At the end of July 2015 I wrote an article titled 'Refuse, refuse, refuse:  457 nominations and visas refused'.

The DIBP kindly responded to my tweets on the above article, stating that DIBP approval rates sat at over 90%. 

Mistakenly, I should have cited the 'most-popularly-refused' occupation, and asked for the approval/refusal-rate for that particular occupation.  That 'popularly refused' occupation is none other than Customer Service Manager.  

It is not difficult to imagine that there are many cases where a person has remained in Australia as an unlawful non-citizen after the expiration of a previous substantive visa (for example, a student visa), has developed a relationship (and perhaps started a family) and then wants to get a partner visa to be able to stay lawfully in Australia.  Of course, people who are in relationships will wish to avoid the period of separation that is associated with waiting for an “offshore” partner visa application to be assessed and determined – especially when the “processing times” for such applications can be very long (commonly exceeding a year). (I would suggest that all RMAs and their clients would agree that these processing times are unjustifiable, and that there is no reason on earth why an offshore partner visa application should take so long to be determined, but that is a matter for another day!). 

Given the desirability of applying for the partner visa while onshore rather than from offshore, it is natural to consider – and it can be anticipated that clients will ask: “Realistically, what are the prospects of successfully getting over the “hurdle” of Schedule 3? What kinds of “compelling reasons” could persuade the Department or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal to “waive” the Schedule 3 criteria?

In a case that as examined last week, 1409924 (Migration) (2015) AATA 3088 (15 July 2015), we saw an example of a situation where the AAT determined not to grant a waiver from Schedule 3. In that case, the applicant and his sponsor had a child together who had a health condition that required special care. But because the child was born after the time that the application was lodged, and the AAT determined that the Schedule 3 criteria must be met at the time of the application (and thus not at the time of merits review before the AAT), it did not see fit to allow a waiver.

Private colleges will find it easier to benefit from Australia's booming international student business, under the new student visa system which is set to be introduced mid-2016, notes a report in The AFR. Details of the new system were broadly set out in the Coalition government’s report: Future directions for streamlined visa processing.

Under the proposed new student visa system, foreign students will have to deal with a simpler student visa regulatory environment which will see a reduction of the number of student visa subclasses from eight to just two subclasses.

Rod Camm, CEO of the Australian Council for Private Education and Training (ACPET), told the Australian Financial Review that Australia’s student visa system is currently so complex that colleges attending education fairs end up spending half their time explaining the visa system instead of talking about the quality of education, noting, “Australia is open for business and visa complexities make it so hard.”

One the key concerns of many is the two tiered risk assessment framework. Under the new system applications are expected to be assessed on a single immigration risk framework: the Simplified Student Visa Framework (SSVF).  It will replace both the Streamlined Visa Processing (SVP) arrangements and Assessment Level (AL) Framework.

The SSVF will essentially rank education providers and countries each year ‘based on the immigration risk outcomes of their international students over the previous 12 month period’. Apparently it is expected to give education providers ‘a strong incentive to recruit genuine students’ and slowly squeeze out the high-risk education providers.

Stupid me! I was trying to get some firm answer through the agent’s gateway, which seems to be designated for purpose of clarifying “complicated policy issues“.

If the matter is not complicated enough, obviously do not dare to ask. An RMA has to be suitably qualified to maintain their registration and have suitable skills (I guess in 'mind reading' the Department’s intentions and policy).  I am not sure if the certificate 3 or 4 in fortune telling or mind reading is suitable, as the Office of the MARA failed to specify this requirement as part of our registration.

The requirement of qualification recognition for specific occupations, and listed countries is set up by PAM 3. 

One might think that because of the importance of the tourism industry to the Australian economy, and also because of the obvious social value in allowing Australian citizens and permanent residents to maintain their relationships with members of their immediate families, that getting a Visitor Visa would, in the ordinary course of things, be relatively simple and straightforward. Right? 

Well, one might not think so if one were working professionally as an RMA! Also right? Yep!!!!! 

As many of us know, the exercise of  trying to get a Visitor’s Visa approved by the Department can be truly frustrating, and can cause us to pull our hair (or in my case, what’s left of it!!) out in clumps!! Sometimes it seems that no matter how obvious it is that our client holds a genuine intention to stay in Australia only temporarily, and we can provide a mountain of evidence that the applicant has sufficient ties to her or his home country to give them strong incentive to return, the Department will not accept those facts, and will refuse the visa application. All too often it seems, the requirement of demonstrating that an applicant is really a “genuine temporary entrant” will rear its ugly head, and stand in the way of getting a visa for the client.