It is high time the DIBP started to enforce the use of Form 956A, especially in relation to randomized checking of VEVO and randomized online applications such as partner visas by third parties who are not RMAs.  This article explores the reasons why.

Online partner visa applications

Firstly, a relevant issue that needs to be addressed is with the online partner forms.

If a person submits an offshore partner application using the DIBP online system then the DIBP online system currently doesn't allow the draft to be prepared stating that it couldn't confirm the location of the applicant.

After contacting the eVisa support team a very clever Registered Migration Agent discovered that the visa applicant for the offshore partner visa was actually visiting their spouse in Australia.  This is why the online partner visa system wouldn't allow the offshore application to be prepared.  E-services don't ask for the 956 form the agent and provide information about the visa applicant.  Our agents have never been asked for a form 956 by e-services support.

There are two issues here:

Vulnerable people with genuine claims will soon be precluded from raising them in a fresh visa application, simply because a previous application which they did not understand and which may have been made by someone else without their permission was refused. There are several amendments proposed in the Migration Legislation Amendment Bill (No. 1) 2014 but the amendments to section 48 remains the most contentious.

Section 48 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth( (the Act) in general prohibits an individual whose onshore application for a visa has been refused or cancelled from making a further onshore application, with limited exceptions applying to the application ban.

Submissions to the Senate Legal and Constitutional Affairs Legislation Committee opposed the amendments for various reasons including the following (as summarised in the Parliamentary Library Bills Digest 4 June 2014):

• the changes increase the potential for instances of injustice to arise as some vulnerable people will be denied the opportunity to present their claims for asylum in their own right
• the changes will prohibit re-consideration of issues that have been considered in a previous application even though such an application may not have appropriately taken into account the views and capacity of a minor or other vulnerable person
• the changes will adversely affect particularly vulnerable groups of asylum seekers due to factors entirely beyond their control
• the changes could result in unintended consequences such as refoulement
• the changes are not proportionate to the administrative burden on the Department
• the changes raise doubts about Australia’s compliance with international law such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities
• the retrospective nature of the changes is not fair for applicants
• the changes are premature and misconceived and
• the Minister’s personal and non-compellable powers under section 48B of the Act to exclude the operation of the provision on public interest grounds is a grossly inadequate safeguard against refoulement for particularly vulnerable people subject to the prohibition in section 48A of the Act.

The Refugee Advice and Casework Service (RACS) provided some scenarios to illustrate the gross unfairness of the proposed legislation which its states unfairly "extends the s48 bar on subsequent applications to individuals who have been refused a protection visa even where they did not know about or understand the nature of the original visa application made on their behalf because of a mental impairment or because they were a minor."

 “A 17 year old young man lives independently of his parents in a relationship not approved of by his parents. He is included on a non-meritorious protection visa application by his parents without his knowledge. This application is refused. He only learns of this visa application history when he makes his own visa application in the future, which is deemed invalid.

“A 16 year old girl remains in conflict with her father due to family violence and remains living in a refuge with her mother. She is included in a non-meritorious visa application without her knowledge by her father which is refused. When her mother includes her on a subsequent meritorious visa application as her dependent, she is informed that the application by the daughter is invalid due to the father’s previous application.”

Migration Alliance members will be interested to note a complaint that was sent in to the Global Feedback Unit Manager, this morning by Migration Alliance:

People are nervous and worried that it is coming towards the 1 July and they are unable to lodge the clients applications successfully.

Please could you let MA know if this is going to be resolved shortly?

10 point Migration CPD blitz in London Sunday on the 15th June 2014

AUD$198.00 for Migration Alliance Members
The Down Under Centre
48 Haven Green, Ealing Broadway, London, W5 2NX

9:30AM - 11:00AM
Temporary Business Sponsorship - SM2

11:15AM - 12:45AM
Employer Nomination Scheme - SM1

1:00PM - 2:30PM
Partner Visas - SM3

2:30PM - 3:00PM
Lunch break

3:00PM - 4:30PM
Skill Select and the Business Innovation Visa - SM31

4:30PM - 6:00PM
Skill Select and the EOI - SM32

Guest Speaker:  Phil Smith from the Australian Government Approved RTO, Australian Construction Training Services (ACTS).

Other guest speakers TBC.

SECOND 5 MIGRATION CPD:
The final 5 subjects are done online at LTA through online learning (private study).  Online CPD are usually priced at $55.00 per point but for agents booking into this event, the 5 online CPD are free.  These are not transferrable and not redeemable under any other offer.

Please email This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. for instructions as soon as you have registered to attend the event.

With expensive university fees and a loss of interest in VET colleges since the removal of the likes of hairdressers and cooks from the skills occupation list, students are starting to turn to cheaper ELICOS colleges as a stepping stone into Australia. Perhaps, the high English language threshold required for immigration into Australia is also fuelling the rise of the ELICOS student visa.

Last year, there were 147,828 students in Australia studying English Language Intensive Courses for Overseas Students or ELICOS, according to a report by Australian Education International (AEI), which is based on survey findings of peak body English Australia (EA).

The EA survey showed that overall ELICOS enrolments in 2013 grew by 19% to 147,828 students from 124,603 in 2012. The figures show that there has been trend over the last three years for  ELICOS students to move away from tourist visas and into student visas. According to EA, last year, some 62 per cent were on student visas, 19 per cent on tourist visas and 15 per cent on working holiday visas.

Victoria is the preferred place for ELICOS students. In 2013, all states showed growth in ELICOS students. Victoria had the strongest growth with 38% followed by Queensland (27%) and Western Australia (21%). South Australia grew by 7% and NSW by 6%.

The ELICOS sector continues to draw its largest numbers of students from the Asia Pacific (64%, a slight increase from 63% in 2012). Students from China were the largest cohort and accounted for 17% of all ELICOS students in 2013. The remaining top ten student nationalities in order were: Japan, South Korea, Brazil, Thailand, Colombia, Taiwan, Vietnam, Italy and Saudi Arabia. All of the top ten countries showed growth in 2013.