Login / Join
Australian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 6125
- 13 Comments
DIBP slanders RMA to the RMA's client
Migration Alliance has received the following email. If you are slandered by DIBP to your client then please contact This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Dear MA,
Unfortunately the persisting issue of DIBP officers slandering RMAs continues to be an issue. As is the issue of the department’s front line staff providing completely false information.
I have copied below a complaint I lodged today for your consideration and hopefully some high level representation with DIBP. This ongoing issue is becoming very tiresome. Some genuine leadership within the department is clearly required to affect cultural change.
Dear GFU,
I would like to make a formal complaint against a DIBP staff member for providing incorrect information to our client and advising them without reason to report us to the MARA.
Details:
I am the Senior Migration Agent at [RMA COMPANY A]. We have been in operation for over 10 years. I am also a former DIBP Manager. We are registered migration agents and members of our professional industry the MIA and MA.
We have a client who purchased a RRV service from us to help her manage her RRV application. We were unable to lodge online so started a process of discovering why on behalf of our client. We were well assisted by [NAME REMOVED] during this process on May 15th (we have e-mail communication on record if required).
Eventually we were able to determine that the client was having difficulty because her immigration status was listed as her being physically outside Australia when in fact she was in Australia. On advice of [NAME REMOVED] we advised the client to attend a DIBP office in person with her passport to have her status rectified. From there the plan was to lodge online and continue the process for her.
Today I received this e-mail from our client:
Dear [RMA COMPANY A],
I presented in person on the 4th June 2014. I have sorted my paperwork out and now have my return visa. I was told by the Department of Immigration that me attending in person to their Department was the only avenue to obtain my visa and that [RMA COMPANY A] would not be able to obtain it for me. With this in mind I am wondering why you requested the large sum of money when your Company was fully away you could not provide the service.
I was advised by The Department of Immigration to take this matter further and lodge a complaint again your Company with MARA and will be doing this.
Thank you for nothing.
Regards Name Omitted
As you can see, the officer involved has damaged our reputation with this client for absolutely no reason. If our client now lodges a MARA complaint as advised, I have no doubt it will be thrown out as it should be, but this will take further time and expense on our part responding.
Unfortunately the deplorable and disrespectful attitude from many DIBP staff toward migration agents continues to be an issue, despite the best efforts of our Professional Associations.
To help you rectify this issue I provide these details:
Client name: OMITTED
DOB: OMITTED
The client attended either the Melbourne CBD or Dandenong Office on June 4th. I expect that the ICSE record from the Visa approval will identify which office and which officer.
I would like the following outcomes please:
I would like a Manager from DIBP to contact our client personally to explain why this incorrect advice was provided and to clarify that [RMA COMPANY A] was able to lawfully represent her with an RRV application. Further, it would be appreciated if you could check [NAME REMOVED] e-mail (or we could provide you a copy from our records). I would like the Department to explain to the client that she was in fact being professionally and accurately represented by us.
I would like to be contacted by a DIBP representative (in writing) to explain why our company was slandered in this way and what additional training the officer involved is receiving so that he/she actually understands what a registered migration agent is able to do.
I also note that I will be providing the details of this issue to both of our professional industry bodies to follow up further. This ongoing completely disrespectful treatment of Registered, professional Migration Agents is a disgrace.
Comments
-
Thursday, 26 June 2014Shocking !
-
Thursday, 26 June 2014I was wondering why the client was not sent to the department on the first contact.
-
Thursday, 26 June 2014
I really cannot tell you when these applications will be processed. DIBP give no real hints.
-
Friday, 27 June 2014
it is so normal in Sydney, office located in Level 4, you know it. Officers in level 4 always talks to clients that "do not trust agent's advice, they are wrong... " bla bla...
-
Friday, 27 June 2014
Why didn't the agent attend the office with the client? If he was charging the huge sums as the client claimed I would have thought this was part of the service-and to ensure that you don't get slandered in front of the client-never send the client on their own to Immigration except of course if they want a visa label. It's insurance-perhaps not good business practice on the part of the agent. I think it is heinous that the department slanders and their should be relief sought under defamation laws so perhaps we investigate a class action if it is possible.
-
Friday, 27 June 2014This complaint made by a Colleague is but part of a larger problem.
If you can read the following you can see what is happening everyday in every compliance office around Australia.
By the way
From: Christopher Levingston
Sent: Thursday, 26 June 2014 1:58 PM
To: Boss number 1 ( Compliance)
Cc: Supervisor ( Compliance)
Subject: RE: Ms ABCD - DIBP ID 1234567 CHL Ref: 130045 [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]
Dear Jasmine,
Thank you for the clarification.
Is there any reason why these enquiries are not conducted through the applicants legal representatives?
As to the role of the CSRO to advise the client as to their current and future immigration options , isn’t that a traversal of section 280 in that CSRO are not permitted to give “immigration assistance”?
Isn’t there an attendant risk in the giving of that “advice’ that the CSRO will be incorrect and absent professional indemnity insurance that the DIBP will be liable for that “advice”.
Incidentally, the version of events that are being communicated to you by the CSRO are not correct.
This is what I was told by ABCDEF who is a very reliable and competent Officer and for whom I have the highest respect:
“Ms ABCD has recently advised the department that if she has to depart Australia, she would like her daughters to stay with her sister-in-law who is an Australian citizen.”
This is what the client says happened:
Dear Christopher Levingston
My mother, ABCD did not say that first.
That comment was an agreement to what the compliance manager XYZ said.
XYZ said something like "you may or may not receive PR visa. In the case that you (ABCD) do not receive a PR visa while your second daughter KLMN receives a PR visa do you have any plans for your daughters? Is there any relative living in Australia?"
So my mother said yes we have an aunt living in Sydney.
So XYZ said something along the lines of "get in touch with the relatives just in case."
So my mother said she will in worst case scenario.
My mother never asked any of her daughters to live with their aunt, it was just a "response" to XYZ
I am quite surprised that the compliance manager and the DIAC "misinterpreted" it that way.
And..
“
As mentioned earlier in the email
my aunt refused to look after us because of two main reasons.
She already has a family to look after and will be difficult and burdensome to have two other nieces in her house. Second, she also has an unstable visa status, 457 bridging visa.
In the interview, XYZ asked if my mother was close with aunt, but that does not mean that Julia and I are close with her. The last time I met my aunt was back in 2010. “
I think this little difference in what you were being told by the CSRO and what actually happened points to the risks of CSROs in effect excluding the Applicants legal advisers and seeking to influence an outcome.
As it turns out there are no alternate arrangements in place which would allow the Minister to in effect avoid the CROC and ICCPR obligations.
I have previously complained about the conduct of compliance officers in this and other matters and I am sick of being ignored and my clients being bullied and harassed by CSRO who then (apparently) misconstrue what they are being told and then communicate that “information” to other Officers.
Further, the sooner that CSRO stop giving “immigration assistance” ( they are not exempt persons) the better.
It is unlawful and unhelpful.
Christopher Levingston
Principal Solicitor
BA. LLB. Accredited Specialist (Immigration Law)
MARN 9301108
e. clevingston@levingston.com.au
p. +61 2 9290 2633
f. +61 2 9290 2191
w. levingston.com.au Level 1, 73 York Street
Sydney NSW 2000
Australia GPO Box 2502
Sydney NSW 2001
Australia
Now the questions I have for the profession are as follows:
1..How long are we going to sit on our hands and allow our clients to bullied, harassed and intimidated?
2..How long will we sit on our hands and allow DIBP case officers give "immigration assistance" to our clients?
3..How long are we going to sit on our hands and allow lies to be told by CSROs to their bosses about what our clients intentions are?
4.. Why won't DIBP respect our appointment as the clients representative and direct all enquiries through the representative?
Finally, why when I complain time after time doesn't anything change?
Are you sick of it? I know I am. -
Friday, 27 June 2014
These issues are exactly why OMARA should not be operated by DIBP. Any fair and reasonable authority would determine that DIBP officers, as unregistered/non-exempt persons, are in providing advice, in breach of migration legislation and should be held accountable as would any other unregistered/unlicensed agent. It should be noted that DIBP staffers are decidedly selective in providing advice- they will do so when they believe it reflects poorly on a RMA but refuse the most basic help when the client has no representation.
As with OMARA's attempt to impose an English language requirement to RMAs that would not have applied to DIBP staffers, many of whom are most obviously lacking in those skills, maybe all DIBP staffers should have to qualify as migration agents before being considered fit to undertake a position. The fact that a small minority of those could actually satisfy the requirements is no excuse. Why should we be subject to conditions that they cannot meet? Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander unless of course, the gander is also the authority. -
Monday, 30 June 2014
Hi Maryann,
I am the agent involved. In response to your post above about why I did not attend with the client, the answer is simple - it would have added unnecessary extra fees for the client (Code of Conduct 2.3A).
The 'large sum of money' referred to in the client's letter was $699, which included GST and the $335 government fee. Adding an extra 1-2 hours of work to travel to and wait at the Department with the client would have been a complete waste of the client's money and as this was a very simple administrative process, completely unnecessary.
The client was provided precise instructions about what to do, where to go and what to take with her. My being there would have been a superfluous expense for her. -
Monday, 30 June 2014
Given that she was looking for a RRV and at no risk of being transported out of Australia, why was she not sent to the department as her very first stop? That way, the fee for the agent might have been small or nil, but the outcome might have been a lot happier for the agent.
-
Tuesday, 01 July 2014
Hi Michael,
The reason that she was not sent to the DIBP as a very first step is that it took several steps of investigation into her situation to determine exactly what the issues were in her case and indeed whether she was the holder of a permanent visa at all. This process took around a week of investigative work before we reached the final hurdle, which was the incorrect Departmental recording of the client being offshore when in fact she was onshore. It was at this time that the appropriate measure was to send the client to the Department to have her onshore/offshore status resolved before we could lodge her application online for her.
All of this is why the client paid us a fee in the first place. It would be a very odd thing (in my view) for an agent who has been contracted to resolve a situation for a client to immediately instruct them to go to the Department to resolve their own issue without actually understanding the situation or having the information to advise them properly. -
Tuesday, 01 July 2014
Dear Michael,
Why send her to DIBP, they cannot provide advice or "immigration assistance".
The idea that the client attend DIBP is a good one in principle if the client wants information but assuming that the client is not eligible for an RRV ( this is safe to assume otherwise she wouldn't engage) this is not about information but actually about knowledge applied to find a solution to the clients problem.
The notion that clients are in effect being induced to retain an RMA because of some holding out or blandishment by the RMA is, with respect, not correct.
The problem here is not the engagement of the RMA but the attempt by DIBP to undermine the RMA by falsely stating that , for example, the advice is wrong or that other options may be a better choice.
DIBP simply does not have the expertise to advise on the strategic and tactical issues absent a full understanding of what the clients problem is, as well as what the client actually "wants'.
It may be that the client wants to continue to live overseas and remain PR in circumstances where that is no longer possible? That client may need to adopt a strategy which achieves that objective by oblique rather than direct means. This is all about knowledge and a bespoke solution to the clients problem. There is no template solution which meets the requirements of every case. -
Tuesday, 01 July 2014
By the way, I understand the response of the agent and agree with the analysis posed. Unhappily, clients rarely understand that research into the problem should cost money. You have my sympathy.
Immigration blog
It's quite simple. Every time the DIBP choose to undermine and slander agents and I find out about it, it will be exposed. Three ways of dealing with them:
1. Report it to the GFU
2. Report it to MA (we will actually do something)
3. Expose it online and through the media (digital disruption - DIBP can't control the message)
Slowly but surely change will happen but only if we all agree to stand up for ourselves.