Criminal or Qualified Professional? - Australian Immigration Daily News

Dear Collegues ,

You might find intereting my correspondence with 457 manager in regards to qualifications "verification " of my client from India. I got compleatly confused wheter my client is in opinion of DIBP just not qualyfied or is not qualyfied criminal who commited fraud..... so far no evidence to support any of this version have been given.

I might be wrong but in my opinion accusation of providing fabricated documnets is serious matter falling under criminal law. Accusing party suppose to present evidences of guilt before judgement.

Comments from Criminal Law specialist would be highly appreciated if DIBP can accuse people without any legal consequences having little or no evidence of guilt .

Documents I have seen in the case described below rather suggest my client is skilled genuine proffesional but I might be wrong, obviously.

On Fri, Jan 17, 2014 at 6:46 PM, Piotr Ferenc <This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. > wrote:

Dear Joanne Lumb,

Thank you for your e-mail .

In your correspondence you mentioned " given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent" which document do you refer to ? The one initially provided or the further evidence of genuine qualification provided in response to natural justice letter ?

Has document provided in response to adverse information finding been verified? I doubt it taking in to consideration time of decision and normal processing time of verification by overseas mission .

If I am right - has the officer made the valid decision not taking in to consideration all information provided ? I have a strong believe that overseas mission made mistake in their assessment and 457 visa office made no effort to clarify the issue especially that the decision of case officer says :

"You responded in writing on the 9/12/2013 claiming that the integrity and accuracy of

the processes employed by the overseas post were questionable and a letter from the

Indian University signed by the Controller of Examinations.

Whilst it is probable that you were a student at this university, I find that on balance

you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree or 5 years relevant experience

as required by the Australian Bureau of Statistics ANZSCO as a Training and

Development Professional 223311."

The officer says that " it is probable that you were a student at this university" it is on contrary to your statement that " educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent".

Your officer stats it was possible that the document is not fraudulent but no one bothered to do further investigation accusing my client of criminal conduct not only in absence of evidences but also having reasonable doubt if fraud took place . If case officer admits the Mr xxxxxxxxxx were student of the university documents provided are true and accurate in contrary to verification process that seams to be affected by negligence and lack of integrity.

Officer stats that client that " you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree.." In contrary you claim that documents are fraudulent that decision maker is not sure about . What is going on?

I asked High Commission in New Delhi for further investigation in this case as I believe decision is invalid due to judicial error:

- documents evidencing completion of bachelor degree provided in response to natural justice letter has not been verified and regarded by officer as possibly genuine

- decision on the visa was made on the basis of lack of evidences of bachelor degree " you have not demonstrated either a Bachelor degree" that we provided that constitutes judicial error due to volition of section 51 of MA.

I am shocked that decision related to PIC 4020 are taken so lightly without attention to details of the case and proper verification conducted . You say " given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent" - it is accusation of criminal conduct , can you present evidences supporting your claim . We provided documents provided by client in contrary - what evidence in contrary is in possession of your office?

Kind regards

Piotr Ferenc | Registered Migration Agent | MARN 0743766

P: +61(7) 4946 4680 | F: +61(7) 4948 2590 | M: +61 423 625 510

From: Joanne LUMB [mailto:This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it. ]
Sent: Thursday, 16 January 2014 1:58 PM
To: Piotr Ferenc
Cc: Stephen RUSSELL
Subject: Query in relation to decision on subclass 457 visa application for Mr ...........vvvvvvvv [SEC=UNCLASSIFIED]

UNCLASSIFIED

Dear Mr Ferenc

I am writing to you in response to your query, received on 19 December 2013, in regards to the refusal of the Subclass 457 visa application for Mr xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.

In your query, and subsequent communication with Departmental officers, you raised concerns that the delegate had made a jurisdictional error in the decision to refuse this application.

I have reviewed the decision and am satisfied that the delegate did not make a jurisdictional error. I am satisfied that all relevant information before the Department of Immigration and Border Protection was considered by the delegate. It was open to the delegate to find that the client did not satisfy paragraph 457.223(4)(de) of Schedule 2 to the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) on the basis that the client did not have a qualification at all, given that the educational document provided by the client was found to be fraudulent.

The non-genuine nature of the client’s purported degree meant that the client did not have the necessary qualification to effectively work in the nominated occupation in Australia. The delegate was not required to refuse the client’s application on the basis of a failure to satisfy subclause 457.224(1) of Schedule 2 to the Regulations, with particular regard to public interest criterion 4020.

In addressing your concerns, it has been noted that the timeframe for review with the Migration Review Tribunal (MRT) provided to your client was incorrect. The notification letter indicated that the client’s sponsoring employer had a 70 day period in which to lodge an application for review with the MRT. The correct timeframe for review is 21 days. Your client will be formally re-notified of the refusal decision, with an amended notification letter providing the correct timeframe within which an application for review by the MRT may be made by your client’s sponsor.

Kind regards

Joanne Lumb
Assistant Director, Temporary Work (Skilled)
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Telephone: (07) 3136 7741

Email: This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.

Website: www.immi.gov.au

(In office Monday-Wednesday; Thursday until 2pm)

UNCLASSIFIED