Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Cap and Cease Priority Group 5: The email from MIA's Angela ChanAustralian 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: 8485
- 45 Comments
Cap and Cease Priority Group 5: The email from MIA's Angela Chan
The Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) announcement from Angela Chan came out out at 4pm yesterday in an email blast to MIA members (a large majority of whom are MA members). The email has a “read online” link where they post the notice online – see:
MIA members who are joint members of Migration Alliance (MIA-MA members) have complained in writing to Migration Alliance about the email from Angela Chan. The main complaint RMAs provide is the 'lack of consultation before the meeting'.
Poll: Were you as a MIA-MA member consulted re Priority Group 5? Simply click to vote yes or no.
The sentiments in the complaints are best summed up in this one from a joint MIA-MA member:
"...that there's no copy of her submission that I can see other than what the news item says she said to the Assistant Minister Cash. Then again, when is the last time you saw the MIA come down hard and decisively on anything? I’ve never seen it happen. Those guys seem more worried about making sure Angela keeps getting invited to all the “right” events and not pissing off the Minister, etc".
And more:
"It is very interesting to see the MIA’s admission yesterday that they were consulted by the Asst Minister for Immigration, Hon. Senator Michaelia Cash, and informed of the plans for the cap and cease of offshore P5’s a full 10 days before the legislative instrument was signed."
And more:
"Seems to me that the MIA blew a big opportunity to inform the community to properly survey agents about this (not to mention applicants) and present that collective view to the Asst Minister, rather than Angela Chan presenting her own personal view only, or that of a few at the top of the MIA. We also notice Angela Chan warning people about the actions you [Christopher Levingston] and others are planning:
The MIA understand that there are a number of lawyers who are providing their services to challenge this legislation and we would simply advise people to make sure they feel confident that there is a real chance of success of winning before parting with their money and perhaps weigh up if there are any other options they may wish to explore."
It is pretty obvious that Christopher Levingston is the main solicitor driving the appeals in the High Court for Cap and Cease Priority 5 applicants. It just so happens that Christopher Levingston is on the Migration Alliance board. The warning is quite negative. We really have to wonder why Angela Chan would not be more encouraging towards members who would like to appeal for their clients. We really have to wonder why Angela Chan would not be more encouraging towards visa applicants, and supportive of their choice to take a stand and fight for what's right.
Christopher Levingston, Lawyer for the High Court actions said today:
"I have engaged Senior Counsel to advise on the legal strategy and which court, to make sure that nobody is taken for a ride on a case that has no prospects of success. If the MIA wants to "understand" the nature of the proceedings then members of the MIA, including Angela Chan, are welcome to contact me at any time to get some advice on the foreshadowed proceedings. This failure of the MIA to act decisively when told by the Assistant Minister what she planned to do, followed by the negativity underpinning the foreshadowed legal action is typical of the MIA".
Comments
-
Tuesday, 20 October 2015Chris, You have hit the nail on the head. Politicians fear loosing votes. After I wasd quoted in the SMH on the C&C visa issue, I had quite number of distraught people called me asking where can they find relief, before you sprung into action,. My advise to them get their relatives to march into their local MPs office and tell straight to their face rescind the decision or loose votes in our neighbourhood.
Not only relatives vote, they pay taxes too. -
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
I repeat, elitism and self serving interest is the nature and rule of the day for MIA. By the way has anyone kept a track of what happens all the prospects MIA receives? Is it distributed to a select few? Why practice training confined to cronies and not based on tender or some competitive basis. ? Cronyism and the culture of " scratching each others back within the inner circle" are the very nature of this patronising secret society.
-
Tuesday, 20 October 2015
Tony, a list of 1000 services may look impressive, but if it is of third rate in quality who the hell benefits. Imagine getting officers of DIBP to provide CPD to agents They will teach you to to be subservient and non-adversarial at the outset. I would rather pay extra to listen to a lawyer/barrister like Christopher to learn how to deal with a toxic department than be lectured by a patronising public servant.
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
I am writing here to bring your attention to the injustice that has been done with me and thousands of other applicants that belongs to subclass 175, 176 & 475 along with their sponsors also. Moreover I want to address the plight of those applicants subjected to cap and cease and their sponsors by Assistant Minister Cash on 22nd September, 2015.
This is totally unfair to implement cap and cease to the applicants specially keeping them in wait for more than 7 years. We have been waiting since 2007 believing the commitment of department of immigration that our application will be processed.
I have applied in visa subclass 176 (Relative sponsor) on 21st October 2008 after fulfilling all the criteria prescribed by the department of immigration during that time. The application was lodged lawfully. The application was also accepted by the department with VAC (visa application charge) and was told in the department’s website that it will be processed within 12-18 months. After that my application (including others in priority 5) has been pushed back to priority 4 with thousands of other applications in 2009. We were told that time that our application is less likely to be finalized before the end of 2012. We kept faith on department’s instruction and remain waiting patiently.
In 2012, new immigration minister again change the law and implement priority processing and again pushed us back to priority 5 from priority 4. Again the department told us that the implementation of new priority processing will not impact our application negatively. For the last 7 years we have been told that our application will be processed after processing application in the higher priority group.
I including all other applicants of priority 5 were dreaming that we will get our visa approved and reach Australia one day. But, everything has ruined now after implementation of cap and cease for visa subclass 175, 176 & 475. This is really disappointing as we are falling down of getting such treatment from a country which believes on fair go.
One thing needs to remember here is that we have better chance to settle in Australia than any other types of migrant as we have our family members there to support us till we get job and become settle their. Department need to consider it.
Laws are made and used to protect the right of people and provide justice to the people. But, in our case the law cap and cease used to make injustice not with us but also with our sponsor who are Australian citizen..
I am writing some important issues that need to be considered to give us justice regarding our applications -
Points to be noted:
Invalid justification regarding implementation of cap and cease:
For the last 7 years they pushed us at the bottom of the queue with the explanation that “Our job is currently not in the skilled occupation list. Therefore, we are less likely to get a job in Australia if we permanently migrate to Australia” But, at present there may be approximately 6000 primary applicant representing 16,000 people including their family member left (15,500 primary applicant was there with a total people representing 31,000 due to having wife and children when priority processing declared in 2012) in this group (Visa subclass 175, 176, & 475).
If we guess, these 6000 people applied in 60 different skilled occupation then only 100 people represent from each occupation on an average. Is this believable that these 100 people will not get job in their respective filed if they migrate permanently to Australia. We still found job vacancy in various job sites in Australia in those fields where the people of this visa subclass 175, 176 & 475 belongs. Moreover, these people can also get job in their closely related field they applied. They have processed approximately 25,000 applications (As there was approximately 31,000 applications which was classified as priority 5 application in visa subclass 175, 885, 176, 886, 475 & 496 representing 61,000 people in total when priority processing declared in 1st July 2012) in the last three years. What happened with them? This is absurd to believe that they are now jobless. Definitely they have arranged job in their respective filed or closely related field. Then what is our fault? Our only fault is we are offshore applicant. Otherwise, all the onshore applicant both relative and state sponsored have been processed. Funnier thing is that the department is still processing application of visa subclass 886 which belongs to priority 5 group. So, the justification of cap and cease our application (Visa subclass 175, 176, & 475) is totally in valid.
I have applied as a Sales Representative of Pharmaceutical Product. Is it believable that there is no job in this category in Australia? People are not getting job in Australia in this field. The job may not be in the SOL but jobs are there. If remaining priority 5 applications that has been caped and ceased are sorted than maximum 100-150 applicant will be found who has been applied as Sales Representative of Pharmaceutical Products. Do you believe this 100-150 people will not get job in Australia in their respected field. This is really Unbelievable. This is also applicable for other applicants with their selected job remaining in the priority 5 applications.
How a lawfully lodged application can receive such outcome:
It is acceptable that lodging a valid application doesn't give assurance of getting visa approved. But, it is very usual that a lawfully lodged application with the DIBP (Department of Immigration and Border Protection) should be processed. The outcome of processed application may be positive or negative and this is acceptable. Immigration department must process lawfully lodged application if they believe on fair go. Applicants are human being not business object.
Discrimination between onshore and offshore applicant:
We the offshore applicant received huge discrimination. It was published in the department’s website that onshore and offshore application from same priority group will be processed simultaneously. But, the department violet this rule when they start processing Priority 5 application. They started to process onshore application (visa subclass 885 & 886). Moreover, the department also made discrimination between state and relative sponsored application within priority 5 application. They started to process state sponsored first (Visa subclass 175 & 885) keeping relative sponsored group (Visa subclass 176 & 886) in wait. Finally, after processing almost 75% application from priority 5 group in the last 3 years they implemented cap and cease on rest 25% application. This type of discrimination is totally unacceptable from a country like Australia which country is well known for justice.
We the applicants of priority 5 application have been treated as business object rather human being:
Department has treated us as a business object rather human being. They received our application fees, kept our money and used the interest that has been acquired in these 7 years from that money. Moreover, through cancelling our application they will be able to give the places to new applicants. As the application fees is 2 to 3 times higher than previous (our application fees) department will be able to collect more money now. What a great business violating the right of a lawfully lodged application.
Can the department return our lost 7 years:
The department of immigration kept us and our Sponsors (our family who are Australian citizen) waiting for 7 years. This was the only chance for us to reunite with our family member. Both we and our family member who is now Australian citizen planned to pass rest of the life altogether. Now, our dream has become a great joke.
They are now trying to hide their inefficiency behind cap and cease:
The entire backlog that has been developed since 2009 was just the result of inefficiency of some people working in the department of immigration. If our job was not in the SOL then why they had accepts our applications in 2007-2008? Why they have kept us waiting for 7-8 years? Why they told in these 7-8 years that our application will be processed? Why all the changes that took place in the last 7-8 years affected our application? As we know if a new change take place in immigration process that does not affect the application that is lodged before the date of implementation of new law. But, every change affected our application drastically. Is this legally accepted?
How can they do such an unlawful behavior with lawfully lodged application:
We lodged our application in 2007-2008 fulfilling all the required criteria. The department accepted our VAC and application. Start processing and kept us in endless waiting for 7-8 years. After kept us in waiting for 7-8 years the department now realizes that it is not fair to keep us in waiting for more. How funny is this? Is this fair go?
How can they justify this as fair go?
Is this fair in any sense to give such decision against application that has been lawfully lodged 7-8 years back. If we knew this within 1-2 years of lodging our application, we could have planned to migrate to some other developed countries like Canada, UK and Newzeland etc. But, the department did not do that. They kept us in waiting and dragged our application for last 8 years and gave hope that we will be processed. And, like a fool we kept faith on the department’s commitment and remained in the waiting queue. By this time we get older. Now they told us about the decision of cap and cease and suggest applying in other visa subclass. In this age this is not possible to meet all the criteria to apply not only in Australia but also in Canada, Uk or Newzeland. So, literally the department made us ineligible to apply to migrate in any other country.
Are we less qualified than the asylum seekers?
We have adequate respect and sympathy for asylum seekers. But, what is our fault? Are we less acceptable than people who are coming illegally through boat or asylum seekers? But, does anyone have sympathy for us. We have lost valuable 7 years time, opportunity to migrate to other countries and the chance to reunite with our family members who are Australian citizen just due to inefficiency of some people of immigration department. Australia is accepting asylum seekers for casualty of whom Australia is not responsible. But, who will take our responsibility? We have been severely affected due to injustice that that has been done with us in the name of cap and cease. We kept faith on their words that our application will be processed and waited patiently for the last 7 years. And, we have been rewarded in this way. This seems department is now encouraging us to reach Australia through boat or and other illegal way as they are unable to process our valid application.
The department has done injustice not only with us but also with our sponsors who are now the citizen of Australia.
My brother who is my sponsor is waiting for last 7 years to meet with me in Australia and he had lots of plan and now all ruined. He is very frustrated with the result. My brother has moved to a bigger house so that I can share accommodation until I settles (get job) in Australia. Kids of my brother (2 daughters) are also waiting to see their uncle and they always ask my brother about me. My brother hasn’t told them about the injustice with me because they can't accept this and will develop negative impression about the government.· Sooh Yee - Goon likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
This seems department is now encouraging us to reach Australia through boat or and other illegal way as they are unable to process our valid application.
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
I dropped out of MIA years ago when I finally realised that MIA's honchos were not going to do anything about MIA's incestuous relationship with MARA.
Nowdays MARA's lapdog position within the DIBP is only marginally better; at least one might reasonably be able to seek a recourse within a legal domain if it came to that, but don't hold your breath just yet.
BTW has anyone noticed that s315, etc, of the Act have not been amended to reflect the new status quo? Strange, that.
As to the Cap and Cease debacle, I seem to remember from law school days that the Doctrine of Legitimate Expectations was given some prominence in the days (C L might want to look into that in some detail), in that:
- the applicants filed valid applications
- the application were acknowledged by DIMA/DIMIA/DIAC/DIBP and receipts provided for the VAC's
- no further indication from the said that the applications may be ultimately be viewed as ones that "have never been made".
And, as to the applicants who would opt to have the VAC refunded, how about DIBP paying interest on the funds that have been held for years?
Yes, fairness and the Australian way.· Sooh Yee - Goon likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Robert your worst nightmare has come true. At their Perth conference the MIA is getting DIBP to deliver the CPD training. Seriously why would they?
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Tony if MIA is all that you need then what are you doing on the MA website?
Who will be dining with the Australian Treasurer on 4 Nov in Sydney? You make me laugh. The Convenor of Migration Alliancd is in the same political party as Senator Cash and is on women's council for NSW Liberals. You think that's a blip on a radar or some weird anomaly? Ahahahaaaa. Looking at the MIA discount CPD is a joke. It's more expensive than LTA and McKkr's agahahhhh
Stay a member of the MIA you belong there. Welcome here too. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Angela Chan will be with the treasurer in November, she will personally thank you for not being an MIA member as we only select the best.
MIA CPD is more informative and factual based than any other CPD out there... look at yourself -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
I bet I'm not the only agent who is a member of MIA simply to have my name on the register of registered migration agents. I get more benefits from my FREE subscription to MA.
As an agent, I feel MA far better represents me. MIA is not approachable, and I don't feel they have a backbone when it counts. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Look, the MIA has testimonials which PROVE that MIA is far superior... and I quote;
"MIA is a vital source of information about the industry, legislative changes and guidance for everyday practice for Migration Agents at varying stages of their careers."
Andrea Christie-David - Member since 2010
Tom McAlary Migration Agent testimonial for Migration Institute of Australia
"Migration agents should join the MIA to broaden their network, experience and expertise by participating in MIA events and forums."
Tom McAlary - ACMER subscriber since 2015
Jamie Lingham Migration agent testimonal for Migration Institute of Australia
"We operate in a heavily regulated industry which can change at any time. We need to work together as an industry to educate, influence and bring about positive change one issue at a time."
Jamie Lingham - Member since 2005
Its clear from these testimonials that MIA offers more influence in the Migration field... wake up everyone -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Tony it's not a competition. In our view the two organisations should work together in the best interest of the profession and of clients. An example of this is the fact that Migration Alliance is supporting MIA members during the MIA elections. We don't see the MIA as competitors. Thank you for supplying evidence that the MIA is a great organisation. Migration Alliance will publish and support the good and bad news so that RMAs are kept informed. Honesty and transparency.
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Hi K, like you I am a "member" of MIA simply because of the economics of and eligibility to automatic travel insurance cover. By nature of my health conditions and age the premium works out cheaper " vis MIA Annual Fees".
Incidentally, It was Christopher Livingston who brought the CPD cost to rock bottom in the first instance. MIA on the other hand was FLEECING the agents in a single monopoly.
Tony, I accept each to own, and I am not here to persuade you to sing the praises for MA, as I do not your full name or identity.
I am one of the few who have been barred and reinstated several times from the MIA Forum for expressing my views that were not in support of their suspicious management in account management, style of management for an professional organisation, conflict of interest, and pure Anglo ethno centric resolutions.
In a professions such as this, we need a organisation that will challenge the power that be that rules over the lives of people in millions. We don't want a poodle to be hugged and kissed by the Master, read DIBP.· Sooh Yee - Goon likes this comment. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Well it is a competition because the MIA does not work with MA on anything. MIA even has a merchandise store in which we as members purchase our ties and backpacks and wear with pride because we are represented by an organisation that is consultative with the Department and also the Ministers involved, we are a professional body of like-minded individuals who act in the best interests of everyone in Australia.
I am wearing my MIA tie as we speak, and have all my files in my MIA backpack.
thank you -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Tony if the MIA doesn't work with the MA on anything then what are it's members on our website for? Or do you mean Kevin Lane? That's a different story.
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
To see what the "competition" is doing.
The MIA watches this forum/blog carefully to gather intel on what the other side is doing. -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Dear Tony, so the MIA is scared of MA and believe MA is doing better things than them. So you on other way accepting MA as superior candidate.
-
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Do you even have an MIA tie?
your missing out, please check the "Benefit" tab on the MIA website to see how we are superior.
thanks -
Wednesday, 21 October 2015
Dear tony, it seems as MIA member your world starts from the so called benefit tab on MIA website and ends there. Here we want to say that - MIA has not been responsible enough in the cap and cease issue. They have done injustice with their member keeping them in dark about the cap and cease. Off shore applicants are not file number nor business object. They are also human being. What DIBP has done with them is injustice. Upon which logic DIBP has cancelled thousand of offshore applicants after keep the in wait for 8 years. A validly lodeged application has the right to be processed in due time. It was 12-18 months when the application was received by the DIBP. The DIBP took the VAC and utilize the money for 8 years and took the interest. This is cheating. If they can still process onshore then why not offshore of same priority. MIA has to protest it with their full strength. But, what MIA has done is justifying the most illogical idea of cap and cease of DIBP. Tony can you give one valid reason not to process offshore while processing onshore of same priority 5 application. Interest of MIA members are also associated with the interest of their clients (onshore or offshore applicants). This basic thing needs
to be understand by all the MIA members who are still trying to justify the benefit tab of MIA. This not a personal fight with you. We just want justice and believe if MIA & MA work with each other then applicants affected by cap and cease can get justice. This type of injustice does not go with Australia which is well known for fair go policy. Apology for any hard world if I have used against you.
Immigration blog
I think Ich has it right. Political engagement is the way to go. No fawning whining or grovelling just a preparedness to fight the good fight and to engage the politicians in the game of votes. They don't really care about us they care about votes. No votes no seat. No power. I'd love to see an RMA go to federal parliament someone who knows wtf the real situation is on the ground. I would be happy to support that candidate with whatever they needed to get elected. I am sick of seeing good people ground to dust by an over bearing and quite frankly sneaky department who dominate their Minister. We need change in the big house...no not the one at Long Bay the other one in Canberra.