From the 19 November 2016 changes to the Temporary Activity Visa Framework will come into effect closing certain visas from future applications and the introduction of new subclasses as replacements.
Visas Closed from 19 November 2016
Visas Introduced from 19 November 2016 Subclass 400 Temporary Work (Short Stay Specialist) visa A temporary visa to allow short term, highly specialized non-going work. Subclass 403 Temporary Work (International Relations) visa A temporary visa for people wishing to come to Australia as part of a bilateral agreement, to represent a foreign government or to teach a foreign language in an Australian school, to undertake full-time domestic work for a diplomat, as a person with statutory privileges and immunities, to participate in the Seasonal Worker Programme. Subclass 407 Training visa A temporary visa to allow individuals to undertake occupational training or participate in classroom based professional development activities. Subclass 408 Temporary Activity visa This visa is for individuals looking to come to Australia for any of the following reasons:
For more information see here. If you require the representation of a Immigration Lawyer in Brisbane City today, then get in contact on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or leave an enquiry here. Also, click here for more great blogs by our Migration Agents. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Enjoyed Staying Up to Date? Subscribe Below!
Originally Published here: Immigration Changes - New Short Term Visas to be Introduced via Blogger Immigration Changes - New Short Term Visas to be Introduced
0 Comments
The Australian Government recently announced changes to the Skilled Migration scheme which now allows international graduates in certain fields to gain an additional 5 points towards their points test score. Importantly, students of Australian institutions will be able to get these five extra points by completing Doctoral or Masters by research level qualifications in science, technology, engineering or mathematics (STEM) or specified information and communication technology (ICT).
Specifically, graduates of the following skilled fields will qualify for the additional 5 points from the 10th of September 2016 onwards: Biological sciences, earth sciences, chemical sciences, mathematics, physics and astronomy, computer science, information technology, aerospace engineering and technology, civil engineering, geomatic engineering, electrical engineering and technology, manufacturing engineering, maritime engineering and process and resources engineering. The diagram above now reflects the current state of the Points Test system for Skilled Visas. Original Source: https://goo.gl/CCj60Q Introduction of the Entrepreneur Visa The Australian Government has also announced plans to introduce a new Entrepeneur Visa within the Business Innovation and Investment Programme. To be eligible, applicants will need to be able to satisfy the following criteria:
Funding can be secured by Commonwealth agencies, state, and territory government, publically funded research organisations, investors registered as a venture capital limited partnerships or early stage venture capital limited partnerships or any combination of these. The hope is that these new change will encourage innovative minds from around the world to migrate to Australia with the expectation of a positive impact on the Australian economy and job creation. Original Source: https://goo.gl/SOjAkw If you require the representation of a Migration Lawyer in Brisbane today, then give us a call on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or email your questions to [email protected] and we hope you learnt something valuable by visiting our website. Also, click here for more informative blogs by our Migration Lawyers. Otherwise you can find us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Enjoyed the Blog? Subscribe Below!Originally Published here: Immigration News - Changes to Skilled Visa Points Test & A New Entrepreneur Visa via Blogger Immigration News - Changes to Skilled Visa Points Test & A New Entrepreneur Visa
Parents of Australian Citizens are able to migrate to Australia and be with their Australian children/child by applying for certain Parent visa options. The purpose of this blog is to better explain the process, timeline and costs involved in applying for a Contributory Parent Visa for applicants who are currently outside of Australia. In another blog, we discussed the 'Parent Visa Loophole' that some parents are fortunate enough to have as an option, however for parents that hold passports from countries that find it difficult to obtain Visitor visas, or are not above the age of 65, often an offshore Parent visa application is the only realistic option to migrate to Australia. Accordingly, there are currently two different types of offshore parent visas. The contributory and non-contributory. The issue is that the non-contributory offshore parent visa (being the Subclass 103), currently has a processing/waiting time of approximately 30+ years. Although there are some benefits in having a pending 103 visa with the DIBP (in that they may be eligible for a longer term tourist visa), applying for the 103 visa will not lead to any long term visa solution in the foreseeable future. Alternatively, there are the contributory parent visas (Subclass 173 and Subclass 143) available to those families that can afford significant 2nd Visa Application Charges (VAC) associated with these subclasses. Importantly, applicants can choose to apply directly for the Subclass 143 and obtain permanent residency, however in doing so, in addition to the initial VAC, they will be liable to pay a 2nd VAC when the visa is ready to be decided (currently set at $43600!). A silver lining to all this however is that applicants can also choose to 'split' the 2nd VAC by applying for a Subclass 173 first and then eventually transitioning to the Subclass 143 once they are inside the country. The diagram above is reflective of this "splitting" process, by which an applicant applies for the 173 first, only pays a portion the 2nd VAC, and then only once the Subclass 143 has been applied for and ready for approval, do they pay the remainder of the 2nd VAC. This approach does in fact increase the 2nd VAC total ($43600 compared to $48550), however, as the diagram above demonstrates, it allows applicants and their family approximately 4+ years from when the initial 173 is applied for before all remaining charges would be due for the grant of the 143. If you find any of this confusing (we wouldn't blame you) and are looking to migrate as a parent or bring your parents to Australia, then get in contact on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or send your enquiry to [email protected]. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Migration Agents. Otherwise you can find us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: Offshore Contributory Parent Visa - 173 to 143 - Splitting the Costs! via Blogger Offshore Contributory Parent Visa - 173 to 143 - Splitting the Costs!
A heavily litigated area of migration law has recently been the question of when the Administrative Appeals Tribunal (AAT) will have the jurisdiction to hear an appeal of a Subclass 457 visa refusal. Firstly, as a starting point, readers should familiarize themselves with the three stages of the Subclass 457 and understand that all three stages must be approved in order for the 457 visa to be eventually granted. In this blog, we explore the relationship between an associated Nomination submitted by an approved 457 Sponsor and a 457 Visa refusal appealed to the AAT. Accordingly, several recent cases have begun clarifying when the AAT does or does not have jurisdiction to hear a 457 visa appeal. Firstly, in the case of Minister for Immigration v Lee & Ors (2014) FCCA 2881 (10 December 2014), the court held that where an approved Nomination had expired before the appeal of the visa is lodged, then the AAT would not have jurisdiction to hear the appeal of the visa. Considering that 457 Nominations are valid for 12 months from their approval, this suggests that any 457 visa appeal must be lodged within the 12 months validity period of the associated Nomination. Secondly, the case of Kandel v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2015) FCCA 2013 (7 August 2015) clarified that as long as there was a pending Nomination with the DIBP at the time than an appeal of a 457 refusal was lodged to the AAT then that this would be sufficient. Interestingly, this may suggest that even if an original 457 Nomination and Visa are refused by the DIBP, that as long as a second Nomination is submitted to the DIBP 'identifying' the applicant, then this may be sufficient for the AAT to have the jurisdiction hear the visa appeal. Thirdly, the case of Ahmad v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection (2015) FCAFC 2167 confirmed that even in the case of a refused 457 Nomination, as long as the Nomination refusal is also appealed to the AAT, then the AAT would have the jurisdiction to hear a subsequent Visa appeal. Importantly, this was further supported by the recent decision in Dyankov & Ors v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2016) FCCA 2167 (24 August 2016) in which it was concluded that in a case where a 457 Nomination is not appealed to the AAT, then the AAT will not have the jurisdiction to assess the associated 457 Visa refusal. Accordingly, the current position with the courts (and what will be followed by the AAT) seems to be that in order for a 457 visa refusal to be 'appeal-able', that there must be either a pending Subclass 457 Nomination not yet determined by the DIBP, an approved 457 Nomination by the DIBP, or if a Nomination has been refused by the DIBP, that an appeal of that Nomination refusal has also been submitted to the AAT. If you require the representation of a Immigration Lawyer in Brisbane today, then feel free to contact us on 1300 644 788 or email your questions to [email protected]. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Migration Agents. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Source: http://migrationalliance.com.au Originally Published here: Appealing a Subclass 457 Visa Refusal - Whats the Deal with the Nomination Requirements? via Blogger Appealing a Subclass 457 Visa Refusal - Whats the Deal with the Nomination Requirements?
In addition to satisfying all visa criteria, applicants for the Regional Sponsored Migration Scheme (Subclass 187) (RSMS) will need to first find suitable employment in a regional area of Australia. Importantly, only specific Australian post codes constitute as being 'regional' which we will copy below! Australian Capital Territory Entire Territory New South Wales Except Sydney, Newcastle and Wollongong
Northern Territory Entire Territory Queensland Except the greater Brisbane area and the Gold Coast
South Australia Entire State Tasmania Entire State Victoria Except Melbourne metropolitan area.
Western Australia Entire state If you require the assistance of a Migration Agent in the Brisbane CBD today, then feel free to contact us on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or email your questions to [email protected] and thank you for visiting Salvo Migration. Also, click here for more great blogs by our Immigration Lawyers. Otherwise you can find us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: RSMS (Subclass 187) - Eligible Post Codes via Blogger RSMS (Subclass 187) - Eligible Post Codes
Applicants of visas from inside Australia often find themselves on a 'Bridging Visa' awaiting the outcome of their respective visa application. Due to the processing times of some Australian visas, applicants can be on these temporary bridging visas for several months, and sometimes, even years! (See our blog on the Parent Visa Loophole as an example). Despite being in this period of 'limbo', those who hold a Bridging Visa A (Subclass 010) may be eligible for a Bridging Visa B (Subclass 020), otherwise known as a 'travel bridging visa' allowing holders to leave Australia and return to continue awaiting the outcome of their pending Australian visa. Accordingly, a common question we receive is 'how long can I travel on a BVB'? In order to answer this question we must turn to Government Policy, being what is used by Departmental case officers when assessing the application for a BVB. Importantly, policy does not necessarily specify a limit as to how long a BVB can be granted for. Specifically, the policy states: Except for providing that the travel facility period cannot exceed the period that the BVB is in effect ...BVB regulations do not prescribe a length of time for the travel facility period. and: It is up to the visa processing officer to specify an appropriate length of time for which to grant a travel facility period to an applicant for a BVB. Officers should exercise judgment, on a case by case basis, in deciding the length of time during which the BVB holder can leave and (re) enter Australia... However, policy does provide some insight as to how applicants that are in Australia awaiting the outcome of certain visa applications may be assessed. Specifically, applicants of the following visas may be able to request a 12 month travel facility/BVB:
Importantly however, these applicants may also be able to request longer than 12 months if they can demonstrate exceptional circumstances, including:
All in all, what this shows us is that it will generally be at the discretion of the assessing case officer in terms of how long they choose to allow a BVB visa applicant to travel for. Accordingly, applicants should ensure that when making BVB applications that they specify their desired dates of travel and provide sufficient reasons for the purposes of their departure. If you require the help of a Migration Agent in the Brisbane CBD today, then give us a call on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or send your enquiry to [email protected] and thank you for visiting our site. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Migration Lawyers. Otherwise you can find us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: Bridging Visa B - What is it and How Long Can I Travel For? via Blogger Bridging Visa B - What is it and How Long Can I Travel For?
There is no automatic right to an Australian Partner visa. Applicants in Australia who hold a substantive visa must be in a relationship with an Australian Citizen or Permanent Resident and be able to demonstrate that (1) they have a mutual commitment to a shared life together to the exclusion of all others, (2) the relationship is genuine and continuing, and that (3) they live together or do not live separately and apart on a permanent basis. However, additional criteria is imposed on applicants applying for an Australian Partner Visa who do not hold a substantive visa, such as those who are unlawful at the time they apply or having been on a Bridging Visa for in excess of 28 days. This is known as Schedule 3 criteria. Accordingly, the Migration Regulations state that applicants who are not a holder of a substantive visa must satisfy Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004, unless they are able to demonstrate that compelling reasons exist for not applying Schedule 3 to their application. Importantly then, what does Schedule 3 require applicants to show and if applicants cannot satisfy Schedule 3, what constitutes compelling reasons to 'waive' Schedule 3? Let's take a closer look! What Does Schedule 3 Say? To clarify, there is more than one provision within Schedule 3 which may apply to an applicant, however for the most part, 3001 and 3004 are the most likely to apply to Partner visa applicants who do not hold a substantive visa. 3001 - This regulation requires that applicants not be unlawful or on a Bridging Visa for more than 28 days since last holding a substantive visa. Accordingly, if an applicant has been unlawful or on a Bridging Visa for more than 28 days, they cannot satisfy 3001. However, even for those who have been unlawful or on a Bridging Visa for less than 28 days since last holding a substantive visa, then they will also need to satisfy criteria 3004. 3004 - This regulation requires that applicants be able to demonstrate that (1) they are not the holders of a substantive visa because of factors beyond their control, (2) there are compelling reasons for granting the visa, (3) they have complied substantially with all previous visa conditions, (4) the applicant would otherwise be eligible to have granted the Partner visa, and (5) the applicant intends to comply with any conditions imposed on the Partner visa. Accordingly, even for applicants who get through 3001 (by applying within 28 days), 3004 could be problematic if they cannot address each of the above points. How Do We Waive Schedule 3? As mentioned at the beginning of this blog, if applicants cannot satisfy Schedule 3 (3001, 3003 and 3004), then they must be able to demonstrate there are compelling reasons to 'waive' the application of Schedule 3 against them. Unfortunately, there is no way to apply for this 'waiver' before the Partner visa is applied for and it is simply assessed in conjunction with all other visa criteria. So the case could be that the Partner visa could otherwise be granted, except that Schedule 3 is not satisfied and an applicant is unable to demonstrate compelling circumstances to have it waived. Unfortunately, there are no clear guidelines that suggest what will constitute compelling circumstances in the eyes of the DIBP, however, Government policy does provide some guidance on how strictly they will approach this tricky area of Migration Law. What does the Government Policy Say? The Government Policy (what is used by DIBP case officers to help interpret the law and guide case officer decision making), states the following: The Migration Regulations do not prescribe the circumstances that need to be considered when assessing whether or not ‘compelling reasons’ exist to not apply Schedule 3 criteria 3001, 3003 and 3004. As such, officers should consider circumstances on a case by case basis. In doing so, however, officers should be mindful that the intent of the waiver provisions is to allow persons whose circumstances are genuinely compelling to regularise their status. The provisions are not intended to give, or be perceived to give, an unfair advantage to persons who:
An example of where the circumstances may not be compelling to waive the Schedule 3 requirements may be where an applicant has remained unlawful for a number of years, made little or no effort to regularise their status and claims compelling circumstances on the basis of a long term relationship with their sponsoring partner and/or hardship caused by separation if they were to apply outside Australia for the visa. With the intent of the waiver provisions in mind, it is generally reasonable to expect that compelling reasons to exercise the waiver provision exist where an applicant’s circumstances happened beyond their control. That is, circumstances beyond the applicant’s control had led them to become unlawful and/or prevented them from regularising their status through means other than the Partner visa application for which they seek the waiver. For example, in the scenario given earlier, it is reasonable to accept that compelling circumstances exist to waive the Schedule 3 criteria if, for reasons beyond the applicant’s control - such as severe illness or incapacity - the applicant was prevented from regularising their status in the years they had been unlawful. As a general rule, the existence of a genuine spouse or de facto relationship between the applicant and sponsoring partner, and/or the hardship suffered from the separation if the applicant were to leave, and apply for the visa, outside Australia are not, in themselves, compelling reasons not to apply the Schedule 3 criteria. This is because a genuine relationship forms the basis of all Partner visa applications, and hardship caused by separation, whilst it differs in degree from one case to another, is common in the Partner visa caseload, particularly in the offshore context where partners may be separated for extended periods during visa processing. Policy intends that the waiver provision should not be applied where it is reasonable to expect the applicant to leave Australia and apply outside Australia for a Partner visa. This not only ensures fairness and equity to other applicants and discourages deliberate non-compliance, but also preserves the integrity of the Partner visa program in general and the waiver provisions in specific. Matters that officers should take into consideration when assessing whether the applicant’s circumstances may be considered compelling include but are not limited to:
(Source: DIBP - PAM3 - MIGRATION REGULATIONS - SCHEDULES > PAM - Sch2 Visa 820 - Partner) What is the Conclusion Knowing All This? Government policy shows us that the DIBP will not make it easy for applicants who have purposely remained unlawful in an attempt to circumvent visa requirements to regularize their status through an Australian Partner visa. However, what readers should understand is that the waiver provisions are discretionary meaning that applicants are welcome to put forward all the facts of their relationship to help demonstrate compelling circumstances exist. Importantly, applicants must be able to show that compelling circumstances existed at the time of visa application and not necessarily what has developed after the visa has been applied for. Some factors that may help an argument of compelling circumstances may include:
If Schedule 3 applies to you, and if you require the assistance of a Migration Lawyer today, then get in contact on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or email your enquiry to [email protected] and we hope you learnt something valuable by visiting our site. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Immigration Lawyers. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: Partner Visa - Waiving Schedule 3 Criteria - Compelling and Compassionate Circumstances via Blogger Partner Visa - Waiving Schedule 3 Criteria - Compelling and Compassionate Circumstances Are you an International Student in Brisbane? Need a break from all those soul crushing hours studying and preparing assignments? Well, Salvo Migration is proud to help bring you the next event by Rumba Latina, 'I Love Colombia' on Thursday the 11th of August from 9pm! So come along, have a few cervezas or margaritas (as long as you don't have class the next morning) and shake out those brain muscles to all your favourite latin music. For more information visit the Facebook Event Page and reserve your spot today! Otherwise, if you are an international student and require the assistance of a Immigration Lawyer in Brisbane today, then feel free to contact us on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or send your enquiry to [email protected]. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Immigration Lawyers. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: International Student in Brisbane? We Have an Event for You! via Blogger International Student in Brisbane? We Have an Event for You!
A very common pathway for skilled workers to gain their permanent residency is to apply under the 'Temporary Transition Stream' of the Subclass 186 (ENS) visa or Subclass 187 (RSMS) visa. Accordingly, this stream requires that applicants have worked for their sponsors for at least two years in their skilled occupation and are then nominated by their employer for permanent residency. However, sometimes issues arise when during this 2 year period the employer re-structures or is sold to another entity who takes control of the pre-existing business. Importantly, it used to be the case that if a consequence of this type of business restructure/sale meant that a 457 visa holder was now being employed by a entity that had a new ABN to the previous sponsor, then unless those entities were associated in law, then the 457 visa holders would have a very difficult time arguing that they had worked for the same employer for 2 years when applying for their residency. Long story short, if a new ABN took over, then it was very likely that the 2 year calculation would 'restart' with that new company. Thankfully, the DIBP changed their policy and now apply a much more flexible and common sense approach to the issue. Accordingly, as it stands currently, when assessing whether or not an applicant meets the 2 year requirement, the DIBP will ask the following three (3) questions, and if all three can be answered 'yes', then in most cases, an applicant will meet the criteria:
Accordingly, the policy intention is to allow 457 visa holders to apply under the Transition Stream that 'have been affected by circumstances outside of their control, such as their employer undergoing a business restructure, takeover, sale or closure'. What this tells us is that as long as there is a direct link from the previous entity to the current sponsor (i.e a takeover or sale) then it is likely that applicants will not be assessed too harshly at the DIBP and meet the 2 year requirement. Importantly however, 457 visa holders are advised to be aware that there is also a separate requirement that the new entity that is nominating them for their permanent residency must also be their current 457 sponsor. To clarify, this means that if Company A is bought out by Company B, then any 457 visa worker who was originally sponsored under Company A must first have their 457's transferred to Company B before Company B can sponsor them for permanent residency. Readers are also suggested to consider that if applicants are formally qualified in their occupation and have at least 3 years full time experience in their field after their qualifications, then they may be eligible to apply for permanent residency without having to wait 2 years on a 457 visa. This even applies to those who are already on a 457 visa and may perhaps be eligible sooner than waiting the full 2 years. If you require the assistance of a Immigration Lawyer in Brisbane City today, then give us a call on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or send your questions to [email protected]. Also, click here for more great blogs by our Migration Agents. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: My Employer Sold His Business - Does My 2 Years Restart on a 457 Visa? via Blogger My Employer Sold His Business - Does My 2 Years Restart on a 457 Visa?
In late 2015, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) made changes to its policy regarding Australian businesses sponsoring family on a Subclass 457 visa as well as the self-sponsorship approach used by temporary visa holders already in the country. Below we breakdown the current status of the law and Government policy. Self Sponsorship Prior to these changes, it was common for overseas based skilled workers to enter Australia on a temporary visa (generally a Working Holiday or Student Visa), establish a company, begin trading and eventually employ and sponsor themselves for a Subclass 457 visa. At the time, the Governments position was that as a company is a separate legal entity to its director, that it could lawfully employ and sponsor the director as an employee of the company. However, it seems that the DIBP eventually caught wind of this 'loophole' and decided to insert the following into their policy when assessing the genuine need of a position being nominated for a Subclass 457 visa: The intent of the 457 program is to enable Australian businesses to temporarily fill short term skill shortages with overseas workers when they cannot find a suitably qualified or experienced Australian citizen or permanent resident to fill the position. The program is not intended to be used for non-citizens to establish a business in Australia and self-sponsor themselves; there are other visa pathways available for such purposes. Seems pretty cut and dry doesn't it? Read on... Sponsoring Family In addition to the DIBP looking to stamp our self-sponsorship style applications, there was additional policy included which also attempts to make it more difficult for Australian businesses to employ and sponsor family members of directors and officers. This is because in the eyes of the DIBP, sponsoring family is a possible indication that the position was created purely to secure a migration outcome. Accordingly, businesses looking to sponsor family members will also face an uphill battle in showing that the position either already existed (and has recently become vacant), or that the business has diversified/increased which has resulted in a new position being created. Analysis As is explained above, the current Government position on self and family sponsorship's seems clear and readers should be aware that any application to the DIBP attempting either of these approaches is likely to be highly scrutinized However, it is our position that the current DIBP policy is incorrect and an over interpretation of the Migration Regulations. Firstly, only specific occupations are subject to the requirement that they demonstrate they have not been able to find a suitably qualified or experienced Australian citizen or permanent resident to fill the position. For a large number of occupations on the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List, Australian employers do not need to advertise (known as Labour Market Testing) for the position before submitting their nomination, so the claim that all Subclass 457 visas are exclusively for Australian employers that could not find suitably qualified Australians if factually incorrect. Secondly, to suggest that a family owned and operated business does not have a genuine need for a relative to work in that business is staggering. There are thousands of Australian family operated businesses that genuinely and effectively employ relatives into key positions as a means of ensuring that the business is run and managed by a known and trusted individual. Similarly, a self-employed tradesman (as an example) that can demonstrate their company has been contracted to provide substantial work for the foreseeable future and who have employed other tradesmen to perform the work would logically have a genuine need for his/her position in their business especially considering there is no requirement in law that the position be needed for any specific period of time following the grant of the 457 visa, only that at the time of decision there is a need for the position. Conclusion Now, its important that we understand the legal framework in which Migration Law operates. To clarify, the DIBP are not empowered to create laws. That responsibility and authority lies with the Australian Executive (Parliament). Accordingly, DIBP policy is not necessarily legally binding, however, the practical reality is that the policy will guide DIBP case officers when making their decisions. So visa applicants need to expect a high level of scrutiny at the DIBP if applying for a 457 visa under self or family sponsorship and prepare for the very likely need to have to appeal to the tribunal, which we believe may have strong grounds to win...depending on your lawyer! If you have recently had a Subclass 457 visa refused due to family or self-sponsorship criteria and require the help of a Migration Agent in Brisbane City today, then get in contact on 1300 MIGR8TE (644 788) or email your enquiry to [email protected] and we hope you learnt something valuable by visiting Salvo Migration. Also, click here for more useful blogs by our Migration Lawyers. Otherwise you can contact us at the following address: Salvo Migration 320 Adelaide St Brisbane QLD 4000 https://goo.gl/Bao5ma Originally Published here: Is 457 Family or Self-Sponsorship Dead? A Detailed Review! via Blogger Is 457 Family or Self-Sponsorship Dead? A Detailed Review! |
AuthorMARN 1175200 Archives
December 2016
Categories |