OyeOye

I went through MRT decisons on refused Australian Sponsored visa category as class 136 and 137 refusals are not appealable........A BIG DRAWBACK IF U HAVE 50 POINTS FOR SKILLS......................

The sole purpsoe of posting this message is that you should just imgaine that a BIG injustice is done to 136 & 137 refusals.

Most of the 138 category appeals received postive outcomes....perhaps over 90% cases received visas subsequently.

What seemed to be the problem with over 90% refusals were with prmary assessments of eligibilties by case officers.

Almost all cases were those who nominated an occupation attracting 50 points for skills and their current occupations were either Community Worker or Personnel Officer.DIMIA reiterate that you give the exact title of your current position and job description.Off course you select a relevnt occupation on SOL as your current title.

Now what case officers do to you is blatant and brutal thing. In scores of cases case officers awarded 45,65 or 85 points and later on MRT awarded upto 145 points in some cases.

What seemed to be the problem was that case officers read through the dutires performed by the applicants and then assign an occupation of their own choice to the applicants.Usually they slight your occupation to a low level occupation and award only 25 points for qualifications and employment whreas you deserved 60 or 70 points......so you get refused.

In a large number of cases they slighted Personnel Officer to Personnel Record Clerk and awarded 25 points or they assigned you an occupation of higher standing ie HR Manager instead of Personnel Officer and directed you to go for AIM assessment which requires higher qualifications,over 5 years experience and higher level of responsiblity.So you get a negative assesssment from AIM and your application is refused for failing to meet points requirement.

Now I realize that case officer can do anything to your application particulary if you are Skllled Independent or STNI category.Lucky are Australian Sponsored and RMS applicants who have a right of appeal against adverse decisions. May be,case officers find it difficult to refuse on other grounds so they resort to this trick.....slighting your current position/occupation....and assigning you an occupation which exists on ASCO but not on SOL........I am dead sure.....my assessment is true and fair as they ignore VETASSESS assessments in particular.

In almost all of cases of above nature MRT reversed DIMIA decisons and awrded enough points to appealnts.

Why can't DIMIA properly train case officers in assessments and interpretation of PAM3??? If people on MRT can interpret the rules correctly,why can't those at DIMIA do so??? Can I say it's a modus operandi to refuse and this is done on purpose??? How do the case officers feel when they see their decisons reversed or perhaps by the time decisons are made they are in a new job!!!


So be careful with your applications.Your current occupation might not merit recognition by your case officer......Monkey becomes Donkey and Cat is seen as Rat!!!!

There a lot many refusals and poor souls perhaps don't know of this forum or just leave to sulk................
I WOULD LIKE ANY AGENTS TO COMMENT ON THIS PLEASE

Cheetah7

We passed our skills assessment as a cook and are about to apply for visa, it will be intersting to see the replies you have to this.

JAJ

Offshore applications with no Australian sponsor are never subject to an appeal right to the MRT.




That can't happen under the post-1999 regime. If you have a skill assessment, DIMIA will honour it.



Again - can't happen under the system in place from 1 July 1999 unless you have education or work experience in a registrable occupation (not HR).



They do *not* "ignore Vetassess assessments" and if you want to make allegations like this you should refer to specific cases.

What they will do is look at work experience and make sure it is "skilled" - often people apply without skilled work experience and this leads to refusal.


Many people who are refused 138/139 visas do not appeal to the MRT.



DIMIA do generally train their case officers properly, although in some instances there can be differences of interpretation in complex areas.

Let me assure you that even with 136/137 cases, if DIMIA case officers were making obviously poor decisions (more than simple differences of interpretation) then this would be raised by agents at management level, and possibly with the Minister.


Jeremy

OyeOye

Thanks JAJ......if its not an ongoing problem particulary after post 1999 regimes then good for 136/137 cases....

One thing was obvious that all cases were pre-1999.

Are you sure they honour VETASSESS assessments and do not change your nominated and current occupations?

Do they honour your current occupation on the basis of your job description?

Does everyone get at least 50 points if he/she has a skill assessment from VETASSESS as far as qualifications points are concerned?

'Skilled' means any occupation/trade attarcting 40,50 or 60 points????

JAJ,your views please!!!

welshtony

I know this is aimed at Jaj but I'm sure he wont mind if I back him up - DIMIA have to honour all skills assessments unless they suspect they were obtained fraudelently or where the applicant only has experience in an occupation that requires registration in Australia and the applicant has nominated, and been assessed in, a different occupation. Thus, for example, a qualified Lawyer could nominate, and get recognised by VETASSESS, in any of their 40 or 50 point occupations. If that Lawyer has only ever worked as a Lawyer, then DIMIA can change the Nominated occupation to Lawyer and insist the applicant obtains an assessment as a lawyer. If the Lawyer also had some experience say as a management consultant, or some other occupation on the SOL, then a case could be argused for DIMIA not to change the Nominated Occupation.

So under the current regime, it is the classification of the recent/specific work experience where DIMIA make the decision. It is a good point that 136 applicants do not have a review right and as such are vulnerable to "bad" decisions by DIMIA.

The particular instance you mention - A personnel Officer being downgraded to a Personnel Clerk maybe on a subjective assessment that the small size of the company would indicate that the position would not be highly skilled, did happen about 5 years ago when DIMIA had some really tough (unfair in my biased opinion) case officers. The last 5 years I can honestly say that the Case Officers at DIMIA are very fair and, as they should be, are actively trying to approve cases in stead of actively looking for ways to refuse cases.

Tony

George Lombard

Dear OO,

In fact until June 1999 DIMIA did the skills assessments and visa processing and we, like many other migration agents, took a large number of cases to the IRT about this since DIMIA officials were making assessments of occupations which they did not have clear understanding of or failed to have full information of. No-one's fault, the system just made it hard for everyone. Then, at the same time, the IRT was replace by the MRT and the old system was replaced by PASA, ie pre-application skills assessment. Since then, while there are still anomalies, the process has been much fairer and now that the assessing bodies and the DIMIA processing centre have a body of corporate experience, it seems to work quite well.

Although you do often need to go to the courts to correct an erroneous subclass 136 or 137 decision, ASPC supervisors will always listen to a clear case that a case officer has made an error, and will certainly correct the error if possible, without any appeal being necessary.

Cheers,

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au

OyeOye

GL,how do the agents go to cout when appeal is not possible in subclass 136 & 137? Again,don't they close the file after a decison is made???

Regards,
OO

George Lombard

Dear OO,

When a negative decision is made, the file stays in the Adelaide Skilled Processing Centre for a short time, so if you make an immediate and principled objection a manager will certainly review the file, and if an obvious error has been made, correct it administratively (this can also be achieved when the file has been archived, but with more difficulty). Sometimes the errors, although obvious, are consistent with a doctrinal approach within DIMA to the legislation, so in such cases you need to go to a lawyer to lodge an appeal. A good example of what can be achieved is in the Moradian case, see http://www.austlii.edu.au/cgi-bin/di...2004/1590.html

Cheers,

George Lombard

www.austimmigration.com.au