Login / Join
Australian 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: 6659
- 12 Comments
Criminal or Qualified Professional?
Dear Collegues ,
You might find intereting my correspondence with 457 manager in regards to qualifications "verification " of my client from India. I got compleatly confused wheter my client is in opinion of DIBP just not qualyfied or is not qualyfied criminal who commited fraud..... so far no evidence to support any of this version have been given.
I might be wrong but in my opinion accusation of providing fabricated documnets is serious matter falling under criminal law. Accusing party suppose to present evidences of guilt before judgement.
Comments from Criminal Law specialist would be highly appreciated if DIBP can accuse people without any legal consequences having little or no evidence of guilt .
Documents I have seen in the case described below rather suggest my client is skilled genuine proffesional but I might be wrong, obviously.
On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Piotr Ferenc <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:
Dear Joanne Lumb,
Thank you for your e-mail .
In your correspondence you mentioned " given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent" which document do you refer to ? The one initially provided or the further evidence of genuine qualification provided in response to natural justice letter ?
Has document provided in response to adverse information finding been verified? I doubt it taking in to consideration time of decision and normal processing time of verification by overseas mission .
If I am right - has the officer made the valid decision not taking in to consideration all information provided ? I have a strong believe that overseas mission made mistake in their assessment and 457 visa office made no effort to clarify the issue especially that the decision of case officer says :
"You responded in writing on the 9/12/2013 claiming that the integrity and accuracy of
the processes employed by the overseas post were questionable and a letter from the
Indian University signed by the Controller of Examinations.
Whilst it is probable that you were a student at this university, I find that on balance
you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree or 5 years relevant experience
as required by the Australian Bureau of Statistics ANZSCO as a Training and
Development Professional 223311."
The officer says that " it is probable that you were a student at this university" it is on contrary to your statement that " educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent".
Your officer stats it was possible that the document is not fraudulent but no one bothered to do further investigation accusing my client of criminal conduct not only in absence of evidences but also having reasonable doubt if fraud took place . If case officer admits the Mr xxxxxxxxxx were student of the university documents provided are true and accurate in contrary to verification process that seams to be affected by negligence and lack of integrity.
Officer stats that client that " you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree.." In contrary you claim that documents are fraudulent that decision maker is not sure about . What is going on?
I asked High Commission in New Delhi for further investigation in this case as I believe decision is invalid due to judicial error:
- documents evidencing completion of bachelor degree provided in response to natural justice letter has not been verified and regarded by officer as possibly genuine
- decision on the visa was made on the basis of lack of evidences of bachelor degree " you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree" that we provided that constitutes judicial error due to volition of section 51 of MA.
I am shocked that decision related to PIC 4020 are taken so lightly without attention to details of the case and proper verification conducted . You say " given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent" - it is accusation of criminal conduct , can you present evidences supporting your claim . We provided documents provided by client in contrary - what evidence in contrary is in possession of your office?
Kind regards
Piotr Ferenc | Registered Migration Agent | MARN 0743766
Office Address: 406 Shute Harbour Rd , suite 18 | Airlie Beach | Mailing Address: PO BOX 768 | Cannonvale | QLD 4802 | Australia
P: +61(7) 4946 4680 | F: +61(7) 4948 2590 | M: +61 423 625 510
From: Joanne LUMB [mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
]
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 1:58 PM
To: Piotr Ferenc
Cc: Stephen RUSSELL
Subject: Query in relation to decision on subclass 457 visa application for Mr ...........vvvvvvvv [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
UNCLASSIFIED
Dear Mr Ferenc
I am writing to you in response to your query, received on 19 December 2013, in regards to the refusal of the Subclass 457 visa application for Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
In your query, and subsequent communication with Departmental officers, you raised concerns that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error in the decision to refuse this application.
I have reviewed the decision and am satisfied that the delegate did not make a jurisdictional error. I am satisfied that all relevant information before the Department of Immigration and Border Protection was considered by the delegate. It was open to the delegate to find that the client did not satisfy paragraph 457.223(4)(de) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) on the basis that the client did not have a qualification at all, given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent.
The non-genuine nature of the client’s purported degree meant that the client did not have the necessary qualification to effectively work in the nominated occupation in Australia. The delegate was not required to refuse the client’s application on the basis of a failure to satisfy subclause 457.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, with particular regard to public interest criterion 4020.
In addressing your concerns, it has been noted that the timeframe for review with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) provided to your client was incorrect. The notification letter indicated that the client’s sponsoring employer had a 70 day period in which to lodge an application for review with the MRT. The correct timeframe for review is 21 days. Your client will be formally re-notified of the refusal decision, with an amended notification letter providing the correct timeframe within which an application for review by the MRT may be made by your client’s sponsor.
Kind regards
Joanne Lumb
Assistant Director, Temporary Work (Skilled)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection
Telephone: (07) 3136 7741
Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Website: www.immi.gov.au
(In office Monday-Wednesday; Thursday until 2pm)
UNCLASSIFIED
Comments
-
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Apologise for spelling mistakes - happens when I am focusing on merit of the case in busy environment . Even though I have little time trying to share my experiences that I believe are interesting and beneficial for RMA community. By the way Ben - how many languages do you fluently speak? Are you having problem to understand the idea and message passed ? Good luck mate with focusing on spelling . Do you have any interesting stories to tell someone can benefit from in the practice?
-
Tuesday, 21 January 2014Thanks piortr Fernc for sharing . Just try to ignore the people who checks spellings !!!
Ben, there is no guarantee that IETLS 9.0 achiever does not make spelling mistakes at all !!! Also if you check the IETLS requirements for repeat registration (which was imposed on MA for IETLS revenue growth ) , the requirement was 7.0 each with minimum 6.5 band in each component .
If you check the definition of 7.0 bands in IELTS on the website , it says '
Band 7: Good user: has operational command of the language, though with occasional inaccuracies, inappropriacies and misunderstandings in some situations. Generally handles complex language well and understands detailed reasoning''
Meaning , the Migration agent's spelling mistakes are acceptable by office of the MARA !!!
Regards
Shoaib -
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
@Ben Scheelings
The lack of using a spell checker then equates the need for an IELTS test???
You sounded like a native English speaker but do you not make any spelling mistakes? Or the mere use of a spell checker then entitle you to be “exempt”? -
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
No, I am not a native speaker. I am originally from Europe and communicate in four European and two Asian languages. The reason why I 'sound' (?) like a native speaker is because I take time and effort to write English correctly.
Ben Scheelings -
Tuesday, 21 January 2014'take the time and effort to write correctly in English / the English language' (???) None of us are perfect. I just sent an email out to everyone in Queensland advertising a CPD event in 'Surders Paradise' by accident.
-
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
BEn sCHeElinGs,
You shoulkd be shame of yourself.
I think you can understood me even me english are not 101%.
If you have nothing to contribute to Piotr's problem, just back off!
Philip Ng J. P. -
Tuesday, 21 January 2014
Very well. Were you in an exempt category or not?
So after you take the time and effort to write in English correctly you have never made any mistakes, have you?
Furthermore, in this case, the mistakes only related to the spelling, not to the proficiency in the English language, which, as you noted, could be corrected by as simple as running a spell checker. Do you not understand the message that is being conveyed, or do you not have any comments to make other than picking on the spelling mistakes?
If mistakes in spelling warranted an IELTS test, what percentage of the native British population would be subject to one? Do you have any idea??? -
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Seems to me that this whole thread was about bagging a bloke who tried to contribute information and experiences to the community.
Whatever happened to camaraderie - this is Australia fellas!
FYI - I have no other language skills but have an 8.5 Academic overall and that does not make me a better person.
I agree that correct English is important not only for clarity but to continue to project a professional image but, is no person guilty of paying little attention to spelling or grammar. Remember guys, we are on teh same side! (and that was my inadvertent typo!!!) -
Wednesday, 22 January 2014
Thanks MichaelB
-
Tuesday, 04 March 2014
so it will be a MRT review Piotr?
-
Tuesday, 04 March 2014
Sure - we lodged for review . Unfortunately files obtained from DIBP does not include anything related to "verification" of qualifications.
Immigration blog
A good example as to why Migration Agents require an IELTS test. There is such a thing as spell check