Ilaria De Fusco is frustrated because her attempt to become an Australian is going nowhere despite having lodged a valid application for permanent residency over five years ago.

Is there anything wrong with her application? Yes. She spent thousands of dollars on DIBP and professional RMA costs to ensure the best possible application was lodged in 2009 after having lived, studied and worked in Australia since 2001 but her application has been put on hold indefinitely draining her mentally and emotionally. That is what is wrong. She recently discussed her plight in a story on the website www.insidestory.org.au.

“I’ve been here almost half my life,” she said, “It’s very sad. This is such a great country...This is not just about my application,” she says. “It’s about the whole concept of it. The ethics behind it are just not right.”

Ms De Fusco is not alone in this issue. According to immigration department statistics, more than 20,000 people in group 5 have waited more than four years for an answer on their applications for permanent residency. The reason for the wait is DIBPs priority processing policy which came into effect in about 2009.

DIBPs priority processing arrangements generally categorise skilled migration applications into 5 groups giving regional employer sponsored visas the highest processing priority. While the top groups can have the visas processed within months, those in group 5 can wait well over 5 years without any indication of a time-frame as to when their applications may be processed.

Upon receipt of a valid application, DIBP surely must have an obligation to process an application within a reasonable time-frame or inform the applicants of the likely time-frame. In the alternative, DIBP should at least allow applicants who wish to withdraw their applications to do so with a full refund. Perhaps this may help speed things up for those who choose to wait.

Christopher Levingston commented on a blog on this issue last year saying, “My personal view is that the Group 4 and 5 applicants may well have a cause of action in the High Court to seek a writ of mandamus. This delay is unconscionable and wedensbury unreasonable.”

RMA David Stephens pointed out that section 65 of the Migration Act creates a definite right of the applicant that their application be decided by the Minister, see Quarm v MIMA (2008). Further, Part 2, Div 3, Sub-div AB of the Act provides for a Code of procedure for dealing fairly, efficiently and quickly with visa applications.

“At what point does the policy in priority 5 processing make section 65 inoperable? At what point does this policy control the Migration Act. I would say 5 years delay makes section 65 inoperable, and therefore the policy is an impermissible use of executive power. The Parliament would never intend the Migration Act to work is such a dysfunctional way.”

Given that DIBPs responses have been far from satisfactory some applicants have recently taken their fight to change.org with a petition to the minister to start processing their applications. MA supports the petition. But the petition needs as many supporters as it can get to whip the beast into some kind of movement.

If you wish to crack your whip and support the petition please follow this link: http://tinyurl.com/n8wrtmd

Ms De Fusco herself has set up a Facebook site for the forgotten visa applicants of group 5, which quickly gained more than 185 members. Their posts reveal intense feelings of confusion, anguish and anger.

Note: Photograph of Ilaria De Fusco by Aran Anderson Photography.