Login / Join
Immigration Daily News DIAC: Onshore Partner Applications Hand Delivered by Agents or Applicants Now Considered As InvalidAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers. Please email help@migrationalliance.com.au
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 15645
- 10 Comments
DIAC: Onshore Partner Applications Hand Delivered by Agents or Applicants Now Considered As Invalid
While the 457 “crackdown” comprised the most publicised aspects of migration law changes implemented by the government on 1 July 2013, a lesser-known change was introduced to the onshore partner visa processing regime that prohibits applicants or their migration agents from lodging onshore partner visa applications in person at DIAC Offices.
Item 1214C(3)(fa), added to Schedule 1 of the Migration Regulations 1994 as of 1 July 2013, states:
(fa) An application must be made:
(i) by posting the application (with the correct pre-paid postage) to the post office box address or other address specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or
(ii) by having the application delivered by a courier service to the address specified by the Minister in an instrument in writing for this subparagraph; or
(iii) if no address has been specified for subparagraphs (i) and (ii) — by lodging the application at an office of Immigration.
This new change means that even though the DIAC website says the NSW Partner Processing Centre offers “counter service” from 9am to 4pm at the Ground Floor of 26 Lee Street, applicants and their agents are prohibited from lodging applications in person there, and instead must pay Australia Post or a courier to deliver applications to the NSW or other appropriate Partner Processing Centre.
Applicants with extremely time-sensitive partner visa applications who depend on the “counter service” for the NSW Partner Processing Centre as advertised on DIAC’s website may be in for a rude surprise. Veteran migration lawyer Kim Hunter reports that when a client of hers attempted to lodge a partner visa application at DIAC’s 26 Lee St offices last week, “my client was shown the door and told to ‘post it’, was not told of courier delivery options, and was not allowed to leave the application at the counter or anywhere else.” As a result, Hunter reports the client had to courier the application in urgently that afternoon and wait for an acknowledgement letter confirming grant of a BVA in order to apply in person for an urgent Bridging Visa B.
While most organisations and businesses are trying to make themselves easier to do business with, it would seem that DIAC is doing the opposite – with onshore partner visa application times blowing out to 13 months and now the removal of the ability of applicants and their agents to hand deliver partner applications, DIAC would seem to be moving very hard to push business away, or at least make it harder for applicants to lodge visa applications.
“People… Our Business”?? Hmm. Maybe it’s time for DIAC to replace that slogan with a more accurate one that better reflects today’s realities of constantly increasing visa application fees, longer delays, and decreasing levels of client service and convenience. Perhaps the words of a case officer to a migration agent colleague recently say it best:
“The grant of an Australian visa is a privilege, not a right.”
-- DIAC Case officer to Migration Agent, August 2013
Comments
-
Wednesday, 21 August 2013I suggest that the definition of 'courier' is so wide that it includes almost anyone dropping applications at the courier counter. Except perhaps the applicant. I suggest that an agent delivering an application is a 'courier'.
-
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
The default to complexity by DIAC does not in any "business' regime make any sense.
the E lodgement solution is the way to go. These changes without notice and without consultation typify the deep loathing and contempt that DIAC has for stakeholders. MA would have to be the biggest DIAC stakeholder but the Migration Agents section doesn't communicate nor does it engage. Imagine what would happen if RMAs refused to cooperate with DIAC? Perhaps MA could consider a 'strategy' to get DIAC to pull its finger out...No cooperation without consultation..it reminds me of the American revolution...tea anyone? -
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
Well said Chris but as you well know DIAC will just go into Tar-Baby mode. (you may recall where Brer Rabbit speaks to the Tar-Baby, he gets angry when it does not answer him, when he strikes it he sticks to the Tar. The more Brer Rabbit punches the figure, the more entangled he gets.
People - Our (* insert word *) Business. -
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
I found out about this about 2 weeks ago when I tried to drop off an application at the Lee street counter. The counter person said this was in place for months now. I told her I had just dropped off an application only a few weeks ago and that was perfectly fine. Her reply was that only time sensitive applications will be accepted over the counter.
Now I'm really confused because the Reg says one thing but the people manning the counters say something else! -
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
I suppose that would apply to 300 holders as well? Helpful info! Thanks Mark.
-
Wednesday, 21 August 2013
I recently [19/08/2013]sent a client to Lee St to lodge an application for partner visa. Applicant did not hold substantive visa in last 28 days. Application was accepted over counter and bridging visa A granted. I thought a BVE would have been. You never know!
-
Thursday, 22 August 2013
I remember the good old days when on Fridays RMA's were allowed to walk into the Spouse section on the 23rd floor of Casselden Place Melbourne DIAC with a decision ready case. A smiling, casually dressed DIAC Delegate seemed pleased to lodge the application, the couple was interviewed a short time later and the SC820 visa granted on the spot. Such 1st world service is a long forgotten dream now.
-
Thursday, 22 August 2013
"PEOPLE [NOT OUR F***] BUSINESS"
-
Thursday, 22 August 2013
I had the same treatment from the overseas posts representing the DIAC or DFAT who service were supposed to be 'people- oriented', and at least user-friendly to a licenced migration agent, you would have thought.
But No, I was in Ho Chi Minh City to submit a sc 309 application; was rudely told they only accepted cash. When I inquired what was wrong with an Australia issued Visa Card, the little girl working for the sub contractor IOM in halting English said" we dont know anything credit card, we only take cash' Imagine you rushed to the bank and carried about 80,000,000 dong panting back to IOM, and made a valid application
A month later, back in Melbourne, I sent a class TU application to the same place with the same credit card no; and it was acknowledged a valid application, without no questions asked..
I should have posted 309 application from any letter box in Ho chi Minh City and chances of me getting robbed by the notorious motor cycle snatch thief would be
greatly reduced! I bet IOM or DFAT never gave thought to the safety aspect of their clients cities like KL, Ho chi Minh City- after all to be granted a visa is not one's right, you can only beg for the privilege
Immigration blog
I have just received a decision from Partner visa section in Melbourne. My client has been a de facto since 2009. She applied for in 2011 and was granted first stage visa as a spouse in 2012. She and her partner married in February 2013 and we received request for updates for her 801 visa in April 2013.
The case officer says "I find you are not the spouse of your sponsor". Given the legal validity and power of a registered marriage certificate, I am not sure where in the Act or the Regs the Delegate found the power to make such a finding. He refused the application based on his view that the bank account does not show "meaningful" number of transactions, and that the couple's statutory declarations do not contain "meaningful" description of the relationship.
Anyone who will be the next Minister of Immigration in Australia MUST take steps to train, educate, and brief their Delegates in reading, comprehending, and correctly applying the law when making decisions. This is truly one of the worst decisions I have ever come across in over a decade.