State Migration Plans - Numbers to be limited

[claireg]

Hi all,

 

We are sponsored by the ACT but have not yet received this email. However I am wondering whether they are sending this to just their ACT sponsored prior to a certain date? Say those who lodged 2008 / 2009?

 

We got our ACT SS in July this year and they spent ages checking our employability with the IT industry, etc. and we did our Commitment to Canberra statement which was very detailed and well researched.

 

I don't suppose anyone really knows the answer but it would be good to know the dates ACT SS was lodged / granted for those who do receive the email and those that don't.

 

PS - thanks George for this useful info once again

 

Ta

claire

[lavender776]

I got mine Dec 2009 and haven't had the email either!

[claireg]

I got mine Dec 2009 and haven't had the email either!

 

Thanks Lavender. Are you through an agent? Maybe the agents are getting the first batch of emails before the independent applicants ?

 

Just when you think things have calmed down a bit eh.

[clickettuk]

Hi all,

 

We are sponsored by the ACT but have not yet received this email. However I am wondering whether they are sending this to just their ACT sponsored prior to a certain date? Say those who lodged 2008 / 2009?

 

We got our ACT SS in July this year and they spent ages checking our employability with the IT industry, etc. and we did our Commitment to Canberra statement which was very detailed and well researched.

 

I don't suppose anyone really knows the answer but it would be good to know the dates ACT SS was lodged / granted for those who do receive the email and those that don't.

 

PS - thanks George for this useful info once again

 

Ta

claire

 

We got our ACT sponsorship in January 2010 and we got the email this morning.

[lavender776]

No, not through an agent. I'm also not on the new SOL, so I wonder if I'll even get the email! :sad:

[lavender776]

We got our ACT sponsorship in January 2010 and we got the email this morning.

 

Not looking good for me then! lol! I'll try not to read too much into it!

[claireg]

Not looking good for me then! lol! I'll try not to read too much into it!

 

We will probably get ours tomorrow maybe. If I don't hear by next week I am going to email them as they are only giving 28 days to state our intention to continue with them.

 

Cheers

Claire

[Guest bobbyjo]

This is really 'frying my brain' now!!!!

Does this mean 176 family sponsored (on new sol) are not even being looked at, just those with ss 176?

Help!!!!!!!!!!:unsure:

jo

[kuching]

We will probably get ours tomorrow maybe. If I don't hear by next week I am going to email them as they are only giving 28 days to state our intention to continue with them.

 

Cheers

Claire

 

oh yes, I feel that I would email them as well, if I don't hear from them by next week.

[sherin]

Hi Sherin

What is your nominated occupation ?[/quote

 

Occupation is Hotel/Motel Manager

[sherin]

Hi all,

 

We are sponsored by the ACT but have not yet received this email. However I am wondering whether they are sending this to just their ACT sponsored prior to a certain date? Say those who lodged 2008 / 2009?

 

We got our ACT SS in July this year and they spent ages checking our employability with the IT industry, etc. and we did our Commitment to Canberra statement which was very detailed and well researched.

 

I don't suppose anyone really knows the answer but it would be good to know the dates ACT SS was lodged / granted for those who do receive the email and those that don't.

 

PS - thanks George for this useful info once again

 

Ta

claire

 

Hey Claire

It is best to contact ACT SBM team immediately.

Cause I have a feeling the 28 day deadline is for all the ACT state sponsored applicants irrespective of the fact you have got a email or not .

 

Rgrds

Sherin

[George Lombard]

A couple of things have become clearer today:

 

a) Some states are going to find it much harder to meet their targets than others, meaning that applicants sponsored by some states are going to be waiting that much longer than applicants sponsored by other states under less pressure.

 

b) None of the states are able to say anything at the moment - the words "lock down planning phase" might be appropriate - since the SMPs are about to be announced and they will need to be prepared to meet the demands of that moment.

 

c) The Minister is going to be attending the national conference of the Migration Institute of Australia in Sydney next week so will have an opportunity to make an appropriate announcement.

 

d) Some states with lower demand might initially share available places in their quota with states which have higher demand. Eventually there might be a higher volume of applications for those states with presently unused demand given that sponsorship by those states might lead to visa grant more quickly.

 

e) By putting a limit on the number of state sponsored applications there will now be scope for other applications to be processed more quickly, depending on their place in the queue for each priority category. During the last 12 months of the last Minister the switching backwards and forwards between priority groups was particularly unprofessional, this solution might leave some of the cake for everyone.

 

f) No indication that any states are failing to include existing sponsored applicants in their SMPs - the issue is how to manage the prioritisation.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

[eric402]

A couple of things have become clearer today:

 

a) Some states are going to find it much harder to meet their targets than others, meaning that applicants sponsored by some states are going to be waiting that much longer than applicants sponsored by other states under less pressure.

 

Sir, would like to ask what is the target implmentation of each state regarding their SMP. Thanks.

[lavender776]

I got the email this morning. SS received Dec 09!

[Guest JK2510]

Well the easier answer to this:

 

f) No indication that any states are failing to include existing sponsored applicants in their SMPs - the issue is how to manage the prioritisation.

 

All applicants prior to July 1st 2010 should be processed in date order. We all filled the criteria before the new sol was released and a new set of changes were brought in.

[crispysince70]

Well the easier answer to this:

 

f) No indication that any states are failing to include existing sponsored applicants in their SMPs - the issue is how to manage the prioritisation.

 

All applicants prior to July 1st 2010 should be processed in date order. We all filled the criteria before the new sol was released and a new set of changes were brought in.

 

JK2510 - I like your way of thinking. Lets hope the rest of the states think so too.

[Guest JK2510]

I hope that's the way it turns out! I know the cat 3s are steaming along nicely and at this rate we may have a CO in the next few months and I don't really want the Release of the SMPs to change that!

[Guest yyyy]

I am having a SS from ACT for 176 visa under the offlist occupation technical Sales Representatives i got my SS in march 2010 but so far i have not received the mail from ACT.

[Guest Gollywobbler]

A couple of things have become clearer today:

 

a) Some states are going to find it much harder to meet their targets than others, meaning that applicants sponsored by some states are going to be waiting that much longer than applicants sponsored by other states under less pressure.

 

b) None of the states are able to say anything at the moment - the words "lock down planning phase" might be appropriate - since the SMPs are about to be announced and they will need to be prepared to meet the demands of that moment.

 

c) The Minister is going to be attending the national conference of the Migration Institute of Australia in Sydney next week so will have an opportunity to make an appropriate announcement.

 

d) Some states with lower demand might initially share available places in their quota with states which have higher demand. Eventually there might be a higher volume of applications for those states with presently unused demand given that sponsorship by those states might lead to visa grant more quickly.

 

e) By putting a limit on the number of state sponsored applications there will now be scope for other applications to be processed more quickly, depending on their place in the queue for each priority category. During the last 12 months of the last Minister the switching backwards and forwards between priority groups was particularly unprofessional, this solution might leave some of the cake for everyone.

 

f) No indication that any states are failing to include existing sponsored applicants in their SMPs - the issue is how to manage the prioritisation.

 

Cheers,

 

George Lombard

 

Hi George

 

Thank you very much for the information above, all of which makes perfect sense and I have added it to the thread that I sharted about this in the Agents information sub-section yesterday.

 

When you say that the SMPs are "about to be announced," is there any indication of when? If I were Mr Bowen, ideally I would want to annouce publication of the SMPs just before he is due to address the MIA conference, so that Mr Bowen and his DIAC lackeys could then be seen to answer questions about the SMPs instead of putting up with a load of MIA members all grumbling bitterly about different aspects of the Immigration programme.

 

Do you think it is likely that the SMPs will be announced prior to Mr Bowen's speech to the MIA conference? (I imagine that all he wants to do is to plead for mercy from an angry mob!)

 

On a different note, if you get the chance, please could you put in a word for the non-contributory Parents and Aged Parents for me? It is completely unreasonable to expect them to wait for 22 years and 18 years respectively, imho.

 

Many thanks:notworthy:

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

QUOTE: Enter Christopher Levingston. He alone seems to have been arguing that S65 of the Act prevails over everything else and he is demanding that the visa applications *must* be processed by the Minister in accordance with S65 and without unnecessary delay. As far as I know, CL is NOT saying that his argument would necessarily be a winner in Court but I agree with him that it is a very good place to start from. It is a lot more useful to a visa applicant than letting the Fed Govt shove him/her around.

 

I don't know anything like enough about the workings of the Migration Act to be sure but I am wondering whether S65 is stronger than anyone except CL has said so far? The aggrieved visa applicant would obviously have the Court's sympathy. I don't know the answer to my question but I am wondering.....

 

 

 

Hi Gill,

 

As always, thanks for the info. I'm interested to know whether Chris L. is already taking this to the courts and if there is a specific case going on at the moment?

Another thing I was hoping you might have the answer to is that, if an application is capped then it is said to be treated "as if it had never been lodged". Well supposedly an application is capped (I'm preparing myself for the worst) but some work has already been done on it. For example, a CO was allocated to an application and processing had commenced before Evans decided to make the priority chaos. In that case, can it be 'legally' be treated as if it had never been lodged?

Hope you can help.

Cheers

 

Hi Kokki

 

There are two different aspects to this.

 

The second aspect is the ideas that were promulgated in the Cap & Kill Bill 2010. At the moment, that Bill is dead & buried and Mr Bowen might decide to ditch the philisophy behind it. As yet, that Bill is not Law and unless it or something similar become Law, there is nothing for the lawyers to argue about.

 

As far as I know, CL has only been advising people whose visa applications have purportedly been terminated by the action of Minister Evans in his attempt to use S39 of the Migration Act 1958. As far as I know, no litigation has been commenced as yet. A good lawyer (which CL undoubtedly is) will do a lot of preliminary skirmishing with his opponents to try to see whether he can avoid the need to litigate the matter through the courts.

 

The only concrete thing that I've heard is that CL has been advising the aggrieved applicants that if they want to have a hope of a fight in the courts later, he thinks that they should reject the offer of a refund of their VACs and that they should demand that the Minister must obey S65 of the Act instead. That is the right place from which to start any potential litigation, not by issuing a Writ too hastily. Any Judge would expect to see a strong dossier of evidence showing a completely intransigent attitude from the Minister because that would help to convince the Judge that the Minister should pay both sides' costs for the litigation, regardless of who wins it.

 

I understand that CL has pointed out that accepting a refund of the VAC is inconsistent with demanding (under S65) that the Minister must process the visa application instead of purporting to chuck it out under S39.

 

With regard to your own question, you would have to ask a solicitor of no less a calibre than Christopher Levingston what he thinks the answer would be in your particular situation. There is no Immigration Law case-law on the issue as far as I know. There may be case-law precedents in other areas of Federal Law, but I don't know whether or not there are any that would be analagous to the situations faced by visa applicants.

 

I agree with you that it would be unreasonable for the Minister to terminate your application. However the Minister says that the Migration Act allows him to act in a manner that any aggrieved visa applicant would think is unreasonable. I think the issue for the courts would be whether the law allows the Minister to think what he says he thinks.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest dragsterwish]

Update from Victoria about SMP

http://www.liveinvictoria.vic.gov.au/visas-and-immigrating/eligibility-lists

 

The Victorian Government is currently developing its State Migration Plan. Information about the plan and new sponsorship eligibility lists will be available on this website when they are complete. Only occupations included on Victoria’s sponsorship eligibility lists will be considered for sponsorship. The new arrangements will be in place after 18 October 2010.

 

Looks like we are in for another wait. But not too far off now....hopefully

 

[Afternote: After reading that there'll be a MIA conference next week, it seems that Mr Bowen may be making an announcement at the conference about the release of the SMP next week and effective date from 18th Oct 2010. This timeline seems to flow logically. However, given that logic isn't the forte of DIAC, i still reserve my doubt about that though i look forward to it happening!]

[Guest Gollywobbler]

"We would like you to demonstrate that your skills and experience are still in demand in Canberra by providing evidence of research into suitable positions currently being advertised in the ACT; and confirm that you are still committed to live and work in Canberra for at least two years from visa grant"

 

This would be a challenge do not know what to do .

 

 

 

Hi Sherin

 

If it were me, then regardless of any migration agent who might be involved, I would ring up the ACT Immi people myself. I would speak with Julianne O'Brien if possible because she is the boss or, failing her, then her deputy.

 

I would ask them to explain what they mean by their request? Do they mean that you should search the on-line newspapers and the jobs websites (2/3 of the adverts in which are fake adverts anyway) and then send the evidence that you have looked or do they expect you to make frivolous applications for jobs when you know perfectly well that most employers would insist on Permanent Residency and you don't know whether the Federal Government would ever grant that to you?

 

I would avoid relying on what anybody junior says about this. In my experience, junior Aussie Officials are absolute shockers. When they don't know the answer to a question, they could easily say, "I don't know. I will ask the boss and then get back to you once I have a definitive answer." In my experience, though, they never say this. They always seem to imagine that they themselves are obliged to answer your question on the spot. They often don't have a clue what the real answer is, any more than you have, but they take a wild guess at what they imagine the answer ought to be. They then state their own personal conclusion, drawn from their own wild guess, as if their conclusion is fact. They state it with such an air of confidence, conviction and authority that you (the person asking) thinks that they must know what they are talking about so you accept what the junior minion has told you.

 

If it later turns out that the junior minion's guess about what his/her boss might actually think was mistaken, it is too late. You have lost out and the junior minion won't remember a thing about you so s/he will deny that any discussion between you ever took place. The loser is the applicant on the outside. Inside the organisation, they all cling to each other with more tenacity than the average sheep tick clings to a dog.

 

In Australia, the work-ethic is to get to work early and do your day's overtime before 9am so that you can beat it out of the door the minute that closing time arrives. I don't know any Aussies who burn the midnight oil after going home time. They all seem to hit the sack soon after supper so I assume that they are wide awake again by Oh Kerrist O'clock in the morning, when they all seem to get up and get cracking! Catching them about 30-45 minutes before their official opening time seems to be the best way to catch the boss and not the minion, I have found.

 

So this is how I would go about it if it were me. This is not supposed to be a guessing game so I would ask them for Further & Better Particulars of what they mean by what they have said.

 

If you find out, please could you let the rest of us know? Many thanks.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

We will probably get ours tomorrow maybe. If I don't hear by next week I am going to email them as they are only giving 28 days to state our intention to continue with them.

 

Cheers

Claire

 

Hi Claire

 

I agree with you 100%. Compiling the mailing list and then e-mailing everybody on it is a task that would be delegated to one or two junior minions only. I wouldn't risk the minions getting it wrong where I am concerned.

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Guest Gollywobbler]

A couple of things have become clearer today:

 

a) Some states are going to find it much harder to meet their targets than others, meaning that applicants sponsored by some states are going to be waiting that much longer than applicants sponsored by other states under less pressure.

 

Sir, would like to ask what is the target implmentation of each state regarding their SMP. Thanks.

 

Hi Eric

 

Think "Northern Territory," I suggest. The staff who run DBERD in the NT always seem to be pathetically grateful that any migrant might be willing to consider the NT at all (whereas I think that the NT is Australia's best kept secret and I can't imagine why 99% of prospective migrants all seem to want to head for Burbsville in anywhere except the northern half of Australia.)

 

Who knows? Unexpected popularity could prove to be one of the effects of the NT's SMP!

 

Cheers

 

Gill

[Jag Khairra]

One of my clients did not proceed with 487 despite getting the nomination from regional NSW as a Cook in 2009. He has now received his 485 visa and we were able to re-validate the nomination by sending a request to the authority.

 

 

VIC is sending verification emails regarding the status of 886 applications and whether clients are working for the same employer who offered them jobs or working in their nominated fields? We get one email every 6 months or so for every client and this has been happening since early 2009 (applications lodged in 2008). The verification could be for "investigations undertook by VIC govt in some occupations" and "to filter out non-genuine applicants and keep only genuine ones who are working in their nominated fields".