雇主担保下签后被发现造假怎么办?

收到移民局的Notice of intention to consider cancellation (NOICC) 是每个在澳大利亚居留的人的噩梦。移民局如果发现签证申请材料造假是有权来取消签证的。移民局一般使用s109 条款来取消签证。
一般中介都不会接这种case, 认为NOICC加S109 就是世界末日,想都不用想。但是志杰移民有一套完整的处理S109 签证造假要取消的方案,这种方案也适用于其他PR签证取消类别。

第一步所有签证人进行隔离。 如果是主申请人签证某个材料造假,那么付申请人和子女先转换签证,比如RRV155.这样就是主申请人签证最后还是无法避免签证取消,那么付申请人的签证也可以保住,同时为争取解决主申请的签证问题创造条件。最近我碰到一个来自布里斯班的客户,雇主担保187签证,移民局怀疑她造假,把她全家人签证都取消了。她的移民律师直接就去处理她的S109签证取消的问题,没有做第一步的隔离,造成客户全家至少可以挽回的几个签证都一起没了。

第二步 找出主申请人必须在澳洲的理由。 一般来说如果申请人有小孩,移民局必须考虑签证取消后小孩的利益,AHRC 的Paul 的判例,支持我们这么做,如果申请人信教,有不同政治主张等都是refugee convention的保护对象,不可以被驱逐,那么自然也不能取消他们的签证。上次碰到那个布里斯班的客户,我认为就没有充分考虑她的宗教背景,也没有从这个客户的小孩身上做文章,导致最后签证取消。

第三步 找出移民局证据的不完整或缺乏逻辑链条,这个一般可以用在是工作经验是否真实的情况的s109 解决,如果是IELTS代考这种bogus document 的情况,不是太适用。

第四步 查看S107 Notice 是否有效 虽然Zubair v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs[2004] FCAFC 248 的case 给Tribunal很大的权力来挽回移民局的在决定中的程序失误,但是并没有给于AAT 来挽回移民局前置程序失误的权力。 Where the ground of invalidity of the primary decision arose from misconception of the substantive power, the review Tribunal remains equally bound to apply the laws defining the power of the primary decision-maker, and it may only substitute a decision which could have been made within confines of the decision-maker’s power. Thus, in the Brian Lawlor Case, the Tribunal’s only power in relation to a decision made without substantive power was to set aside that decision (c.f. Brennan J in Re Brian Lawlor Automotive Pty Ltd and Collector of Customs (NSW)(1978) 1 ALD 167 at 176) 这点也在 SZEEM v MIMIA [2005] FMCA 27)的判例中得到了法庭的进一步确认。 S109 cancellation 一般是由于客户提供了假材料,那么移民局会发出S107 noitice, 这个时候,如果能找出S107 notice 的漏洞,就可以在AAT上诉的时候拿回签证。

S107 notice 的必须满足的内容细节包括

MIGRATION ACT 1958 – SECT 107

Notice of incorrect applications

             (1)  If the Minister considers that the holder of a visa who has been immigration cleared (whether or not because of that visa) did not comply with section 101, 102, 103, 104 or 105 or with subsection (2) in a response to a notice under this section, the Minister may give the holder a notice:

                     (a)  giving particulars of the possible non-compliance; and

                     (b)  stating that, within a period stated in the notice as mentioned in subsection (1A), the holder may give the Minister a written response to the notice that:

                              (i)  if the holder disputes that there was non-compliance:

                                        (A)  shows that there was compliance; and

                                        (B)  in case the Minister decides under section 108 that, in spite of the statement under sub-subparagraph (A), there was non-compliance–shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; or

                             (ii)  if the holder accepts that there was non-compliance:

                                        (A)  give reasons for the non-compliance; and

                                        (B)  shows cause why the visa should not be cancelled; and

                     (c)  stating that the Minister will consider cancelling the visa:

                              (i)  if the holder gives the Minister oral or written notice, within the period stated as mentioned in subsection (1A), that he or she will not give a written response–when that notice is given; or

                             (ii)  if the holder gives the Minister a written response within that period–when the response is given; or

                            (iii)  otherwise–at the end of that period; and

                     (d)  setting out the effect of sections 108, 109, 111 and 112; and

                     (e)  informing the holder that the holder’s obligations under section 104 or 105 are not affected by the notice under this section; and

                      (f)  requiring the holder:

                              (i)  to tell the Minister the address at which the holder is living; and

                             (ii)  if the holder changes that address before the Minister notifies the holder of the Minister’s decision on whether there was non-compliance by the holder–to tell the Minister the changed address.

          (1A)  The period to be stated in the notice under subsection (1) must be:

                     (a)  in respect of the holder of a temporary visa–the period prescribed by the regulations or, if no period is prescribed, a reasonable period; or

                     (b)  otherwise–14 days.

          (1B)  Regulations prescribing a period for the purposes of paragraph (1A)(a) may prescribe different periods and state when a particular period is to apply, which, without limiting the generality of the power, may be to:

                     (a)  visas of a stated class; or

                     (b)  visa holders in stated circumstances; or

                     (c)  visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place); or

                     (d)  visa holders in a stated class of people (who may be visa holders in a particular place) in stated circumstances.

             (2)  If the visa holder responds to the notice, he or she must do so without making any incorrect statement.

特别移民局容易出错的地方是 ss.107(1)(a)(d) or (e)。 如果这里移民局出错,签证持有人无疑就立刻得到了解脱。

解决NOICC 是一个专业性很高的工作,而且一般只有一次机会,希望大家慎重选择移民律师。

Advertisements

关于 李博
李博,移民代理,管理学学士,移民法硕士。2003年留学来澳,曾在悉尼大学,国立大学学习法律课程并获得移民代理注册。帮助众多客户处理留学,移民过程中的签证相关问题。善于解决各类移民法律疑难问题。

One Response to 雇主担保下签后被发现造假怎么办?

  1. 匿名 says:

    求教一下,如果NOICC+s109且最终维持原判不是等于被驱逐出境吗,这样还能以后靠副申请人捞回来?

发表评论

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com 徽标

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  更改 )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  更改 )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  更改 )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  更改 )

Connecting to %s

%d 博主赞过: