Login / Join
Immigration Daily News The fight to kill off unregistered immigration practice for goodAustralian Immigration Daily News
Breaking Australian immigration news brought to you by Migration Alliance and associated bloggers.
- Font size: Larger Smaller
- Hits: 4448
- 48 Comments
The fight to kill off unregistered immigration practice for good
I am not going to give up the fight to have unregistered immigration practitioners removed from lodging Australian visa applications for and on behalf of unwitting clients. The fresh new Form 956 goes part of the way there on this journey, but we need to keep moving forward.
Unregistered migration practitioners who engage in the lodgement of Australian visa applications on behalf of vulnerable persons are exploitative, predatory and unethical. They do not have a demonstrated level of sound knowledge. If they were registered, the level of incompetency shown in their work would likely result in a decision by the Office of the MARA to cancel their registration, and the removal of their right to practise.
Sometimes unregistered practitioners commit offences under a number of different laws over an extended period. Use the examples of Abel Kalpinand Prasad, or Eddy Kang. These two individuals were operating onshore, on our own Australian soil. Look how hard it has been for the authorities to bring them to justice. If only they had been banned from lodging visa applications in the first place. If only the system prevented their access.
These unregistered immigration practitioners are not members of professional associations like Migration Alliance, the Law Council or the MIA, which have strong self-regulatory standards.
By remaining unregistered, these 'criminal entrepreneurs' avoid the scrutiny of their peers and the authorities, rather than having to address deficiencies in their practice.
As was the case with Abel Kalpinand Prasad, such practitioners sometimes move to different jurisdictions that have less regulatory scrutiny, or no treaties (such as extradition treaties) with Australia in order to continue their illegal or unethical conduct.
Public warnings including this Ministerial Release have been issued about these types of people, after they have wreaked havoc on peoples lives. To me, these examples highlight the concerns about the suitability of public protection with respect to services delivered by unregistered immigration practitioners.
I would like Federal Parliament to enact legislation to address what I see as a gap in the law. We need to strengthen public protection for unwitting Australian visa applicants, especially those located outside Australia. These vulnerable consumers use the services of unregistered immigration practitioners. We need to block their access to ImmiAccount, and all paper-based applications.
From my perspective there are a few practical things to consider as a part of blocking unregistered practitioners from lodging Australian visas on behalf of vulnerable persons:
1. No email address should be used more than once for visa lodgments, unless it is the email address of a Registered Migration Agent, as Registered Migration Agents need to lodge multiple visa applications for and on behalf of their clients. Individual applicants do not. They have one email and they only need to use it once for themselves, should they wish to lodge a visa application independently.
2. IP Addresses should be tracked. Repeated pings from the same IP Address, but for different visa applicants should be red-flagged as potential unregistered agent practice, and the ImmiAccount should freeze applications until evidence is provided that the person is not using an unregistered practitioner.
3. Block the use of the Tor network for Australian visa applications
4. Block the use of a proxy for Australian visa applications so that unregistered practitioners cannot hide their IP.
5. Issuing of a ‘prohibition order’ to unregistered practitioners and their businesses as soon as there is confirmation of their attempts to lodge Australian visa applications for their clients. A prohibition order should be publicly available on the Office of the MARA and Department of Home Affairs websites, declaring the person and business as an unregistered person who are specifically prohibited from providing Australian immigration-related services altogether. Australian Government websites could even go as far to state that if a person is to use an unregistered immigration practitioner then there is a serious risk to the health of their visa application and security of their bio data and other information.
6. Statutory Declarations could be included as part of online visa applications and could be signed by the visa applicants who are lodging Australian visas on their own, without using a Registered Migration Agent. These Statutory Declarations could state that the visa applicant/s lodged the visa application themselves, and without third party assistance. Potentially, attaching this declaration to PIC 4020 may assist as a deterrent from using unregistered practitioners. The alternative box would be that the visa applicant used the services of a Registered Migration Agent.
7. Only email addresses registered with the Office of the MARA should be used in association with a Migration Agent Registration Number (MARN) and no other email address. This would address the potential for unregistered practitioners to engage in MARN theft. MARN theft is the diversion of business away from a RMA by using (stealing) an agent's MARN, and their own, personal email address for communications with the client. The RMA could be unaware that their MARN is even being used in this manner.
Australian Registered Migration Agents went to university to gain qualifications, increase their knowledge every year through professional development, maintain Professional Indemnity Insurance and a Professional Library each year. They do not want to spend their time competing with unregistered persons who undercut them on price, and lodge half-baked or incorrect visa applications into the Australian systems.
All ideas would be greatly appreciated. My plan is to continuously make submissions to Government.
I am pushing for unregistered practice to cease in 2019.
Comments
-
Wednesday, 16 October 2019Gee whizz. I can't believe Liana had Diamond psychologically pinned from the start. A total con artist. Diamond put on a face of righteous, helpful, caring, professional, superiority to cover up the fact she is nothing more than a wannabe RMA from offshore. Worse, it turns out she has this record now too.
Flabbergasted that Liana could spot this woman's deceit. -
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
I had made up my mind until yesterday to stop responding to any provocative comments which were both personal and hurtful...surely one is not dumb enough to understand what 'FU*K implied by Mr. Frank, the ex DIAC.
I thought I could put forward my views for some constructive criticism but I end up being trolled badly. The focus tactically shifts from the debate at hand to singling out Diamond and jotting together every piece of online [malicious social media posts and half baked stories] to prove she is a "con artist". That's a very strong word to use for someone you've never known but read about through competitors' defamation strategy and a case you share a link for. Interesting, now that you've brought it up. You are actually referencing a person who is an Indian lawyer by qualification, got a positive skills assessment for a legal executive, was required to score 7 bands each but could only manage 6 each after about seven attempts and has used every trick in the book and legal tools to extort three times of the professional fee paid to us by him after a blatant telephonic threat that he knows how to make life hell as use [misuse] law to throttle someone. Many of you in Australia think it must be a cakewalk for offshore agents, but sorry, we people don't enjoy the indemnity that Australian migration agents do. And the client even wants his VETASSESS fee [which he paid for a positive assessment] to be paid back to him by us, how about that? The case link you are referring to has been put up by the client who managed to first withdraw the case in the court when he saw it going it against him and cleverly put it put again. Developing courts- wouldn't comment on that but yes we didn't get a chance to put up the merits of the case before a decision. What this client has not put out on the social forum however is that there is a stay order on this decision as this decision has been challenged in the higher court.
I've been thinking ever since this string of Diamond bashing started on this forum- what did I really say to get so many hounding for me. All I said was that many offshore agents are doing good work [ if not all] and they would be happy to meet any criteria or undergo qualification to be professionally associated to do business outside the Australian jurisdiction. So much display of hatred for having said this. -
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Not trolling or having a go at you, but you really shouldn't be disclosing specific details of a client's case on a public forum, even if you are in dispute with them. You may want to consider editing your post.
If you were a Registered Agent you could be seen to be in breach of Part 3.2 of the code of conduct. -
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
Yes, correct Diamond. So much hatred for the shoddy work of unregistered offshore operators who destroy lives one by one and still think they do a great job. The hatred for this kind of thing is strong. You have sought to involve yourself. You have made it personal. This is a website for REGISTERED migration agents. I suppose you expected a red carpet given your comments so far. You are not the victim. Your poor clients are.
-
Wednesday, 16 October 2019
Liana - I agree with the thrust of your arguments and if NZ and Canada can work it so that only registered agents/advisors, or the applicant and their close family, can lodge applications, then it should be relatively easy for the Department to sort that out.
There was a valid point raised earlier - there is a difference between NZ and Aus in that NZ registered advisors do not need to be NZ Citizens or PRs, whereas RMAs need to be Aus citizens or PR. This has a couple of knock-on issues:
- it precludes some high quality offshore operators from being registered, even if they wanted to be
- it provides a backdoor to MARA registration for non-Aus citizens/PRs to get a MARA registration through the trans-Tasman route
There is no reason I can see why it should be a requirement to meet these "nationality" requirements for MARA registration, particularly if removing it was coupled with the clamp down you suggest. This might encourage off-shore operators to come into line with MARA requirements.
It would also make your campaign easier if MARA and the Department were more helpful to offshore RMAs who have bothered to get registered, as both throw many obstacles in our way, again deterring people who would otherwise get registered. -
Thursday, 17 October 2019
Dear Liana, many years ago I lodged a parent visa for my mother in Canada.
The Canadian system would only allow me to lodge online if I have a card or financial instrument based in Canada and in my case my sisters bank card.
This is a very good system I thought and could simply be applied in Australia as it could weed out any overseas applicants from unregistered agents. -
Thursday, 17 October 2019
I have come across unregistered agents in Australia lodging visa application pretending to be lodged by the clients themselves by creating a new email account for every clients. And in one case the unregistered agent did not check the email, and visa application was refused and the time limit for lodging review has passed. I find those unregistered agents always advertise their services by listed MARN of a registered agent who is a subcontractor of the company belong to the unregistered agents. Therefore MARA should ban non registered agent setting company providing migration services by employing registered agent as their employee or subcontractor.
Immigration blog
A client of Diamond sued her:
https://www.casemine.com/judgement/in/5c8f34f94a932633ac34ba18
She had to pay refunds, compensation, interest, expenses and damages.
Even the Indian courts decided that she was unable to assess qualifications, academic history and work experience of the applicant properly and that she should not be giving Australian Immigration Law advice.
Mate, If even a developing country can settle a ruling suggesting she pack up shop for being negligent, she should take a hint...