我的坚持最终证明是有意义的

著名音乐指挥家小泽征尔在毕业考试时有一个故事, 他所在的音乐学院毕业考试要指挥一个曲目,如果3次都没有通过,就不能毕业。他指挥演奏到某一章节时,底下3位考官亮起红灯,说这个地方你指挥的不对,要重来。 再一次演奏到这个章节时,底下3个考官又亮起红灯,说这个地方你还是指挥的不对,要重来。 第三次又到了这个地方,底下三位考官同样又亮起了红灯,说这个地方还是不对。 小泽征尔当时愤怒的把指挥棒折断,愤怒的说我肯定这个地方就是这样的,不可能不对。 这时底下三位考官鼓起了掌声,他通过了。 这个考试就是考小泽征尔对他的指挥是否有100%的信心。 一般人底下3个考官都说你不对,都会怀疑自己,我是不是弄错了。只有对自己100%有信心的人才会坚持自己的观点,就算整个世界都不同意你的看法。

我最近就碰到一个这样的case, 移民局系统immi account 说我不对,移民局Policy部门说我不对,移民官 case officer说我不对。今天终于证明我的坚持是对的。
客户是475 转887 的副申请人,在进入immi account 后,填表,如果副申请人的婚姻状态填已婚,就不可以继续下去。系统默认这种申请是不符合法律要求的。 一般申请人到这里就放弃了,immi account系统都不让继续的事情,还要钻什么牛角尖呢? 可是我记得reg.1.12 关于家庭成员的定义不是这么写的, 我重新翻看了移民法,

确定According to Reg 1.12
(8) In addition to subregulation (1), a person is a member of the family unit of an applicant for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa who seeks to satisfy the primary criteria for the grant of the visa if, at the time of application:
(a) the person holds:

(i) a Skilled — Independent Regional (Provisional) (Class UX) visa; or

(ii) a Bridging A (Class WA) visa or Bridging B (Class WB) visa granted on the basis of a valid application for:

(A) a Skilled — Independent Regional (Provisional) (Class UX) visa; or

(B) a Skilled (Provisional) (Class VC) visa; or

(C) a Skilled — Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) visa; or

(iii) a Skilled — Designated Area-sponsored (Provisional) (Class UZ) visa; or

(iv) a Subclass 475 (Skilled — Regional Sponsored) visa; or

(v) a Subclass 487 (Skilled — Regional Sponsored) visa; or

(vi) a Skilled — Regional Sponsored (Provisional) (Class SP) visa; and

(b) the visa mentioned in paragraph (a) was granted on the basis that the person was a member of the family unit of the visa holder who satisfied the primary criteria and the person is included in the application for a Skilled (Residence) (Class VB) visa.
我的理解,如果客户在475的签证时候就是付申请人,后来结婚了,一起和主申请人申请887,这种情况是可以的。

然后我发邮件给移民局policy advisory 组核实我的看法。结果得到的回复是
1) Re the ‘dependent’ inquiry, I have been advised that while the daughter in this instance may well meet 1.12(8), this clause also states that that ‘in addition to subregulation (1) …’ meaning that the daughter must also demonstrate that she meets either 1.12(1)(b) as a ‘dependent child’ of the family head or (e) as a ‘relative’ of the family head (these are the only two clauses that she would fall under for 1.12(1)).

Dependent Child

In order to satisfy reg 1.12(1)(b), the applicant must meet the definition of ‘dependent child’. Under reg 1.03, a dependent child, of a person, means the child or step-child of a person (other than a child who is engaged to be married or has a spouse or de facto partner), being a child who:

(a) has not turned 18; or
(b) has turned 18 and:
(i) is dependent on that person; or
(ii) is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the child’s bodily or mental functions.
As the daughter has a spouse, she would be unable to meet the reg 1.03 definition of ‘dependent child’.

Relative

Under policy, a child who is not considered to be a dependent child must also be assessed as a ‘relative’. This is because the reg 1.03 definition of ‘relative’ includes a ‘close relative’, which includes a child. If this path is taken, then under reg 1.12(e), a ‘relative (ie. child)’ of the family head must be a person who:

(i) does not have a spouse or de facto partner; and
(ii) is usually resident in the family head’s household; and
(iii) is dependent on the family head.

As the daughter has a spouse, she would be unable to meet (i) above, at a minimum.

Therefore, on the above information, the daughter would be unable to meet either reg 1.12(1)(b) or 1.12(1)(e) under the definition of MoFU as she has a spouse.
移民局的政策处都和我说不行。这种客户子女已经结婚的情况是不能算作家庭成员的。大部分人得到移民局这种答复一般都该放弃了。可我仍然认为我是对的。我递交了客户的887申请选了客户子女未婚,然后立即我填写了form 1023 更正了客户子女的婚姻状态,并且写了关于这个已婚子女能否作为家庭成员的submission letter.

半年的等待后,移民官case officer 拒签了我的case。

Reasons for decision

Under migration law a visa cannot be granted unless the applicant meets the legal

requirements that are specified in the Act and the Regulations. After careful consideration

of all the information you have provided, I am not satisfied that you satisfy the criteria for

the grant of VB subclass 887 (Skilled – Regional) as set out in Australian migration law.

Therefore, your application for this visa has been refused.

Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 sets out the criteria

Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 sets out the criteria to be met for the grant of

Skilled (Residence) (class VB) subclass 887 (Skilled – Regional) visa. Regulation 887.311

under subdivision 887.311 is one of the mandatory requirements for the grant of the visa and

it states:

887.311

The applicant is a member of the family unit of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in

Subdivision 887.21 and made a combined application with that person.

“Reg 1.12 Member of the family unit

(1) For the definition of member of the family unit in subsection 5(1) of the Act, and subject

to subregulations (2), (2A), (6) and (7), a person is a member of the family unit of another

person (in this subregulation called the family head) if the person is:

(a) a spouse or de facto partner of the family head; or

(b) a dependent child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head;

or

(c) a dependent child of a dependent child of the family head or of a spouse or de facto

partner of the family head; or

(e) a relative of the family head or of a spouse or de facto partner of the family head who:

(i) does not have a spouse or de facto partner; and

(ii) is usually resident in the family head’s household; and

(iii) is dependent on the family head.”

“Dependent child”, of a person, means the child or step-child of the person (other than a child

who is engaged to be married or has a spouse or de facto partner), being a child who:

(a) has not turned 18; or

(b) has turned 18 and:

(i) is dependent on that person; or

(ii) is incapacitated for work due to the total or partial loss of the child’s bodily or mental

functions.

In assessing whether the applicants XXXXXX satisfies

the requirements of subregulation 887.311 I am required to be satisfied that she is a member

of the family unit of of a person who satisfies the primary criteria in subdivision 887.21.

Documentation submitted with the visa application shows XXXXXXXis presently married and resides with her spouse at XXXXXX

Consequently, I am not satisfied that XXXXXX meets the

legislative criteria specified in regulation 887.311.

Decision

As you, XXXXXX, do not meet the legal requirements I therefore refuse to grant you

a Skilled (Residence) (class VB) subclass 887 (Skilled – Regional) visa.

Sophorn

Position Number: 60012715

Case Officer

GSM Adelaide

Department of Immigration and Border Protection

30 June 2016

事情到了这里,我已经压力很大了,是不是我过分自信导致这种后果呢? 我再一次review 客户的file 和移民法关于MFU的规定。我还是认为我是对的。

客户全家5个人来到我的办公室,怀疑我什么地方搞错了,导致她女儿拒签。 客户情绪还比较激动,加上带咖喱味的英文,基本上很难沟通。 幸运的客户带来了他们的一个朋友, 这个朋友立场还比较中立,我试着和他朋友沟通现在的情况,让他朋友去解释给客户,整整一天时间,我都在做这个解释工作, 那天真的很漫长。
我给客户提出了2套方案,
第一,我认为这个case officer 施用的法律条款不对。所以是jurisdictional error. 我们可以申请他们manager review 这个case.
第二,我们还可以AAT做上诉。
客户要走了我全套client file, 他们想自己研究,是不是我哪里弄错了。当时,我真的有点心酸,但是我想碰上这种事情,谁会无条件的再信任你呢?

第二天客户研究了我的说法和自己的file 后同意我的建议。
我写邮件给移民局要Internal review 这个case, 同时准备客户的AAT上诉。

一个星期后我得到 移民局team 10 manager Jilian N 的回复
Dear Bo Li,

Thank you for bringing this matter to the department’s attention.

You have requested that the decision to refuse XXXXX’s application be reviewed.

There is no express power within the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) to review or revisit a decision. However, there is a line of judicial authority which allows a decision-maker to revisit certain decisions where that decision is affected by a clear jurisdictional error.
If a decision is not affected by a clear jurisdictional error, then there is no legal authority for the Department to revisit that decision.

Per the standing policy guidance on finality of visa decisions, I will seek assistance in determining whether jurisdictional error has occurred, as this is a matter of some complexity.

I note the merits review timeframe involved and will ensure that my response is prompt.

Thank you for your patience in this matter.

Jillian N.
A/g Manager – General Skilled Migration Team 10 SA
Permanent Visa & Citizenship Programme Branch |
Visa and Citizenship Management Division
Visa and Citizenship Services Group
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

Jillian N 的态度是,事情有点复杂但是她可以考虑。但是移民局的回复总是这么含糊,我必须尽快lodge AAT ,不然会错过客户的21天上诉有效期。

今天又收到 Jillian N的邮件,移民局终于屈服了。在结婚子女能否作为家庭成员这个问题上,我是对的。移民局准备推翻他们原来的决定,给我一个新的决定。
Dear Bo Li,

I write regarding your email to the Department dated 01 July 2016 in relation to the decision dated 30 June 2016 to refuse Ms XXXXXX’s application for a subclass 887 Skilled – Regional visa.

You requested that the decision to refuse the application be reviewed.

In reviewing this case, the department has formed the view that the decision to refuse to grant the visa was affected by a clear jurisdictional error. Accordingly, it is proposed to revisit that decision. In doing so, I seek the client’s permission to vacate the decision. The client can do this by replying in writing within the next seven days. Failure to reply will be deemed to constitute your consent that the original decision stands.

Please note that revisiting the decision of 30 June 2016 does not necessarily mean that a subclass 887 Skilled-Regional visa will be granted.

Regards,
Jillian N.
A/g Manager – General Skilled Migration Team 10 SA
Permanent Visa & Citizenship Programme Branch |
Visa and Citizenship Management Division
Visa and Citizenship Services Group
Department of Immigration and Border Protection

同时7月13日下午又收到了Jilian N 的电话,对移民局的失误表示歉意,说下个星期一之前就会给客户准签信。 不是所有的manager 都是怎么nice的,一般manager的态度都是,你有问题到AAT说理去,我们决定作出了就不可能更改的。
最终移民局在这个问题上屈服了,我突然觉得我的坚持,最终证明是有意义的。

今天7月14日 ,客户全家5个人的PR都拿到了准签信。

Advertisements

475/495 转887,居住时间不够,唯一的解决方案。

有495,475的朋友,看错了入境时间,续签了一个487,居住时间还是不满2年。这种情况下,有的中介说,帮你递交,看你的运气了。往往签证申请以失败告终,这样的失败的case,上mrt 成功率也不高,如果能在澳洲找到专业工作去要求移民部长干预还有一线生机。其实这种情况是有一个解决方案的。
第一步主申请人持有475,副申请人转成学生签证
第二步,副申请人在主申请人475到期前申请485签证,主申请人做为485的副申请人。
第三步,主申请人递交887申请,同时持有485和887的bridging visa.
第四步 运用high Court decision in Berenguel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 8 的原则去MRT 支持这个2年的居住是at the time of decision creteria.
第5步,887 退回diac 重审
第6步, 887 下签。

关于887居住问题

今天收到了一个移民官的来信。
Dear Sir,

I wish to advise you that at this time your client does not meet the 2year living in a regional area as required for this visa. Please avise if Mr S wishs to continue with this application.

Kind regards,
Debbie

Team 21
GSM Brisbane
Department of Immigration & Citizenship
客户 Mr S 居住时间被认为竟然出了问题。移民局越来越无厘头了。

我的回复是
Mr S would like to continue his application.
The client came to Australia on 17/10/2009.
He went back to Bangladesh twice.
1st from 9/04/2010 to 25/05/2010, the total period is only 6 weeks. 46 days
2nd from 23/08/2011 to 22/10/2011, the total period is about 2 months. 60 days
He lodged the application 29/10/2011.

Today is 8/11/2011
The total period he was in South Australia is 752 days. The net period he was in SA is 646 days. He is not in SA for a total period of 84 days in past two years.

legislative requirements
887.212 the applicant must have lived in a specified regional area for a total of at least 2 years as the holder of …”
In Pam 4.2 about period spent outside a specified regional Australia. I quoted
” In considering whether an applicant has been living a specific regional area for at least two years case officer should note that short holiday during which the applicant visits a metropolitan city or travel overseas, do not detract from a period of residence.”… as this length of absence is not inconsistent with continuing to reside in a specified regional area.

High Court decision in Berenguel v Minister for Immigration and Citizenship [2010] HCA 8

Para 26 “ Although cl 885.213 is part of the group clauses headed “Criteria to be satisfied at time of application” the heading does not connect grammatically to its terms. … the text Pt885 does not support any general conclusion that the criteria in Pt 885 speak exclusively to satisfaction at the time of decision.”
Rai v Minister of Immigration and Citizenship [2010]FMCA 472
The court followed the approach of High Court in Berenguel to consideration of clause 485.214.

Discussion of relevant criteria

Mr S ‘s first travel is only 6 weeks and his second travel is on annual leave.

The length of the absence is not inconsistent with continuing to reside in a specified regional area. He maintains his job and rent in Australia which can be shown on his payslip , reference letter and his rooming house agreement. These period should not be detracted from period of residence.

The discussion of a very similar worded provision in Berenguel and Rai’s case demonstrates that the applicant could have met that criterion at any time to decision on his application, it did not need to be met when the application was lodged. If you can not make a favorable decision on clause 887.212 based on the evidences on hand, I would like to request more time to provide more evidence to prove that Mr S ‘s leave is not inconsistent to reside in specified regional area and accumulating his living period by the time of decision. 移民官你要是不批,我们就耗着积累时间,但这有什么意义呢?MRT 这种case,也是100%赢的case. 明天等回复。

经过3个月多回合的较量,终于以我们的胜利而告终。we crush the decision of DIAC officer.

887签证申请注意事项

最近有很多朋友问我转475 转887的事情。我在这里综合一下,给大家一个解答。

废话不多说,直接进入正题。

Q1 如果887的一个申请人不合要求,那887申请会怎么样。 阅读余下文章

%d 博主赞过: