Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
Migration Alliance members might be able to comment on the email I received this morning, below:
'Hi Liana,
There seems to be an error on DIBP's website regarding subclass 888 visa.
According to the website (in innovation stream):
"You must be able to show that you (or your partner, or you and your partner together) have:
had an ownership interest and a direct and continuous management role in an actively operating main business (or main businesses) in Australia that had an annual turnover of at least AUD300,000 for the two years immediately before you apply)"
However, when I went through legislation today, I noticed that 888.25 says that:
(5) The main business in Australia, or main businesses in Australia, of the applicant, the applicant’s spouse or de facto partner, or the applicant and his or her spouse or de facto partner together, had an annual turnover of at least AUD300 000 in the 12 months immediately before the application was made.
Please see the parts that I have highlighted and if you think the info on their website is wrong (as I do), please let them know.'
My comments:
Clients of the DIBP are relying on the information published in the DIBP website. This is why the unwitting public must be made aware of the work that registered migration agents do. This is why migration agents can be relied upon and trusted to provide immigration advice and assistance. We are interested in the fine details because fine details make all the difference (make or break). We are also insured for the advice we provide. DIBP might want to check their own PAMs before releasing information to millions of vulnerable people who rely upon the advice on the DIBP website.
PAMS: For the purpose of 888.225(5), the 12 month prescribed period need not equate to a fiscal year.
So, does the DIBP have insurance to cover themselves in the event that they provide incorrect information to their clients? Migration Agents have insurance. I hope that the Office of the MARA are looking at this post. They might want to start advertising the reason the public should use a RMA. First reason - protecting the public from the DIBP incorrect and incomplete information
As a matter of course, the information on the Department's website should not be relied on, ever. The website contains very general information and any details contained within that frame work is in all likelihood inaccurate, out of time, and out of date.
The only reliable source for any of the sub classes of visa must necessarily be the Legislation and the Regulations.
This is not the first inaccurate bit of info on the website. I had discovered so many over the years that I advise all my clients not to pay too much attention on the legal requirements of any of the visas and consult with a migration agent first.
To get to the error:
Click on: http://www.immi.gov.au/Visas/Pages/888.aspx
Then click on 'Visa applicants' which is the middle option on the tabs.
Then scroll down the page and click on 'Business Innovation Stream'.
Then scroll down and you wil get to:
Ongoing business involvement
You must be able to show that you (or your partner, or you and your partner together) have:
had an ownership interest and a direct and continuous management role in an actively operating main business (or main businesses) in Australia that had an annual turnover of at least AUD300,000 for the two years immediately before you apply
owned at least one of the following percentages of the main business (or main businesses) in Australia in the year immediately before you apply:
51 per cent of a business with a turnover of less than AUD400,000 per year
30 per cent of a business with a turnover of AUD400,000 or more per year
10 per cent of a publicly listed company