im sure u will have to wait a lot of time before other information is requested by diac..
     good luck
     daniel

     Reply

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

Leave a Reply