Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
Dec 14th 2009, 6:55 am
#106
Still alive
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,972
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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!
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!
Dec 14th 2009, 7:01 am
#107
Still alive
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 28,972
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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.
Dec 14th 2009, 7:02 am
#108
Just Joined
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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.
Thank you.
Dec 14th 2009, 8:11 am
#109
Just Joined
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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 14th 2009 at 8:17 am.
Dec 14th 2009, 8:21 am
#110
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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
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
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.
Dec 14th 2009, 9:53 am
#111
Just Joined
Joined: Dec 2009
Posts: 7
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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?
Dec 14th 2009, 1:52 pm
#112
Just Joined
Joined: Nov 2009
Posts: 3
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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
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
Dec 15th 2009, 8:54 am
#113
Just Joined
Joined: Dec 2009
Location: Krasnodar, RU
Posts: 4
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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
Dec 15th 2009, 9:57 am
#114
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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
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 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.
Dec 15th 2009, 10:35 am
#116
Just Joined
Joined: Aug 2007
Posts: 2
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
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.
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.
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?
Dec 15th 2009, 10:54 am
#117
Lost in BE Cyberspace
Joined: Feb 2009
Location: UK
Posts: 14,284
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
It was quite clear when I applied that the Australian government were not committing to process my application within a given time frame.
Dec 15th 2009, 11:01 am
#118
Forum Regular
Joined: Oct 2009
Posts: 39
Re: Brief Window of Hope for 176 SS applicants
Meanwhile some more people got their 176 (non CSL) visas...
Dec 15th 2009, 12:49 pm
#120
Red pill or Blue Pill?
Joined: Dec 2004
Location: Fantasia
Posts: 189
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.
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.
