Login / Join
Immigration Daily News Case officer in 457 section at DIBP writes directly to client to verify information provided by their RMAAustralian 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: 10289
- 25 Comments
Case officer in 457 section at DIBP writes directly to client to verify information provided by their RMA
Facts:
1. The migration agent submits a 457 business nomination and is the authorised person.
2. The 457 business sponsorship is already approved and the migration agent is the authorised person.
3. The visa applicant is transferring from one company to this company and the migration agent is the authorised person
Whilst the application is in process the business sponsor receives a letter, sent to them directly from the case officer.
Check out this link and read what the case officer has written. It will astound you.
457-random-audit-email.pdf
Directly following the words '...with migration agent' we have removed the RMA's name and left it blank so the RMA cannot be identified. The client's details have also been removed so that the client cannot be identified.
What does a Form 956 mean to a case officer now?
Why is a case officer writing directly to a client about the client's migration agent and referring to the migration agent in the third person in a letter? Why is a case officer asking a migration agent's client to verify the information provided by the migration agent?
Needless to say, this client sent the letter directly to their migration agent.
This migration agent is a professional agent and there is no issue with the file or with the agent's track record as far as we can see.
Comments
-
Wednesday, 25 November 2015Yeah I can just imagine the name of the case officer who did this! Why are these case officers, allowed to get away with so much! Investigation required immediately, and who's monitoring the case officers of 457 at DIBP as they seem to be in a league of their own, following no guidelines and getting away with blue murder.
-
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
Offensive indeed, but the least surprising. I've seen much worse and more extreme behavior from CO-s for other visa classes lately, to the extent that I've learned by now that even asking a question to clarify a s56 request will likely lead to retaliation and the client will be checked extra rigorously. I have no idea how RMA-s have earned such a collective resentment from CO-s, but nowadays a polite and personal request/answer with kind tones is rare as hen's teeth. I'm about to make peace with the fact that we RMA-s are barely tolerated and now DIBP staff is somehow endorsed to kick us whenever they fancy it. Not fun but I see no way to change it...
-
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
Since the processing has become a GROUP exercise, the standards and level of competence of staff who are in the GROUP have deteriorated by 80 percent. Right, left and centre, Natural Justice letters to visa applicants are issued without an iota of justification to refuse nomination applications; existing nominated position that had gone through 3 layers of scrutiny by Sydney 457 case offers, RCB assessments, and RSMS case officer and had never been questioned, is refused by a case officer who clearly has no idea how a business advisory firm operates. These are particularly common at Paramatta Centre.
Besides all this, letters are signed by Position Number and not names, in express contradiction to the Service provision Charter of the Department.
I have written to the Minister and I suggest that you all do the same. This is our country, our Department of Immigration, our taxes paying for incompetent employees, and we need to make the Minister aware of the extent of the problem.
Since a few weeks ago, every wrong decision I receive I reply to the case officer and list the problems with the decision and copy that to the Minister.
While the rest of the world is going down the drain because people are going mad, there is no need for us to drop the ball and behave like a third world country public servant. -
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
I would like to try to explain why this case officer contacted the client.
One of the staff, in business which was approved sponsor, has engaged migration agent to lodge Sponsorship, Nomination and Visa without the correct information. The agent was not informed that the company is already approved sponsor and did not likely talk to the employer at any stage, so they lodged the sponsorship again. The agent had to correct the error by writing to the department and has provided the 3 years training and sponsorship documents after so we hope to have positive outcome soon.
The above scenario explains the suspicion of the case officer has expressed by contacting the employer. In situations where another person has signed the Employment agreement, I would have done the same, knowing what I know from the above case (where the employer was not aware another application for sponsorship was lodged).
I just searched my records and found the name of the case officer who wrote the letter you published. Before we start blaming the case officer, with whom I have dealt with at least 6 times in the past 3 years, we need to know the facts. The case officer in question has always been professional in my dealings with them and is one of the senior case officers so I do not agree with you exposing their position number in the forum.
Recently I have noticed lots of negativity and very bad comments written about case officers here and this is just adding to the problem, not fixing it. If we keep antagonizing the DIBP staff, they will treat us the same.
You had not right to publish this and I am sure the rift will continue growing if this type of posts are continued. I agree we need to have outlet to say something, but this is not the way to do it and for the public to read and laugh at us (agents) badmouthing them (DIPB officers).
Over the years, I have received some questionable letters, one of them actually arrived today, but I will never publish it no matter how bad it was worded or how biased it sounded because it will only hurt my client not me.
MA is organisation that represents Agents and as such they should be working on fixing the issues with have with DIBP by finding solution not by antagonizing them.
When MA posts articles like this, you do this as representing all of us, where we agree or not with the article. Your opinion and your posts reflect on all agents because they are written by MA as representative body.
I enjoy reading your informative posts on various topics, but this type of posts are undermining your position as peak body for Migration Industry and will continue to drive the gap even more.
I think you need to concentrate on working together as goal, not working against DIPB staff.· matthew Luscombe likes this comment. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Hear Hear well said!
I think MA is offering a great alternative to the self-serving puffed up alternative. But MA should make it a priority to concentrate on working together with DIBP.
We all know that Government Departments have their good and bad points and no doubt DIBP is no different.
We all know the relationship between agents and DIBP is slowly getting worse and worse.
I personally find that the situation at present of not being able to get a reply from or even in contact with a case officer is frustrating.
I feel, as an intelligent progressive organization MA needs to give DIBP a solution to the problem.
If anyone has dealt with other large Government organizations lately, like the ATO, they would have found they are a joy to deal with. Their response times are great, their customer service is fantastic and the person you deal with has the capabilities of handling your situation in real time. They also treat their Agents with great respect. I am always hearing that the tax laws are as complicated as the immigration laws so I assume there could be some lessons learnt from their systems and standards.
Maybe, as a suggestion, there could be a DIBP designated liaison officer for every 500 agents. I believe there are 4000 working agents so it would mean 8 staff to man the phones dedicated to agent’s enquiries. Possible paid for out of the OMARA’s coffers.
Stupid maybe, but it just might start us working together. -
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
Human Error !
-
Wednesday, 25 November 2015
On a related point, VETASSESS have been directly contacting my clients by phone without our knowing. In the first case, the client had no idea of the point of the questions, answered enthusiastically and in good faith, and had the application [unnecessarily] refused. It was a Psychotherapist Vs Psychologist situation. Of course she had experience as a Psychotherapist within the job in question other relevant experience as a Psychotherapist, and if she had known the point of the questions, the application would have been approved.
In the second case, the case officer could not contact the case officer and contacted me for the up-dated address. I explained the deal to the client in advance, and then sat in on the interview. Apart from the fact VETASSESS said the conversation would be recorded "for training purposes only" when it really was the basis for making a decision, the interview was straight forward. The client was a star in clarifying the issues, and the accreditation was given.
We now do not give the client''s phone number in the application. We will not have VETASSESS creeping around behind our backs seeking to trick our clients. They can come through us, we can explain the matter to the client, and VETASSESS can have its interview, "for training purposes only". -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Clearly a breach of 494D if a copy was not sent to the authorised recipient as well. It is the implication that the migration agent had behaved dishonestly and lodged an application of without the knowledge of the business that is more abhorrent than a minor breach of the Migration Act [for which an agent would be dragged over the coals]
I have had a case officer ring a business and make enquiries about staff numbers, etc from the telephonist who answered the phone. Poor girl didn't understand that she was not obliged to answer and gave answers that were contradictory to those on nomination. Those answers were erroneous because she did not have an understanding of the business structure and who were employees, contractors, etc. The case officer then sent rang me with all fist full of false "facts" and demanded an explanation. I told him exactly where HE had screwed up by relying on erroneous evidence given by a person in no position of authority and that the evidence provided on the nomination was accurate and correct in every detail. I also let him know that to presume I was in error was an insult to my professionalism and unblemished reputation. Of course case officers are entitled to make enquiries to verify information but they should ensure they are asking someone who actually knows the facts. I always tell my clients to have case officer refer any questions in writing through correct channel [me] and if they wish to interview by phone to insist that any interview be conducted in person with me being present. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Biljana
Why don't you get involved and do something for MA? For example, given its a voluntary organisation and members are donating their time for free, have you offered to help agents by carrying out the activities you suggest in your post?
I think you sound a bit self righteous to be honest.
You don't think case officers antagonise agents every day?
You aren't a migration cop so don't tell others which 'rights' they have. And quite frankly don't tell migration alliance what to publish. Who do you think you are?
The case officer's name was removed from the posting. Only you did background research and looked up their position number against your own records. Why?
So you could come on here, talk about how great the case officer is, and then ring the case officer and tell them you defended them? You looking for favour Biljana?
Honestly you sound like a case officer pretending to be an agent.
Unless you are willing to actually contribute and practice what you preach, don't come on here defending the DIBP case officer. They are clearly WRONG.
I have an idea. Why don't you send a link of this post to the case officer you speak so highly of and show them how you spoke so highly of them. Maybe invite them for a foot rub and cup of tea.
After all this case officer can do no wrong in your eyes. Poor little case officer.
Seriously get real. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Biljana. Thanks for suggesting looking up this case officer position. Number.
I just did it and found one in my files. This case officer messed up on my client case too. I put it down to incompetence. Just because your files are ok with this case officer doesn't mean other agents are ok too. Sounds like you don't want to believe what the other agent is reporting. It also sounds like you are pretending to know more than you really do about this case.
Facts remain. Case officer should contact the agent to get the information. Not write to client about the agent. That's poor form.
I disagree with most of the comments in your post. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
The bit that concerns me is this:
One of the staff, in business which was approved sponsor, has engaged migration agent to lodge Sponsorship, Nomination and Visa without the correct information. The agent was not informed that the company is already approved sponsor and did not likely talk to the employer at any stage, so they lodged the sponsorship again. The agent had to correct the error by writing to the department and has provided the 3 years training and sponsorship documents after so we hope to have positive outcome soon.
How could you not ask if a company you were doing a 457 for was a registered Sponsor or not and how could you lodge the paperwork without talking to the relevant company officer in question?
If these facts are true I can understand the case officer being suspicious. Surely the first question in the pdf - "Are you aware the company has lodged a 457 Nomination..." tells you the case officer is questioning whether a fraud is being committed. I guess we should be thankful they did not send round armed DIBP officers to do the questioning. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Biljana, there is no where on the above post I can see badmouthing the case officer or defaming the case officer by any means. I can see that this post is a sharing of an RMA's experience with DIBP current process and to make other RMA colleagues aware of what DIBP were up to with their processing system.
This is a good post so that our RMA colleagues will be able to educate and made all clients aware of their own application status, what documents have been submitted and what they will expect while application in process. There are many of companies out there that have multiple directors, share holders and documents were partially handled by different person in charge such as financial documents with accountant, employment contracts and conditions with HR / General Manager, etc and it is common that directors and CEOs of businesses do not completely aware of all employees being sponsored unless after checking their company's records.
Your comments about MA are in Bias and in fact your writing about "You had not right to publish this and I am sure the rift will continue growing if this type of posts are continued. I agree we need to have outlet to say something, but this is not the way to do it and for the public to read and laugh at us (agents) badmouthing them (DIPB officers)." is based on your own assumption and trying to stir more issues between RMAs and Case Officers and do not do any help to us. Also, another comment of yours about MA posts, "Recently I have noticed lots of negativity and very bad comments written about case officers here" can you point out which of the posts you are saying? I am a big fan of MA blogs where I can receive most updated news rather than our beloved "Agent's Gateway" where the latest updated news was in 2014: http://www.border.gov.au/Busi/Migr/Agen/News-and-updates -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
John, what's worse is that Biljana doesn't work with or know who this migration agent is. Biljana made the 'facts' up all by herself, in a vacuum. Biljana has zero knowledge of the company, the case or the agent. The reality which Biljana presents to us all is just imaginary and a concoction of assumptions.
The agent knew the company was already a sponsor as the agent lodged the sponsorship for the company.
Totally absurd set of suggestions by Biljana. Makes you wonder if she's mates with this case officer. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
I think the point of my post was misunderstood and by some. I was saying we do not know the full story, so instead of going and making a fool out a case officer, we should at least know the facts. I made comments about the facts I know in my experience. I have given possible explanation from my experience and it was not to defend the case officer, but maybe to try to explain why they contacted the employer.
The same case officer refused one of my applications as well but that did not stop me being professional in my dealings.
Posts and comments where we assign blame are not serving anyone good. RMA posted I seek personal favors and suggested me to send email to the case officer. This never came to my mind when writing the comment, but it tells me RMA is the one willing to do this because it was their idea.
I am worried for the reputation of the industry and we see more and more antagonism against case officers and vise versa. I have been angry at many but to sit and write comments will not do any good to my client and my time is better used finding solution to help the client.
I would like to see the day we work in harmony and this will happen by engaging with the DIBP staff. On one occasion, in a conference, I heard client service manager talking about working on changing the culture in DIBP towards the agents but he said it will take time. The process will not be helped by type of posts where we discuss the incompetency of the case officers, it will only hurt the reconciliation.
My post was about working together not again each other, so call idealist if you wish. I love this job and I will continue to hope for brighter future in our industry. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Be a registered migration agent for 15 years, and did come across case officers wished to contact the applicant directly from time to time, some case officer did contacted me first some were not bothered. I have no problem with that, we all try to do our job after all, my client also DIBP/CO's clients, and I do believe the delegates just trying to get the things done as quick and smooth as possible.
-
Thursday, 26 November 2015
RT S Adelaide I am not sure where do you get your information, the scenario I gave is one of my clients and I worked with the other agent to fix the mistake 2 weeks ago. I have no interest in inventing scenarios, I wrote the comment based on real situation and the employer is my current client.
And, RT S Adelaide, I wish I had case officer as personal mate. Business would be great then as we have seen where case officers were corrupt.
I am MA member since the beginning too and I love reading the posts, but this one made me think twice and I decided to share my experience. I should say the comments agents or other people (not sure who it is as anyone can post) leave are really bad in some articles which also prompted me to have a say. Please do a search for "case officer" and read the comments in some of the posts, some really angry people have written bad messages. If we are professionals, why we have to undermine ourselves in the eyes of the public. We can do that in private forums not public.
I hope everyone had fun reading this. I learned speaking truth is no good here as you get scolded and being called names, as some have done it above. It speaks volume of the character of those people who wrote it.
I thought we were here to share our experience and write about the things that happened to us while working with the department. -
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Biljana has obviously insinuated that she has some inside knowledge of this case and is aware of information that was obviously not posted. Is so, Biljana, tell us of your relationship to this case. If not, you are obviously way way out of line to make the assumptions you made. For example: how do you know that the RMA lodged an application for sponsorship without the approval of the company? I know no RMA who would do that as it is obviously illegal. You either know or have presumed that the agent actually lodged an application for sponsorship without the approval of the business. Tell us Biljana, how you ascertained this to be the case. As a RMA who proudly contributes to MA blogs, I at least have the intestinal fortitude to always ALWAYS include my full name to comments I make. I often wonder if statements made within this forum are from people with a genuine concern for our profession or for some other hidden agenda.
-
Thursday, 26 November 2015
Biljana don't throw rocks from glass houses.
You said your ur piece. Others said theirs. Just coz people don't share ur opinion doesn't mean u need to play victim. -
Friday, 27 November 2015
All of this debate goes to the heart of the issue, and that is the relationship between us and the Department is awful, and we cannot do much about it as agents. We have a log of issues that have been campaigning on for years, basic matters like dealing with non-registered agents inside and outside Australia, the continual public denigrating of our work, lack of basic access to case officers, on-going failure to include our needs in DIBP systems, the existence of education agents who give Schedule 2 advice in breach of the Act, and etc.
There are about 90 issues we have raised through the MIA and the MA for years. Very few have been addressed. ALP or Libs, it is the same. Every time I speak to other agents there is this common frustration bubbling away. Fine. This is our industry, we live with it but it does not mean we should be silent either in our own private forums or publicly about the relationship with the Department and how negative it is, and at the end of the day, whose fault it is.
Immigration blog
It should probably be pointed out to the case officer that their actions are not compliant with section 494D of the Migration Act.