Login / Join
Immigration Daily News MIA Notice About Partner Visas Has Potential to Cause Needless Uproar and UpsetAustralian 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: 6186
- 21 Comments
MIA Notice About Partner Visas Has Potential to Cause Needless Uproar and Upset
It has come to the attention of Migration Alliance that the Migration Institute of Australia has issued a “MIA Notice” – No. 86: 17 November 2017 concerning a new Legislative Instrument concerning the “Arrangements for Partner and Prospective Marriage Visa Applications” – IMMI 17/101, dated 16 November 2017 – that has the potential to cause panic, distress, alarm and uproar among Registered Migration Agents and their clients!!
See the MIA notice below.
And so far, despite our best efforts, we have not been able to confirm at all what the MIA has said.
So it is at least possible that the MIA Notice may be causing completely unnecessary worry and concern.
Here’s the story:
The new Legislative Instrument that was made by the Minister essentially provides that after 18 November, all categories of partner visa applications must be made as internet applications, through ImmiAccount. The Instrument contemplates that there may be exceptions in circumstances where the applicant is “authorized to use form 47SP, in accordance with directions from the Department”.
However, the MIA Notice goes much further than this, and says as follows:
“The following policy will be applied to applications lodged before and after 18 November 2017 and not finally decided:
*Undocumented or poorly documented applications lodged by RMAs, eg applications that only meet the basic Schedule 1 requirements for lodging a valid application, may be refused without notice and without requests for further information.
* Where natural justice letters have been sent to RMA, no follow up or subsequent reminders will be sent. The Department will decide the application on the information before it, unless an extension of time has been requested and granted.
* For applications lodged prior to 18 November 2017, the Department will provide only ONE opportunity to submit additional information and/or documents or respond to a natural justice letter.”
The Notice form the MIA can be found at this link.
After this Notice was brought to our attention (thanks to William Levingston of Christopher Levingston and Associates) we made urgent efforts to attempt to confirm the accuracy of the contents of the MIA Notice, by reviewing the Legislative Instrument, Department policy (PAM3) and the Department’s Website.
At this stage we have not been able to find anything in these sources which would confirm that what is said in the MIA Notice, which suggests that the Department will be implementing a policy which will result in the “summary” rejection of partner visa applications that are considered to be “poorly supported”, and that the Department will be curtailing opportunities to provide evidence and submissions in reply to “natural justice” letters from the Department.
As far as we can tell, there doesn’t seem to be any basis to what the MIA has said in its Notice.
If anyone reading this can bring tour attention any material which would confirm what the MIA has said about these purported policy approaches by the Department concerning partner visa applications, we would be grateful.
The MIA's notice No. 86.
Comments
-
Friday, 24 November 2017so the MIA is saying RMA's have extra screening procedures in place when lodging applications? ABSURD!
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
So the MIA is issuing warnings to their own paying members from the DIBP, and letting them know there is a disadvantage to being an agent compared to the general public? Weird!
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
Nicolette - my thoughts exactly.
I don't understand anything about the notice. It makes no sense whatsoever for the MIA to be sending migration agents (members) information about how the DIBP will treat them worse than they will treat applicants lodging partner visas on their own. I would hesitate to blame the DIBP at this stage as it might be the MIA who didn't 'understand' what was being said.
Agree - absurd. -
Friday, 24 November 2017
Dravka, I agree. MIA should be taking this up with Immigration on behalf of the members since this is clearly abusive and unnecessary action to take
MIA is there to support members not pass on messages without a challenge when it is clearly wrong.
I am not supporting failure to lodge documents with applications as a habit. But when there is no time of application criteria and long advertised waiting periods why refuse the next day. Would help with their quotas they have to meet (and say they do not have)
It simply amounts to deliberate theft of applicants money and this should be an issue MIA will take up with Immigration -
Friday, 24 November 2017
I have already received such a letter from an embassy when I lodge a sponsorship the morning after I lodged the visa application ( all documents had been uploaded with the application) and the letter warned that DIBP had right to refuse IF ALL DOCS WERE NOT UPLOADED AT TIME OF APPLICATION!!
So what makes you all think MIA would write such a notice if this was not already happening! -
Friday, 24 November 2017
Case in point Libby. You are an RMA. You lodged. You got the message.
THRats not what the MIA notice said. Theirs was specific to just Agents. “Lodged by RMAs” was the precise wording. Not “lodged by anyone” or just “lodged”. In fact they even hilogther it in red and bold to make sure everyone knew it was “lodged by RMAs”.
Perhaps the DIBP should be consulted before an external organisation speaks on its behalf or reports news for them. DIBP have their own website and their own Comms Centre in Canberra. -
Friday, 24 November 2017
Yes, this may seem outrageous by the DIBP BUT Section 56 of the Migration ACT states Further information may be sought
(1) In considering an application for a visa, the Minister may, if he or she wants to, get any information that he or she considers relevant but, if the Minister gets such information, the Minister must have regard to that information in making the decision whether to grant or refuse the visa.
SO this means the Minister DOES NOT have to ask for more documents in considering a visa application, IF you DO NOT provide all documents at time of application the Minister can make a final decision on the visa application WITHOUT requesting further information in support of the application. Although once a partner visa is refused quite obvious there are review rights with AAT and surely this would cause considerable headache of extra workload for AAT. I hope that the heads of DIBP have advised the heads of AAT that this going to happen -
Friday, 24 November 2017
Yes Ian, BUT - Immigration posts for all to see the ridiculously long time to deciding Partner visa applications on the website. Since there are no time of application requirements to be met, this means Immigration are reducing the processing time from the standard quoted times of 13- 22 months to 1 day just to refuse and retain the also ridiculously high visa fee of $7000.
That is just plain abuse and if a business did that it would be in the hands or consumer affairs and the fraud squad immediately -
Friday, 24 November 2017
It seems that the MIA is intimidated by the Minister and the senior Department staff. If that was said at the conference, to my mind it is ok to report it to members, (I am not one) but to follow up with comments as so the legality of the Departments stance and to challenge the Department position. Glad I never joined the MIA!!!!
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
Can I ask why MA never publish my comments? Do you only publish critics of MIA ?
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
I was at the conference and this is exactly what the departments delegate said. Basically, poorly documented applications lodged by RMAs will be refused - very quickly after lodgement.
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
I was at the Conference and I heard poorly lodged applications but not ‘by RMAs’ but then again I wondered why nobody on the MIA executive got up and asked how that was even lawful especially after someone just paid $7000
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
Honestly, to this date I still do note know the difference between "adequately/strongly supported documents" and "poorly supported documents". A young couple living together for one year is not going to have "adequately/strongly supported documents" compare to a couple that has been together for 3 years. I really do not think that would make a couple who has only been together for one year before deciding to get married is less genuine and continuing. This government is completely ignoring the "natural justice" element of law that being Australian I have always been proud of, and what they are paid $7000 (minimum) per application to 'ASSESS THE NATURE AND COMMITMENT OF THE RELATIONSHIP'. Simply put, the new policy will allow them to rob applicants by saying "applications poorly supported" therefore I will refuse it.
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
I think MA should speak up and seek a re-wording of what is written. This creates a lot of misunderstandings to the public. Its like the want to abolish migration agents all together. Another aspect is that what they consider as sufficient evidence. Is it base on hunch or a case officer’s feelings on the day they make a decision. Nothing is concrete and it leaves agents guessing.
-
Friday, 24 November 2017
s57 requires reason for refusal with applicant given an opportunity to comment before the refusal is made - this occurs all they time where PR nominations are refused, the app is not immediately refused and the visa applicant is given 28 days to comment even though its not the only option other than refusal would be to withdraw.
-
Monday, 27 November 2017
If the claims against MIA and DIBP is correct, it is safe to state as follows:
* The Australian government is putting unnecessary pressure on the director of of DIBP to improve the budget bottom line AND using MIA do so. Is MIA partly funded by DIBP? If so, the MIA may be partly acting in the best interests of DIBP. Not members of MIA;
* Migration Alliance should action immediately for its members before the issues caused more confusion. -
Monday, 27 November 2017
https://www.border.gov.au/FAQs/Pages/online-lodgement-partner-visas.aspx
It doesn't say anything about migration agents having their applications refused if not complete on submission here!
I guess MIA just said nothing and went along with it? -
Monday, 27 November 2017
Why do you guys always just slander MIA? I am a member of both MIA and MA and am grateful for the warning from MIA and, as I said above, we have already had a letter from an embassy warning us about possible refusals if everything not lodged at time of application. MIA is apparently advocating but wheels move slowly in the advocacy world. I agree the change is ridiculous as it means more work at AAT and most decisions will be set aside but the client once again victimised with uneccessary fees simply because DIBP delegates are not trained to make legal decisions!
-
Monday, 27 November 2017
Libby, I can hear you loud. And Yes, I agree with you that "...the client once again victimised with uneccessary fees simply because DIBP delegates are not trained to make legal decisions!". There are couple of points here:
1. We need to know that if the clients are the primary victims or been victimised as a result of DIBP policies, the RMA will be the secondary victims and therefore an immediate system advocacy to serve the best interests of the clients is required. I think MA will be in a position to do that along with the support of all RMA;
2. Not against what the MIA does. But the lack of an immediate advocacy for its members on this occasion is disappointing;
3. As I stated before, it is safe to state that it is a deliberate policy measure of DIBP to collect fees from clients and assist the government to fix the budget bottom line ignoring the natural justice completely.
Immigration blog
apparantly this was said at the MIA National Conference by a DIBP director of family visa processing. Is in breach of the Act, more overreach by the DIBP. By the way you should use the MS snipping tool instead of taking photos of computer screens, will change your life.