Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Old Dec 13th 2009, 6:55 pm
  #106  
Still alive
 
Dorothy's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,995
Dorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Alex_Oz
Some strange thing happened... I has posted a message, but it was completely deleted without any warnings despite the fact that it did not contain anything against the Site rules, as I think. I will try to repeat it.

First of all, George, thanks a lot for your inputs.
I would surely follow your advice, if I were sure that next week (day, month) DIAC will not change the rules of the game (AGAIN).
At the moment, it seems like playing a game of russian roulette, with the only difference that the number of bullets is regulated by DIAC right in the middle of a spin.

By the way, there is a petition against the January 2009 changes introduced by DIAC (please see a link in my signature). This petition may look similar to the one posted by Frank about September changes, but it is not the same! We will highly appreciate your support since there is a hope (small, but still) that this appeal may turn DIAC to pay attention to the issues of 175 applicants.

Thank you!
Your earlier post was not "completely deleted without any warnings". It was put in a moderation queue because it contained a link and you have only posted once previously. It is a filter which automatically detects new posters who include links in order to weed out spam.
Dorothy is offline  
Old Dec 13th 2009, 7:01 pm
  #107  
Still alive
 
Dorothy's Avatar
 
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,995
Dorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond reputeDorothy has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Alicita
We need to struggle for our rights.
I'm not sure what rights you are referring to. Nobody has a "right" to a visa and while it may be that you are frustrated by the changes and your medicals expiring, it's an unfortunate consequence of DIAC's responding to the needs of Australia and it's citizens.
Dorothy is offline  
Old Dec 13th 2009, 7:02 pm
  #108  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Alex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really nice
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Dorothy
Your earlier post was not "completely deleted without any warnings". It was put in a moderation queue because it contained a link and you have only posted once previously. It is a filter which automatically detects new posters who include links in order to weed out spam.
Dorothy, thank you for the detailed explanation. I am new to this forum, so I have got a bit confused. If I can post a link related to me as it outlined in the Site rules, then Iwill edit my previous message.
Thank you.
Alex_Oz is offline  
Old Dec 13th 2009, 8:11 pm
  #109  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Alex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really nice
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Dorothy
I'm not sure what rights you are referring to. Nobody has a "right" to a visa and while it may be that you are frustrated by the changes and your medicals expiring, it's an unfortunate consequence of DIAC's responding to the needs of Australia and it's citizens.
Dorothy, I will agree with you that nobody has a "right for visa", but I think that Alicita has referred to humane and "fair play" principles.

For instance, when I decided to apply for a GSM visa back in 2007, there was no such thing as CSL or priority of processing. What is more, it was clearly stated by DIAC that average time of processing is about 30 weeks while maximum time may reach 54 weeks and processing time COMPLETELY depends on the documents provided and the time needed for checks routine. There was a clear and unambiguous point gain system and I weighed my decision very accurately. In other words, I made my decision only and only after I have realized that I had met all criteria.
Additionally, there was a clear message from case officer by the end of 2008 that I should expect my visa very soon.

I am not against the changes - Australia like any country should protect its citizens and economy. I am against the UNFAIR principle of treating applicants retrospectively. Please make all the appropriate changes, but you should apply them ONLY to new applicants that made their choice AFTER you have introduced new rules of the game. Those who made their choice based on previous rules and messages SHOULD be treated as it was announced when they have made their choice. This is a fair play, this is a humane approach, and this is a good attitude towards people that believed your promises.

Once again, sorry for my emotions. Dorothy, please don't get me wrong, this is not against you or your message

Last edited by Alex_Oz; Dec 13th 2009 at 8:17 pm.
Alex_Oz is offline  
Old Dec 13th 2009, 8:21 pm
  #110  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Alex_Oz
Dorothy, I will agree with you that nobody has a "right for visa", but I think that Alicita has referred to humane and "fair play" principles.

For instance, when I decided to apply for a GSM visa back in 2007, there was no such thing as CSL or priority of processing. What is more, it was clearly stated by DIAC that average time of processing is about 30 weeks while maximum time may reach 54 weeks and processing time COMPLETELY depends on the documents provided and time needed for checks routine. There was a clear and unambiguous point gain system and I weighed my decision very accurately. In other words, I made my decision only and only after I have realized that I had met all criteria.
Additionally, there was a clear message from case officer by the end of 2008 that I should expect my visa very soon.

I am not against the changes - Australia like any country should protect its citizens and economy. I am against the UNFAIR principle of treating applicants retrospectively. Please make all the appropriate changes, but you should apply them ONLY to new applicants that made their choice AFTER you have introduced new rules of the game. Those who made their choice based on previous rules and messages SHOULD be treated as it was announced when they made their choice. This is fair play, this is humane approach, and this is a good attitude towards people that believed your promises.

Once again, sorry for my emotions. Dorothy, please don't get me wrong, this is not against you or your message
I understand your frustration. I think that the Australian government is behaving in an immoral fashion. Not by changing the rules per se as I think they have to put their citizens before immigrants and must act as they see fit. But I very strongly believe it is immoral to change the goal posts and then refuse refunds to the people who have lodged. They have way too much money for doing nothing and should give it back to whomever wants it back.

Still you did say "we have to struggle for our rights".

Like Dorothy, I don't understand this comment. You haven't got any rights.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Dec 13th 2009, 9:53 pm
  #111  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Alex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really niceAlex_Oz is just really nice
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
Still you did say "we have to struggle for our rights".
Like Dorothy, I don't understand this comment. You haven't got any rights.
Just to be fair, these were not my words But I share the general meaning that I have got from these words which I explained above.

You know, I am sure that this "Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants" did not appear just because Mr. Evans was in a good mood or suddenly realized that many thousnads are frustrated. It seems to be a result of states government and mass media pressure. So, why there should be an exception to the rule for some category but not for the other? Another immoral behaviour?
Alex_Oz is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 1:52 am
  #112  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
zzwzzw is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Alex_Oz
Dorothy, I will agree with you that nobody has a "right for visa", but I think that Alicita has referred to humane and "fair play" principles.

For instance, when I decided to apply for a GSM visa back in 2007, there was no such thing as CSL or priority of processing. What is more, it was clearly stated by DIAC that average time of processing is about 30 weeks while maximum time may reach 54 weeks and processing time COMPLETELY depends on the documents provided and the time needed for checks routine. There was a clear and unambiguous point gain system and I weighed my decision very accurately. In other words, I made my decision only and only after I have realized that I had met all criteria.
Additionally, there was a clear message from case officer by the end of 2008 that I should expect my visa very soon.

I am not against the changes - Australia like any country should protect its citizens and economy. I am against the UNFAIR principle of treating applicants retrospectively. Please make all the appropriate changes, but you should apply them ONLY to new applicants that made their choice AFTER you have introduced new rules of the game. Those who made their choice based on previous rules and messages SHOULD be treated as it was announced when they have made their choice. This is a fair play, this is a humane approach, and this is a good attitude towards people that believed your promises.

Once again, sorry for my emotions. Dorothy, please don't get me wrong, this is not against you or your message
I can't agree more, I lodged my application on August 14th 2007, in the following 2 years ,I never got even a case officer,maybe my application files are still lying in some rubbish can in DIAC, recent information that DIAC would arbituary reject applications is really unacceptable. that's unfair, and it injured those who have already lodged their applitions...Don't tell me that is for the recovery of OZ ecconomy, it seems rejecting applications without refund would be more benefical to OZ ecconomy............I'm not live in UK , I'm a foreigner, and sorry for my poor English.....
zzwzzw is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 8:54 pm
  #113  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Krasnodar, RU
Posts: 4
TaxPay is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
Still you did say "we have to struggle for our rights".
Like Dorothy, I don't understand this comment. You haven't got any rights.
I try to explain this point (please note, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a specialist in finance law).
Yes, you are right, it seems, in this case we are haven't got any rights. But immigration program is based on law, isn't it? It's like contract, and DIAC has undertaken for my application be processed, (yes, I know, they are not guaranty grant, but they guaranty that they examine application and do it in term that need to check all details of application, without special long delays. OTOH I have undertaken for pay for processing. And I have fulfilled my obligation.
And what do we see? DIAC's changed one's mind, made new rules, and tell me that they don't want to process my application, because they had invented new rules, new lists, or they want more money (for example 100K aud)… what else. Unfair? …A little more, I think – it looks like nothing short of a swindle.
It's base principle of Roman (Civil) Law, that none of legislation can be changed retrospectively.
About to protect our rights…we are complaining to government, social structures, media, imho SS 176 non CSL have been granted, partially, as a result of our demarche. What is next? We are going to have a second go, maybe it can square the circle.

Sincerely,
Sergey
TaxPay is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 9:57 pm
  #114  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by TaxPay
I try to explain this point (please note, I'm not a lawyer, I'm just a specialist in finance law).
Yes, you are right, it seems, in this case we are haven't got any rights. But immigration program is based on law, isn't it? It's like contract, and DIAC has undertaken for my application be processed, (yes, I know, they are not guaranty grant, but they guaranty that they examine application and do it in term that need to check all details of application, without special long delays. OTOH I have undertaken for pay for processing. And I have fulfilled my obligation.
And what do we see? DIAC's changed one's mind, made new rules, and tell me that they don't want to process my application, because they had invented new rules, new lists, or they want more money (for example 100K aud)… what else. Unfair? …A little more, I think – it looks like nothing short of a swindle.
It's base principle of Roman (Civil) Law, that none of legislation can be changed retrospectively.
About to protect our rights…we are complaining to government, social structures, media, imho SS 176 non CSL have been granted, partially, as a result of our demarche. What is next? We are going to have a second go, maybe it can square the circle.

Sincerely,
Sergey
They haven't changed legislation.

They have never committed to processing anybody's application within a certain time.

I think they are morally in the wrong and as such should give refunds. But I don't think they have broken the law and they have not denied anybody of their legal rights.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 10:31 pm
  #115  
Just Joined
 
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Krasnodar, RU
Posts: 4
TaxPay is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
They haven't changed legislation.
They pretend that they haven't changed legislation and made people believe it, but in fact they do.
I think, we need a lawyer to find out the truth.
TaxPay is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 10:35 pm
  #116  
Just Joined
 
Kire's Avatar
 
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2
Kire is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Bermudashorts
They haven't changed legislation.

They have never committed to processing anybody's application within a certain time.

I think they are morally in the wrong and as such should give refunds. But I don't think they have broken the law and they have not denied anybody of their legal rights.
I am really sorry, but you are quite good in Australian legislation changes history?
Especially from 2009?

Chris Evans in his private mail to me commited that application processing time was 15 monthes for high risk countries.

Alex, does this branch meet your expectations?
Kire is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 10:54 pm
  #117  
Lost in BE Cyberspace
 
Bermudashorts's Avatar
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Bermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond reputeBermudashorts has a reputation beyond repute
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Kire
I am really sorry, but you are quite good in Australian legislation changes history?
Especially from 2009?
Not in great detail, but I do know that the legislation did not cover processing times. Which is what people are (quite understandably) complaining about and what we are discussing on this thread.

It was quite clear when I applied that the Australian government were not committing to process my application within a given time frame.

Originally Posted by Kire
Chris Evans in his private mail to me commited that application processing time was 15 monthes for high risk countries.
You seem to be confusing an email with legislation.
Bermudashorts is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 11:01 pm
  #118  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 39
Concurent is an unknown quantity at this point
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Meanwhile some more people got their 176 (non CSL) visas...
Concurent is offline  
Old Dec 14th 2009, 11:03 pm
  #119  
Forum Regular
 
Joined: Apr 2008
Location: Romania to Perth!
Posts: 56
navigatoru will become famous soon enough
Default Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants

Originally Posted by Concurent
Meanwhile some more people got their 176 (non CSL) visas...
unfortunately, I don't
navigatoru is offline  
Old Dec 15th 2009, 12:49 am
  #120  
Red pill or Blue Pill?
 
GOBLIN's Avatar
 
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Fantasia
Posts: 189
GOBLIN will become famous soon enoughGOBLIN will become famous soon enough
Default 475 Visa Granted

Hello Everyone,

I thought I'd share this with you guys. I know someone personally who got their 475 Visas granted last week. They had a case officer assigned before the 23rd September changes came in.

Like many of you, they subsequently received an e-mail stating that processing would be delayed until 2012 due to the sep 23 changes. However last week they were pleasantly surprised to find a visa grant e-mail sitting in their inbox.
GOBLIN is offline  

Contact Us - Manage Preferences Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service - Your Privacy Choices -

Copyright © 2024 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands. All rights reserved. Use of this site indicates your consent to the Terms of Use.