Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Is it right that 30% of independent applications fail, because they do not get an RMA’s assistance?
Is it right that 30% of independent applications fail, because they do not get an RMA’s assistance?
Is DIBP encouraging independant applications without properly warning applicants of the risks? The answers in DIBPs FAQ website seems to suggest this. Arguably, the answers may even be misleading and deceptive to applicants and possibly in breach of some basic tenets of Australian Consumer Law. Perhaps readers of this blog can let us know their views?
DIBP may be leading applicants to attempt applications on their own without properly letting them know of the risks involved. Many of DIBP commentaries seem to encourage independant applications. For instance, DIBPs FAQs website’s answer to the question, “Do I need to use a registered migration agent?” states:“You do not need to use a migration agent to lodge a visa application...
You can apply for a visa without using a registered migration agent.
- Application forms for a visa are available at no cost.
- ...visa applications can be lodged online.
The Visa Finder can help you find the Australian visa most likely to meet your needs and circumstances.”
Nowhere in DIBPs FAQ answer is there the suggestion that Australian immigration law is complex. Visa application charges are high. DIBP fees are not refundable, generally. If a visa is refused in Australia, the applicant may be barred from making further applications, with only limited exceptions. Nowhere is there the suggestion that registered practitioners are required to undertake regular training in migration law to maintain their license to practice and are obliged not to make vexatious applications. Instead, DIBP spends its words twice in that answer, suggesting RMAs are not needed. Surely this answer must be detrimental to unwary applicants. Would it not be reasonable to let consumers know the risks involved?
Other FAQs trend along the lines of how to lodge complaints and how to get refunds from RMAs – clearly emphasising caution when dealing with registered practitioners and thus effectively encouraging applicants to have a go on their own. It is like the courts telling people not to use lawyers and they can have a go on their own by reviewing the courts websites. Courts just don’t do that. Most authorities often in fact advise consumers to get professional help.
It would be interesting to compare the general success rates of registered migration practitioners to those of direct applicants. Unverified sources indicate 30% of all applicants who lodge their application online and directly with the immigration authorities get it wrong and fail. Can anyone help verify this? It would be hard to expect DIBP to publish this.
All of this does again point to the need for an independent commissioner who could potentially consider such issues, review such material from DIBP and help ensure consumer’s rights are properly protected.
http://www.immi.gov.au/FAQs/Pages/why-would-i-use-a-registered-migration-agent.aspx
Immigration blog
I do a lot of work with Vietnam and Visitor visas after the applicants have failed at least once themselves. It is very difficult to understand the logic of some of the decisions. There is no doubt that those who do it themselves are at a very big disadvantage. I sometimes doubt that some of the case officers actually know the regs and law. I also do quite a few appeals of Vietnamese Partner visas and again the original decisions can be quite strange. Mind you I also discourage some from applying. I did so this week in Saigon, getting a visitor visa for a couple while they get more evidence for the partner visa. They were surprised that I suggested they wait, they thought I would just take their money anyway. This is the way the local travel agents who are allowed to do visas under our rules work. It is time we had the NZ model, no registration, no application help.