CPA 2015 年7月1日的改革

CPA,CA, IPA 宣布在7月1日对职业评估做出改变。志杰移民和其他中介的看法大相径庭,我们认为认为变化是微小的,对澳洲会计专业毕业生影响是不大的。

首先 从这次通知的用词上看,Minor changes to the assessment criteria will be implemented with effect from Wednesday 1 July. Minor 的意思就是不大的。不十分重要的意思。

其次看这次改变的实际内容。
1 看总体
认可课程项目从原来的12个缩减为9个,申请人必须满足合并后课程的7个科目。(7 out of 9) 现在这政策是4个必选,5个选修 一共在12 个里面选(9 out of 12)。从概率上来说,7/9=77% 9/12=75% 差不多
2 看细节
a 原来的4 个必选科目 Accounting Systems and Processes (ASP), Financial Accounting (FA), Management Accounting(MA),Accounting Theory(AT) ,现在变为7个必须项目,加上了business law, economics 和quantitative method。
如果是澳洲大学会计专业的毕业生,这7个科目都是必须选择的core course。你上学不选这些科目根本不能毕业。

b 合并了FA and AT 假设你过了AT 没有过FA, 那么AT不再被计算在后面的9门项目里。(按照现行的政策FA 也必须要过的,结果没区别)

c Commercial law and corporation law 合并为了business Law. 其实CPA 的意见是commercial law, corporation law 都叫做business law, 他们很多课程都是交叉的
澳洲大学这2个项目课程的开设分为2种情况。
第一种是以UNISA和kaplan 为代表的2合1开设法
拿UNISA来说
Commercial Law 和 Corporations Law 原来这两个都是由一门课对应的 COML5009 Commercial Law M
拿Kaplan来说
Commercial law 和 corporations law 对应的都是 CLWM4000 Business and Corporations Law
如果你上的是这第一类大学,这个细节的变化对你就不是一个变化。本来学校就是把这2个科目合并在一起的。
第二种是以adelaide 大学和federation 大学为代表的分别开设法。
拿Adelaide大学来说
Commercial Law 对应的课程是 COMMERCE 7021 Commercial Law and Accounting Information Systems (M)
Corporations Law 对应的课程是 COMMLAW7011 Corporate Law (M)
拿federaion uni 来说
Commercial Law 对应的是 BULAW5914 Commercial Law
Corporations Law 对应的是 BULAW5915 Corporate Law
这个变化从CPA要求的角度来看,是宽松了,可以用commercial law 或 corporations law 来满足这个项目。但是学校这2个科目都是会计必修啊,不都过了没法毕业的。
综上所述,不管是哪一类,这些课都是必选课,如果你不选根本不能会计专业毕业。

d 去除了accounting information system 这门课。 这样是大学会计专业的必选课,一般你都要选的。 你没有选不可能会计毕业。
如果你是学别的专业比如marketing 辅修会计,那么新的政策反而对你有利,这门课可以不学了。

如果和海外客户,职业评估项目的要求比原来变的看起来严格了, 有影响么? 志杰移民认为实际上也不存在,试问哪个中国的会计本科没有经济学,经济法和统计学这3门课? 我从没碰到过这么奇葩的中国会计客户。 所以实际也没有什么影响。反而corporations law 和 commercial law 合并了以后会更容易通过这一项目的评估。

唯一理论上影响的客户是,第一不是会计专业, 第二通过了会计师的考试,比如可以参加自学澳洲CPA或者ACCA的考试,或者辅修会计专业。
第三他没有通过CPA或ACCA考试里面的经济学,经济法或者统计学考试,或者辅修的时候没有选这3门课。这种客户理论上存在,但是人数会相当的少。

Advertisements

如果485签证时间不满10个月怎么读PY

会计要拿职业评估有2条路,一条是考4个7 ,简单明了,还有一条是PY,时间长,花钱多,但很稳定。 很多同学都立志考4个7移民,但是随着时间的推移,渐渐的签证时间就不足10个月了。再想返回去读PY已经发现没人收了。真是一招失算,满盘皆输啊。原来还有几家大胆的PY机构敢有条件的收这些同学,但是最近PY审计过后,明确禁止签证时间不满10个月的同学入学。怎么破?
志杰移民给出一个解决方案,那就是利用402 签证。
402 签证原来叫442 签证,现在改名叫training and research visa subclass 402.
这个签证是为毕业生提供培训机会的。毕业生刚毕业,找不到工作,这个签证是为毕业生参加培训准备的。有了subclass 485之后, subclass 402签证 只是个鸡肋。没有什么真正派上用场的机会。现在这个签证正好可以破485签证时间不够的问题。

subclass 402 为什么一直当成是鸡肋?这个是由于他变态的要求决定的。
subclass 402 是一类担保型签证。申请人需要得到担保。
待续

摆脱4020限制的一种情况

Minister for Immigration and Border Protection v Dhillon [2014] FCAFC 157 (21 November 2014)

Each of these particulars related to the one fact upon which the Public Interest Criterion depended, namely, whether the claim made by Mr Dhillon of having worked 900 hours and stated in the reference letter obtained by Mr Dhillon from Ms Galanos was fraudulent. What was absent from the information in the particulars given under s 359A, however, was the statement found in the redacted material that Mr Amarante had no way of knowing whether the students actually completed the training. It is true that that statement was found in an agreed statement of facts and not in the statements initially made by Mr Amarante on which the particulars relied upon by the Tribunal appeared to be based, but s 359A is not concerned with the source of the information in the particulars given. However, whilst it may be accepted, as the Minister contended, that the Tribunal had no obligation under s 359A(1) to give Mr Dhillon particulars of the information in the redacted material to the extent that it was not adverse, the Tribunal also had obligations under s 357A(3) to act in a way that is fair and just, and under s 360(1) to provide Mr Dhillon with a real chance to present his case. The Tribunal’s decision not to give Mr Dhillon access to the redacted material (by wrongly deciding not to provide access under s 362A(1)) meant that the Tribunal decided the Public Interest Criterion without the fair hearing to which Mr Dhillon was entitled under s 360 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth)….The appeal will be allowed and the decision of the Federal Circuit Court will be set aside. The decision of the Tribunal will therefore be affirmed but, for the avoidance of doubt, the orders should record by declaration that the Tribunal erred in its decision in relation to the Public Interest Criterion 4020.

关于485 closely related 的理解

很多485的拒签都是由于移民官认为申请人的2个课程不closely related 不满足485.213(b) each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation的要求。志杰移民认为最近的一个法院判例 Tobon v Minister for Immigration & Anor [2014] FCCA 2208 (26 September 2014) 可以帮助大家解决这个方面的疑惑,也是以后解决此类拒签问题的利器。在讨论 diploma of HR 和 civil engineer 是否相关的问题上 Manousaridis 法官判决移民局和MRT败诉, 他是这么理解这个问题的 第一… This implies that the Tribunal construed cl.485.213(b) as requiring that the skills, or at least a substantial proportion of the skills for which a diploma is awarded are skills that can only be used in the nominated skilled occupation.On my reading of cl.485.213(b), there is no warrant for such a construction… 也就是申请所学的课程并没有要求大多数应用于提名专业上。
第二 PAM 关于这个定义不符合法律要求 under policy, the critical factor in determining whether a qualification is closely related to the nominated skilled occupation is whether the skill set/s underpinning the qualification/s are directly transferable to the nominated occupation, in terms of both subject matter and the level of qualification at which those skills were obtained…those words do not reflect an accepted construction of cl.485.213(b)..
第三 如果这个课程的大部分内容和提名专业的ANZSCO定义某一技能对应就可以认为紧密相关 。If all or a substantial part of a diploma results in skills that form part of the skill set of the nominated skilled occupation, cl.485.213(b) would be satisfied…That a diploma results in conferring skills, all or a substantial part of which form part of the skill set of the nominated occupation, is sufficient to establish a close relation between the diploma and the nominated skilled occupation…
我们志杰移民认为,有了这个法院判例我们有信心赢得多数的关于closely related 485.213 问题的拒签case.

又一个最近的案例

http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCAFC/2015/115.html

  1. Of course, it is ultimately a matter for the primary decision-maker and, on a statutory review, the Tribunal, to decide whether Mr Talha’s Australian studies are “closely related” to his nominated skilled occupation. But in carrying out the evaluative exercise it is critical that the whole of Mr Talha’s Australian studies be compared with the whole of his nominated occupation, as established in previous decisions of the Court, including Dhillon at [20] per Allsop CJ, Murphy and Pagone J, Constantino at [26] per Jacobson J and Bhanot at [29] per Perry J. As the Full Court stated in Dhillonat [20]:

The words “closely related” are not specifically defined in the Regulations or the relevant statutes but require, and call attention to, the connection between two things. The task to be undertaken to determine whether a qualification is “closely related” to a nominated occupation does not require the finding of an exact correspondence between the two but it does require “that the whole of the qualification must be compared with the whole of the occupation to determine whether the necessary close relationship exists”: Constantino v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2013] FCA 1301, [26]. That is what the Tribunal did. The Tribunal informed itself about the nature of the skilled occupation of pastry cook by considering the Australian Standard Classification of Occupations (ASCO) and compared that with the course content submitted by Mr Dhillon for the units undertaken by him in the business management course completed at the Nova Institute. At [91] the Tribunal considered that the requirement of a qualification being “closely related” to the nominated occupation required that the relationship between the skills gained in the qualification were more than merely complementary to the occupation or that the skills could be used in that occupation. The Tribunal did not ask itself an incorrect question when determining whether the qualifications relied upon by Mr Dhillon were closely related to his nominated profession of pastry cook (see Bhanot v Minister for Immigration and Border Protection [2014] FCA 848, [21], [24], [38]) and on the materials its finding was open to the Tribunal.

已经回国的毕业生如何申请485

毕业生签证temporary graduate visa subclass 485必须要境内申请还必须要毕业6个月之内申请,如果原来澳洲的毕业生,已经回国就无法满足毕业6个月的要求。
有什么办法可以解决呢?
我们先来看看法律的规定
485.221
[485.221] The applicant satisfied the Australian study requirement in the period of 6 months immediately before the day the application was made.
这条法律规定的是申请人必须在申请前6个月满足澳洲学习的规定的要求。
澳洲学习的定义是
Reg 1.15F Australian study requirement

[1.15F] (1) A person satisfies the Australian study requirement if the person satisfies the Minister that the person has completed 1 or more degrees, diplomas or trade qualifications for award by an Australian educational institution as a result of a course or courses:

(a) that are registered courses; and

(b) that were completed in a total of at least 16 calendar months; and

(c) that were completed as a result of a total of at least 2 academic years study; and

(d) for which all instruction was conducted in English; and

(e) that the applicant undertook while in Australia as the holder of a visa authorising the applicant to study.

值得注意的是这里并没有规定学习的相关性问题,只规定了1 课程性质 2课程总长度,3 课程注册总长度 4 英文授课,5 有合法签证

所以客户入境持旅游签证,或者持有学生签证补读一门diploma课程是可以的

485.222
[485.222] Each degree, diploma or trade qualification used to satisfy the Australian study requirement is closely related to the applicant’s nominated skilled occupation.
这里规定了相关性问题,但又没有规定6个月的问题。 注意用词是each 不是every.这可以说是一个定义的漏洞。 如果485.222 把each 改成every 这个漏洞就堵上了。 但这样又会影响很多其他人。

综上所述, 最大胆的方法是让学生持旅游签证入境读13周的课程,然后申请485. 保险一点的方法是持学生签证入境读个短期的diploma 申请485. 这种安排,钻了移民法的一个漏洞,是完全符合移民法要求的。

如果递交485的时候没有收到职业评估结果怎么办

7月1日的移民法规定,递交485签证时必须拿到职业评估结果。如果你递交了485签证,又没拿到职业评估结果的处理方法是。
在移民官拒签之前withdraw 你原来的485申请。
重新填写一次申请表,等职业评估结果出来,用纸签再递交一次485签证

澳大利亚移民的健康要求

澳大利亚移民的健康要求对平常人来说不是个问题,但是总有客户的家庭成员有这样或那样的健康问题。这些问题可能就会对申请签证造成困扰。现在澳洲对残障和重大疾病人士的移民评估是有些欠缺公平的。澳大利亚, 1992年颁布了Disability discrimination act (反歧视残障人士法) ,2008年加入了联合国 convention on the rights of persons with a disablity(残障人士权利公约). 但移民法对于残障人士 里的规定不大符合反歧视法和联合国公约的精神的。澳洲在这个问题上采取的双重标准,国内法一套标准,移民法一套标准。这里我不想谈澳洲立法问题,我相信随着时间的推移澳洲会采取更公平的对待残障人士移民的态度,而不仅仅把他们当成负担,计算社会支出,而是作为一项可以提供就业机会的财富。 我主要想探讨一下这个双重标准给签证申请人造成的困难和可能的解决办法。

移民法 Section 60 规定 Minister may require that an applicant undergo an examination of that person’s health, physical condition or mental condition, by a person qualified to determine the applicant’s health as a precondition to grant visa. 移民局有权力要求申请人体检。

Section 65 规定 移民官采纳MOC 联邦健康官的意见做这个决定

Section 474 规定所有移民局的决定都是final and conlusive的最终裁定 (privative clause decision)。

移民条例规定了3中Public interest criteria (PICs) 4005,4006A 4007.分别适用于不同的签证类别。

4005 规定是最严苛的 申请人必须 1 free from tb (没有肺结核) 和危害公共安全的疾病和状态。理论上没有过于花费巨大的疾病和影响澳洲整体医疗效率的疾病。(这里只谈理论上)

以下情况都会被这条要求卡住, 1 dialysis, 2 organ transplants, 3 blood /plasma produts including coagulation factors and immunoglobulin,4 fresh blood, or blood components for rare blood group people

5 knee and hip joint replacement. 各类肿瘤患者,各种残疾病人,自闭症,

 

4006A 和4007 分别规定了豁免条款。

4006A可以理解为雇主承诺豁免条款,一般适用457签证

4007 是 移民部长特别豁免条款 申请人可提供额外的医疗报告,其他经济上,社会上和其他原因说服移民官。一般适用2阶段的第二阶段签证和家庭类别签证。

Onshore protection visa 不受这些条款限制

综上所述我们志杰移民的解决方案是。

如果不幸卡在健康条款上,首先要做的是避开4005 条件的签证类别,在这些类别上,健康要求这些是不可以商量的。可以采取的方式是防火墙式分割出受影响家庭成员,使其不满足dependent 的要求。

然后主要家庭成员拿到PR后,尽量在澳洲争取好的就业机会,并重新让受影响的成员满足dependent 的要求。申请家庭类别签证。并采用4007上规定的方法向移民官或MRT陈情。

Recent assessments from the Medical Officer of the Commonwealth

Case 1 Asymptomatic multiple sclerosis Female 25 years old Pharmaceuticals $1,220,000.00 Medical services $53,350.00 Total $1,273,350.00

Case 2 Severe Thalassemia Female 3 years of age Medical services $5,922,000.00 Total $5,922,000.00

Case 3 Asymptomatic Chronic Viral Hepatitis B Male 30 years of age Pharmaceuticals $264,000.00 Medical services $71,500.00 Total $335,500.00

Case 4 Asymptomatic HIV Male 48 years of age Pharmaceuticals $425,634.00 Medical services $43,065.00 Total $468,699.00 Breakdown Medical services $1,305 x 33 years = $43,065.00 Pharmaceuticals $12,898 X 33 years = $425,634.00 Total $468,699.00

Case 5 Asymptomatic HIV Male 27 years old Pharmaceuticals $648,000.00 Medical services $81,000.00 Total $729,000.00

Case 4 was recently granted a Subclass 186 visa in the transitional stream while the other applications are pending before the Department or the Administrative Appeals Tribunal.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

%d 博主赞过: