Login / Join
Immigration Daily News 131 881: Harming the lives of Australian visa applicants one visa at a timeAustralian 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: 13884
- 11 Comments
131 881: Harming the lives of Australian visa applicants one visa at a time
If you are planning to lodge an Australian visa application and you ring 131 881 you are putting your life at risk. Quite literally. Your Australian immigration future is at stake.
Today, I have three separate examples from three different Registered Migration Agents (RMAs). This is not a new story, or a new problem. This has been going on for a long time. Too long, in fact. There are countless stories which come in from RMAs, who describe their absolute horror and frustration at the information provided to their clients from officers manning the phones at DIBP.
131 881 is literally an immigration death trap.
'Immigration assistance' is defined in section 276 of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act). Generally, immigration assistance is when a person uses knowledge of, or experience in, migration procedures.
I did not have to look far for this information. It is contained here on the DIBP's very own website.
There are limitations on who can provide advice under section 280 of the same Act. These can be found here. Interestingly 'officials' are allowed to give immigration assistance. Section 280, subsection (4) states;
"This section does not prohibit an official from giving immigration assistance in the course of his or her duties as an official."
"Official' is not defined. Would an official be a delegate of the Minister working the phones on 131881, the Department of Immigration and Border Protection's (DIBP's) 'immigration helpline'? We don't know, as most other exempted persons are afforded a precise definition. There is no definition of an 'official'.
Either way, I don't see that a 'delegate of the Minister working at the DIBP within Australia' is named as an exempted person. It would have been very easy to add this type of exempted person to the exhaustive list of exempted persons under 'Restrictions on giving of immigration assistance'.
This brings me to the type of advice being provided on the DIBP's 131881 immigration helpline. Here are today's three examples:
EXAMPLE ONE
A client of a migration agent needs to lodge a Bridging Visa E (BVE) application after the RMA has lodged a Ministerial Intervention Application, and immediately after the client's current visa expires.
Problem: The client calls 131 881 to discuss what to do. The RMA is not representing the client for their BVE. The person on 131 881 proceeds to tell the client that she should lodge her BVE application before the expiry of her current visa. This is the email complaint from the client to her RMA:
"I've called immigration and ....I have also been advised my BVE application has to be submitted much before my current visa expires or I would be unlawful. Your office has told me to submit it a day after my current visa expires. I would think that if my BVE is submitted now with the request for work rights then it may come into force prior to 23/03. Again, work have said they want to help and need me to continue working."
The advice from DIBP on 131 881 is wrong. The BVE needs to be submitted once the applicant is unlawful.
To add insult to injury, the following is the next email received from the same RMAs client:
"I went to the immigration office on Lee Street this morning and it was confirmed the BVE needs to be submitted on 23/03 and cannot be submitted before, so the information given to me on the 131 881 line was incorrect."
EXAMPLE TWO:
This example has been reported in to me by an immigration lawyer:
"My client had his Bridging Visa A cancelled by the Department under section 116(1)(e) on the basis that he has been charged with a drug possession offence. The AAT affirmed the cancellation simply on the evidence that the visa holder had been charged by the police, even though it was inarguably jurisdictional error for the AAT to do so under the clear authority of Judge Smith's decision in the case of Gong v Minister for Immigration & Anor (2016) FCCA 561.
On another front, the Department has declined to grant a BVA to a client who has sought judicial review of a patently erroneous decision of the AAT affirming the refusal of a 457 visa on PIC 4020 grounds. The judicial review application was plainly filed within 28 days after the AAT decision. The client plainly satisfies all the criteria for a BVA. Yet for whatever reason, the Department doesn't understand how to calculate the 28 day period that the BVA granted in association with the 457 application remained in force, and has therefore determined that the client was an "unlawful non-citizen" at the time that the judicial review application was filed. Apparently, the Department has failed to have regard to the provisions of the Acts Interpretation Act concerning the calculation of time!"
1331 881 could not explain why.
EXAMPLE THREE:
This example has been provided to me by a migration lawyer who says he has hundreds of examples throughout his immigration career, which he says is 'sad, really sad'.
"I had a client visit me to discuss why she wasn't unable to lodge a student visa online via ImmiAccount. My client is a UK national, low risk applicant. My client used an education agent to submit a student visa online on her behalf. Unfortunately the education agent could not get past second page of the application due to an error message advising the applicant to contact the Department of Immigration.
My client rang 131881 and explained the error message. She also mentioned specifically that she is a holder of a Bridging Visa A when DIBP staff asked her what visa she was on. The client was advised that she should be able to submit her student visa application in Australia. This in my opinion constitutes as migration advice. There was no advice given to seek migration advice and assistance.
My client knew that something was not right as she was unable to proceed with the application on the subsequent day. Ruling out any IT issues, she booked an appointment with me to discuss her case.
I advised the client that as a holder of a Bridging Visa A, she was unable to lodge her student visa whilst in Australia unless there were compelling or compassionate circumstances. In order to proceed with the application, I advised the client to leave Australia and submit her application from off-shore. Naturally she was shocked and upset and could not understand why the Department of Immigration would give her incorrect advice.
As a result, the client incurred additional costs, she missed her course deadline and not to mention the emotional trauma of having unexpectedly depart Australia."
SUMMARY:
131 881 is a potential disservice to Australian visa applicants, and the information provided on this phone line can, and sometimes will severely impact on people's lives. RMAs must maintain mandatory professional indemnity insurance to cover the advice they provide. RMAs are trained and have demonstrated, professional, and sound knowledge.
If a person who is not a registered migration agent gives immigration assistance unlawfully, they can be fined up to $6,600.
If the person asks for or receives any fee for giving immigration assistance or making immigration representations, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for 10 years.
If a person falsely represents that they are a registered migration agent, the maximum penalty is imprisonment for two years.
131 881 is the last place a potential visa applicant should go for immigration advice and assistance. None of the people on that phone number are a Registered Migration Agent.
Test the theory. Ring 131 881 three times. Check whether you receive the same advice on each of the three occasions.
Australian visa applicants should be directed to a RMA for advice and assistance.
Author: Liana Allan This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
Comments
-
Friday, 24 March 2017
Le - This is Liana Allan. I always ask my clients not to, but sometimes they can't help themselves and they do it anyway, to second guess the advice, and then it starts; The justifications, the explanations, trying to tell the client that the DIBP advice is wrong and so on and so forth.
-
Saturday, 25 March 2017I advised a client recently who was unlawful as a result of a subsequent cancellation of a visa. DIBP advised her over the phone she must apply for a BVE to become lawful first, then she could lodge a Partner visa application. She should just come into the office for a "chat" about her circumstances"..(WTF?)
Anyway, she proceeded on my advice to the Brisbane counter to lodge the Partner application and they actively discouraged her from applying, apparently because of Sch.3 (Despite that having no impact on whether she could validly apply) and sent her away on a bridging visa D... -
Sunday, 26 March 2017
131881 truly appears to be a disservice for Australian visa applicants or prospective visa applicant/sponsors etc. As RMA's we seldom have to call 131881 but there has been cases such as when we need to contact a particular DIBP Case officer such as 457 case officer handling our case and to get to the case officer via 131881 becomes a nightmare, an impossible task, as professionals we seems to be hanging on the 131881 line for ages, sometimes it cuts off and other times an operator would answer and advise that she/he would get the case officer to call us back and many a times calls are never returned. I think it's about time we all jointly should submit for the Department to offer a dedicated line service for RMA's in these cases.
-
Monday, 27 March 2017
This has happened so many times to our clients I have given up. Its an absolute joke.
-
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
Countless times I have given correct advise to my clients, for them to second guess me and call DIBP. 3 operators within the same day answering the same question, giving 3 different answers. I believe DIBP are definitely accountable for client refusals. Further ringing 131881 is absolute hell, I would'nt and haven't recommended anyone of my clients to call DIBP. If they are not getting the incorrect information, they are NOT getting any information at all! Its a waste of time, effort and money and further the migrant is left more confused, and uncertain who is giving the right advise the agent/lawyer or DIBP?
-
Wednesday, 29 March 2017
I have a client who continually rings immigration for advise and it drives me crazy as I now how useless they are. He has applied for a partner visa which was lodged last May and I have been advising him processing is 12 - 18 months. He rang immigration for the hundredth time and the person there said he had been assigned a case officer for his spouse visa. I was amazed but in disbelief. He then proceeded to do medicals and police clearances, which I let him carry on with as he would still be ok timewise even if he had another 6 month wait. As I suspected when I emailed immigration to ask they said the usual but no mention of a case officer.
I haven't done this for a number of years, but in the early days I have actually rang them myself 3 times and got three different answers. I also love the fact that when you ask them a question and they find out you are an agent they say 'you should know!'
I also know other clients that have been misadvised and then ended up in trouble. Complete nightmare, but people think they are immigration and they should know! -
Tuesday, 20 February 2018
I've been waiting for over an hour (56th waiting in line). Finally Kyle answers the phone and he has put me on hold to 'check' up on my details, which I did not ask him to do, but ok, and I am on hold for over 25 minutes now.. Still waiting, but afraid he 'forgot' about me and is about to leave in two minutes..
-
Wednesday, 21 February 2018
Heard specific stories that migration agents have been very wrong too. They often but not always) have their own school/university affiliations and not the client’s/migrant’s interests at heart. Who can be relied upon?????
-
Friday, 11 May 2018
we have been waiting for answer does any know where is every one does no one work in these departments any more where can we call to get answers
-
Tuesday, 05 February 2019
I rang the 131881 to ask if a 6 year old starting grade one on a student visa class 500 would have to sit an English proficiency exam and the gentleman told me yes, I further questioned him and asked “ obviously she doesn’t have to sit the same written exam as high school students and adults”? Reminding him she was about to start to learn to write etc and he told me there were no exceptions! I told him he had to be wrong, how can a primary school student not even in year 1 be expected to firstly read the exam and the be able to pick out verbs, nouns and adjectives? He told me that was how it is. These people not only have no idea what they are doing but have no common sense. I told him he was wrong and rang an agent who told me primary school students are exempt from this test. If I hadn’t have rung someone else I would have given up because unless a 6 year old is a genius then no one would pass the test. What an idiot.
Immigration blog
As RMA myself, I never call 131881 and always advise my clients do not call 131881, as it is a pure waste of time/