British couple deported for failing to meet visa conditions

[sianvz]

I think the topic is very interesting as people say it's just a moral obligation even though you have signed an agreement with that state.

Yes I agree their use of the word "moral" obligation leads people to think it is not set in stone. But you sign an affidavit stating that you agree to abide by that moral obligation, which is a legal document.

I think the reason why they can't call it a "legal" obligation, is because they do not guarantee employment or help you find a job, so they would sit with a legal issue of their own if people say they can't uphold their obligations for state sponsorship but the state cannot help them to do so.

The regional visa, as mentioned previously, has DIAC obligations which is a whole different story, the DIAC can actually deport you as we have seen here. With state sponsorship, the state has up until your visa is granted to revoke their sponsorship if they feel you are not genuine, but once the visa is granted, they would have to report you to the DIAC if they feel you never intended to uphold your obligations and would have to prove their case and all sorts, so not really a simple matter of instant deportation.

[sianvz]

ACT is small enough you can spit across it, so you should be fine anywhere in the Canberra area ACT - you do know that there's another part to the ACT don't you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACT-Jervis_Bay-Sydney-MJC.png

There's also the Jervis Bay part .......

I have just emailed my agent to ask if it is classified as part of ACT for state sponsorship purposes. Will get back to you on his answer.

If anyone else has already found this out officially, please feel free to advise!

[Eyebrow]

Eyebrow, they were not here on a 457, they came on a regional visa to live and work, but upon arrival did not live and work in the regional area as laid down by their visa.

Hi

Thanx

Just saw it was a 475 NOT a 457.

Am a bit jumpy!

[Fish]

I think the penalty was out of proportion to the offence. The difference between Calamvale and Browns Plains is nothing. In reality they are two very similar outer suburbs of Brisbane right next to each other. As they had established a useful contributing life in that local community I would have been happy for them to stay and have a lesser penalty for not informing DIAC. Of course there may be more to the story that tips things the other way.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Fish

[sianvz]

I think the penalty was out of proportion to the offence. The difference between Calamvale and Browns Plains is nothing. In reality they are two very similar outer suburbs of Brisbane right next to each other. As they had established a useful contributing life in that local community I would have been happy for them to stay and have a lesser penalty for not informing DIAC. Of course there may be more to the story that tips things the other way.

I do agree that they could have confronted the couple about this and allowed them to make it right, for example making them move now to a regional area and report back to prove that they are now abiding by their obligations given the slight chance that they misunderstood the exact towns classified as regional rather as an area and because no one told them then they just carried on as they were.

But surely they did know the rules when they applied for that visa? There is a reason why a specific suburb/town is classified as regional. That is the sole reason for them having a regional visa, so that those suburbs/towns get more skilled people working there because they are obviously lacking in skilled workers, not the town a few miles away, otherwise that town would also be classified as regional. It's not about the distance between towns.

Perhaps immigration want to make a point here publically that this is not to be taken lightly in order to deter people from doing this in the future. There is a reason why this is a temporary visa, because you have obligations that you must uphold, so if you don't, you're out. You only get the visa because you commit to living in a regional town. Simple as that.

[Toitjie]

I have a 176 SS visa, the old name for state sponsored visa (ACT) but on my grant letter it says

Visa conditions

The visa you have been granted has no conditions

[OzzieWishes]

haven't read the full story but just following the gist, i'd say that if you breach the conditions then tough luck! there is no way they didn't know! sorry i've worked damn hard to get into Oz and know the ins and outs of each visa as clearly stipulated all over their websites. Also, if that's the visa you got in on then you have an obligation to the ozzies to do your bit. There are many of us who have fought hard to get in and many more who are still fighting the long, frustrating battle. It's just like the people who get in on a 190 (State sponsored), sign an obligation to live in the state and then push off to the place of their choice...it's just not right

that said, the humane side of me does feel a tad sorry for them!

[rozellem]

Of course there may be more to the story that tips things the other way.

The Daily Mail (aka Daily Wail, Daily Fail, etc) is a melodramatic, sensationalist newspaper. They invented one sided reporting. Will bet there is more to it.

[Springjock]

I was going to day that too. I guarantee we aren't hearing the full story.

[Fish]

I do agree that they could have confronted the couple about this and allowed them to make it right, for example making them move now to a regional area and report back to prove that they are now abiding by their obligations given the slight chance that they misunderstood the exact towns classified as regional rather as an area and because no one told them then they just carried on as they were.

But surely they did know the rules when they applied for that visa? There is a reason why a specific suburb/town is classified as regional. That is the sole reason for them having a regional visa, so that those suburbs/towns get more skilled people working there because they are obviously lacking in skilled workers, not the town a few miles away, otherwise that town would also be classified as regional. It's not about the distance between towns.

Perhaps immigration want to make a point here publically that this is not to be taken lightly in order to deter people from doing this in the future. There is a reason why this is a temporary visa, because you have obligations that you must uphold, so if you don't, you're out. You only get the visa because you commit to living in a regional town. Simple as that.

I would understand the severity of the punishment if they were actual towns...but in reality they are suburbs close to each other where you couldn't tell where one ends and the next begins. If you ask anyone the difference between calamvale and browns plains they couldn't tell you. Just artificial suburb boundaries. I think they are just unfortunate that browns plains falls within the logan city council and calamvale the brisbane city council. Obviously the DIAC has to draw the boundary somewhere but if they found good demand for their work "just" outside this area then I think it is just reflecting the impossibility of DIAC getting it exactly right.

I don't disagree they broke the rules, just that the severity of the punishment seems over the top. But, yes, there is usually more to any story like this that we'll probably not find out.

Edited February 21, 2013 by Fish

[Ajay]

People, don't gety lost in semantics here. Bottom line - if you are on a state sponsored visa, you are obliged to remain in that state for 2 years. Don't forget, you were granted extra points to help you meet the required minimum in return for that obligation. You file tax returns each year which will specify what postal code your income is being derived from and which postal code you're residing in - it isn't rocket science to be found.

If you genionely are unable to meet the obligation, then the least you can do is advise your sponsoring state, who will let you know whether or not they are prepared to release you from the obligation. If they don't, then they may tell DIAC that they are withdrawing sponsorship, and DIAC may contact you to ask why they shouldn't cancel the visa, based on your failure to adhere to your state obligation. Moral obligation, legal requirement - it doesn't matter. The fact is that you hold that visa because you made a commitment. In Australia, that means something, even if it doesn't any more back in good old SA.

Here, you are taken at your word, so it's shockingly easy to 'do the wrong thing'. It's a society built on trust and honesty - they expect you buy a train ticket, even though there aren't any turnstiles for you to go through at many stations, they expect you to return a mobile phone that you find on a park bench, they expect you to pay for the sweets openly available in the cardboard box by popping the right amount of money into the box next to it......and they expect you to live in the area that offered you sponsorship to their state and gave you the points you needed to get here. With the weight of that expectation, you'll be surprised at how hard it is to 'do the wrong thing' - it just doesn't feel right. And that's what so amazing about living here.....don't muck that up by hiding behind things like ' moral obligations' not really counting.

[AndreaL]

Wow Ajay you really nailed the essence of what makes Australia work and why those of us who love it here so much get upset when people don't do the right thing.

I too was drawn into the " oh but it's only a little transgression" thinking in regard to this case, and of course the way it was reported in the UK media, but you're right, if just 10% of the country didn't put the money in the chocolate box at work, or the honesty box at the lady who sells mangos or veg locally, or pay for for their train ticket.....well that would be over two million people bucking the system.

And we don't like people who do the wrong thing here, do we?. Or at least we don't like it and get a bit miffed, but usually give them a chance to come clean and make things right. It's the fair go principle.

[Fish]

As an Aussie I think if these people were making a positive contribution to my country, had strong community ties, had in-demand skills and lived and worked in the general area they were meant to (but were "slightly" out) then it was over the top to throw them out. Sometimes people have to adjust the rules because rules are generic guesswork, real life is more specific when looking for jobs in a new country. The families transgression was obviously not informing the department but the punishment just seems to have cost the family extreme grief and lost Australia money and skills unnecessarily. The family was not stealing anything, they were still making a positive contribution. Again, I am only going on the facts presented, not the full story.

If they didn't put money in an honesty box on the other hand I would seriously deport them

Edited February 22, 2013 by Fish

[HadEnoughofJuju]

Thank you Ajay, I was looking for the words but was struggling to find them. It annoys me when people say "it's only a moral obligation" or "it's a gentleman's agreement". As you say the sponsoring state gave you the points you needed to get in, the least you could do is live up to your end of the bargain. If everyone just did what they wanted then well we would be living in South Africa and I for one do not want that.

We initially thought that the only way we would get a visa was to go for a 190 SS with sponsorship from ACT and we decided in the end to wait it out for an invite for a 189 instead because we were not prepared to live in ACT for 2 years due to the cold weather and my child always being sick in winter.

Another thing that get me is the fact that by people continually not "meeting their moral obligations" the states could make the decision to stop sponsorship ruining it for others who only have that option.

[sianvz]

ACT is small enough you can spit across it, so you should be fine anywhere in the Canberra area ACT - you do know that there's another part to the ACT don't you? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:ACT-Jervis_Bay-Sydney-MJC.png

There's also the Jervis Bay part .......

Ok so my agent has responded that he has searched thoroughly and cannot get any written clarification that Jervis Bay is considered part of ACT for State Sponsorship reasons or that it isn't. He does say however, that he does not feel that there are job opportunities or infrustructure in place anyway to be able to live and work within the small coundary of Jervis Bay.

[africancowgirl]

@ParkerInc - thanks for the info (silly but every little possibility for error makes me nervous at this stage

@OBD - thank you also...Jervis Bay Territory an interesting anomaly. Will be looking into that just for fun. BTW, with ACT being so small I look forward to being within "spitting" distance of you and your family (Don't say you weren't warned!)

[OubaasDik]

Ok so my agent has responded that he has searched thoroughly and cannot get any written clarification that Jervis Bay is considered part of ACT for State Sponsorship reasons or that it isn't. He does say however, that he does not feel that there are job opportunities or infrustructure in place anyway to be able to live and work within the small coundary of Jervis Bay.

I mentioned it more for the sake of completeness, not necessarily suggesting you'd have to move there. I think the whole place is a naval base ..... but again I'm not sure.

[KallieGriz]

Is this one of the reasons the federal government is clamping down on 457 visa?,saw it on the news today..

[Mara]

KallieGriz, this news story is about a 475 visa not a 457, confusing, I know.

[AndreaL]

Is this one of the reasons the federal government is clamping down on 457 visa?,saw it on the news today..

Talking about the 457 temporary visa now and not the 475 Skilled Regional Sponsored Provisonal.

The 457 temp visa is often used as a political scapegoat, particularly as we near election time, many Australians cannot understand why workers should be imported when there have been Australian job losses or Australians who are unemployed. Further, there are some resource industries that would like to source the majority of workers for certain projects from overseas..............they forget that the 457 visa is a temporary visa to recruit skilled workers that a company has to demonstrate they cannot find in Australia, and that companies using the 457 visa must pay a percentage of their payroll to training Australians.

This has been going on for all of the 7 years I have been here.