Login / Join
Immigration Daily News In 2010 the DIAC QLD said there was no practice to check an RMA's identity on recordAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 3535
- 3 Comments
In 2010 the DIAC QLD said there was no practice to check an RMA's identity on record
Story content by Gabrielle S. Pavia,
Registered Migration Agent
"As a former Qld Migration Alliance (MA) Committee Member, I attended a liaison meeting with the DIAC on 24 May 2010 . During this meeting, the Qld MA Committee raised the issue of RMA identity theft and asked if the Department had measures in place that would allow them to correctly identify whether an application was actually lodged by a particular RMA, or someone pretending to be the RMA.
The response received by the DIAC committee confirmed that there was no practice in place to check the RMA’s identity and therefore we suggested that the Department implement a system whereby Case Officers would be required to check the RMA’s MARN against the RMA’s email address (as listed on the OMARA registrar) before progressing an application.
It was further suggested that where an anomaly exists between the email address cited in the application, and that which appears on the OMARA registrar, this should be questioned by way of contacting the email address listed for the RMA on the OMARA registrar.
Despite earnest assurances made by the DIAC committee at the time, it appears that no action has been taken by the Department in order to address this issue since the meeting was held over 4 years ago. Given that the Department seems to have little interest, or no way of determining who is actually lodging an Application, it follows that statistical data, information and opinion offered by the Department regarding an individual RMA (or RMAs as a collective) cannot possibly be substantiated (and therefore relied on) particularly as it relates to:
§ Statistical data citing how many persons use an RMA (vs non-RMA) for a particular visa subclass (and outcomes);
§ Statements predicting the benefit and outcome of seeking immigration advice / representation from an RMA (as reported on DIBP / OMARA websites);
§ Specific information relied on by the Department when deciding applications lodged by a particular RMA (i.e. Blacklisted Agent Vs. Non-Blacklisted Agent).
While this information would no doubt be of interest to the Migration Profession as a whole, I think that it may be of more interest to RMAs to know who they are on record as having represented since they were first registered as an RMA. I imagine that the easiest way to do this would be to request (under the FOI) a copy of the Grant Notice, Decision Record or Confirmation of Withdrawal attached to any application (including sponsorship and nomination applications) registered to the RMA through either the use of the RMA’s name or MARN.
While I appreciate that such requests would cause a significant drain on the Department’s resources, it may be the only way of motivating the Department to implement a system that can properly distinguish between RMAs, and imposters pretending to be RMA’s."
A copy of the minutes is available for any RMAs who would like a copy. Blacklists of agents have been in operation since at least 2007. If you want to know if you are on any one of the apparent blacklists please FOI your details.
Comments
-
Friday, 22 August 2014That is why we need an independent commission that not only deals fairly with industry issues and stakeholders but keeps everyone honest (or as honest as everyone can be kept in the era of secret operational info...)
All of this stuff, raised by the various blogs and its contributors has to be systematically documented so that such reports and actions by any one in the 'service of the public' can be probbed and held accountable. This secrecy has to stop.
Itis not doing any favours to the good folk within the industry including within DIBP who are now caught up in this crap situation, deflecting energy away from where it should be, that is, assisting people with immigration issues, including the preparation and processing of applications instead of developing ulcers from it.
It would have been SOOO much simpler for DIBP to accept that they have a list which, in the context of operational matters, may be valid to have (having a list is not a problem in itself but acting arbitrarily, selectively and unlawfully is) as a reference for case officers to follow their own established procedures within PAM3 and afford the opportunity for RMAs to respond through wahtever system in place, in accordance with the rights everyone is afforded by law.
There's been a choice made within the Department, whether individually or collective, that this is the way they would exercise their authority and control such matters and that it needs to be held accountable for that choice and the consequences of it.
DIBP is now in a corner and like a rabid cat, trying to crawl its way out, maiming good folk in the process, including from within their own ranks.
Sad state of affairs and lots of FOIs hitting the departmet in the next few weeks, rightly so. -
Friday, 22 August 2014
In dealings with student section I had a request/reply queried because I had used an email other than my listed email; it appears that someone was checking because I could not get anywhere until I re emailed using my listed email. However; since then I have on occasions used an email other than my listed email with no problems.
Immigration blog
There is a specific document called the BIR ( Business intelligence report) which logs the RMA and the individual client into a schedule.
You can get access to that document under FOI.
I became aware of that log when I had some proceedings at the AAT and one was produced by the OMARA as evidence of an RMAs workload.
It was interesting to note that some 3 months earlier in other proceedings the existence of such a report was specifically denied by a solicitor acting for DIBP in similar proceedings.