Errors on visa status database (VEVO) resulting in refusals?

Recently, two cases were reported to the Migration Alliance where RMAs unexpectedly discovered that the visa status on the record on the department of immigration’s Visa Entitlement Verification Online (VEVO) database were later held to be ‘incorrect’ by the case-officer, thus resulting in refusals of their applications.

An RMA in Perth was shocked when the case-officer in a parent visa application produced a different set of VEVO results for an applicant from the one the RMA initially found on the department’s system which claims to provide ‘a fast and convenient way” to check “current visa details and conditions”

“This is intriguing” the RMA wrote to the Migration Alliance recently, “We did a VEVO check before lodging [the] application. It [did] not show condition 8503 on the entitlement…the only condition listed was No work (8101).” The condition 8530 means that the holder will not, after entering Australia, be entitled to be granted a substantive visa, other than a Protection visa.

After lodging the application, DIBP however came back to the RMA with a totally different VEVO result which had several conditions including 8503. When queried, DIBP responded, that they operate on the same platform as everyone else and that they were, “unsure why that information was different...”

In another case, a Melbourne RMA had a student visa application refused because the case-officer found on VEVO that the applicant was not holding a valid visa at the time of application. But when the RMA checked VEVO, it had the wrong information, showing that the student was on a maritime crew visa – a visa the RMA was told the student never previously applied for.

DIBP responded to the RMA stating that it will review the matter: “A decision made by a delegate may be revisited only under very specific circumstances including where there is a clear jurisdictional error, subject to certain other specific requirements. An assessment as to whether the decision in this instance was in fact affected by jurisdictional error must be made by relevant colleagues in our Head Office. I have referred your case to the relevant people in Head Office and will revert to you once I have their response.”