When the announcement was made as part of the 2009-10 Budget that the fees were set to increase as of 1 July 2009, no confirmation was given regarding exactly which visa charges the increase would apply to.

Through thoroughly researching all the materials made available following the announcement, we predicted that the increase would apply to the visa application charges of skilled visas (i.e. subclasses 175, 176 and 475), and result in a full 20 per cent increase, leading to the skilled visa fee rising from AU$2,105 to AU$2,525.

Today, our prediction was proved correct through the formal release by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) today of Form 990i, which details all the application fees as they will be from 1 July and confirms that the skilled visa application fee will be AU$2,525 as of 1 July 2009.

Additionally, the application fees for spouse/family visas (i.e. subclasses 100, 110, 300, 309 and 310) saw the same 20 per cent increase, and rose from AU$1,420 to approx. AU$1,705.

Comparably, the fee increases for the skilled and spouse/family visa subclasses weren't quite as substantial as they were for other subclasses; for example, the contributory parent (migrant) visa subclass went from having a first instalment fee of AU$1,420 and second instalment fee of AU$32,725 to a first instalment fee of AU$1,705 and a second instalment fee of AU$34,330. As a result, it's essentially an increase of almost AU$2,000 per applicant (or approx. AU$3,500 for a couple).

I understand that this news will come as another source of frustration to our clients and the many applicants who will be affected by this price increase, but there's very little that can be done.

While the increased cost of emigrating to Australia can be avoided by ensuring you lodge your application so that it reaches DIAC before 1 July, there's no way that an applicant lodging after this date will be able to avoid the new fee structure.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

One issue that we covered briefly upon its announcement as part of our blog on the 2009/10 Australian budget is the increased English language requirement for applicants for Australian visas who work in trades-related occupations.

Previously, skilled migration tradespeople who were NOT passport holders of the UK, Ireland, the US, Canada or New Zealand were required to achieve what was termed a 'vocational' level of English, which required a score at least 5.0 out of 9.0 in each of the 4 competencies (listening, reading, writing and speaking) of an International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test.

However, from 1 July 2009, the vocational level will cease to exist, and these same applicants must now score a higher score of at least 6.0 out of 9.0 in each of the 4 competencies (which is termed a 'competent' level of English). While additional restrictions are being applied to many aspects of the visa application process, the removal of English language concessions for tradespeople does raise some questions that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) haven't yet addressed.

As far as I have seen, the only public remarks they have made on the changes are as follows (as sourced from this page on the DIAC website):

"The aim of the GSM Program is to select migrants who, because of the skills they possess, are more likely to find skilled employment shortly after they arrive in Australia. A high level of English language ability is recognised as being essential for achieving this objective.

The English language requirement for GSM applicants nominating a trade occupation will be increased to a minimum of 6.0 (Competent English) in each of the four components of the International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test. This increase in the IELTS score brings the English language requirement for trade occupations in line with other occupations for GSM visas, with trade occupations previously exempt from GSM changes introduced in September 2007."

While DIAC's arguments that they are trying to improve the employability of new migrants and are simply bringing the English language requirements for tradespeople in line with other occupations has some merit, it still feels like more justification is needed.

For example, is the English language level being raised due to a safety factor? It's possible that tradespeople without good English language skills could be perceived as a hazard, given the inherent danger present on any building site or workplace where power tools are used and the necessity for clear, concise communication at all times in such situations.

However, at the moment, there is so much room for interpretation that it's very hard for us to know exactly what sparked the changes.

Regardless of whether DIAC give any further reasoning for their decision, the fact remains that after 1 July, it is going to be much harder for many skilled workers to demonstrate their eligibilty for an Australian visa when they would have previously qualified. There's little advice that I can give, except to emphasise how important it is for anyone who might be affected to lodge their Australian visa application ASAP, if possible.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

Are further Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) changes to the Australian skilled visa program on the horizon?  It's already been a busy year, and a recent skilled migration forum with the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA) gives the impression that applicants should expect even more Australian skilled visa changes as the year progresses.

Presenting at the forum was Peter Speldewinde, Assistant Secretary for the Labour Market Branch of DIAC, who indicated that changes were being considered in the following areas:

• Further reviews of the Critical Skills List (CSL)
• Standardise the English language requirement
• A pathway to General Skilled Migration (GSM) for subclass 457 visa holders
• Introduction of a Job-ready test
• Review of the Australian skilled visa points test
• Review of the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL)
• Review of the Business Skills program
• Review of the requirements for the Employer Nomination Scheme (ENS) and Regional Skilled Migration Scheme (RSMS)
• An entirely new skilled migrant selection model

Unfortunately, we don't know anything beyond the fact that the above items are all going to be under consideration. However,  if you're a skilled visa applicant and you're able to lodge sooner rather than later, I'd certainly recommend that you do so.

However, even if you aren't able to lodge your application soon, please don't worry or panic; just be aware that 2009 is likely to see even more Australian skilled visa changes. More news on all these potential changes will be posted as we receive it.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

Processing times continue to dominate the concerns of people on the road to emigrating to Australia, with the changes introduced earlier this year (which we've covered in a previous blog) still causing frustration for thousands stuck in the application process for a skilled visa for Australia.

However, even applicants who have been assigned Priority 1 status are finding difficulties with the new formalities, with the listed '10 day' processing time causing confusion amongst many.

Priority processing and timeframes

To explain, visa applicants are now assigned a level of priority by the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) after lodging their application. The order currently stands as follows (listed from highest priority to lowest):

• Priority 1) Applicants who have a successful State & Territory Nomination; THEN
• Priority 2) Applicants where the nominated occupation is on the Critical Skills List (CSL); THEN
• Priority 3) Applicants where the nominated occupation is on the Migration Occupations in Demand List (MODL); THEN
• Priority 4) All other remaining applicants.

However, even though the above priorities encompass all skilled visa Australia applicants, only Priority 1 and Priority 2 applicants have been given a set length of time in which they should expect their visas to enter processing. The timeframes are as follows:

• Priority 1) Applicants will enter processing within 10 days of lodging their visa.
• Priority 2) Applicants will enter processing within 4 months of lodging their visa.
• Priority 3) Indefinite (Priority 3 applicants will only enter processing after all Priority 1 and 2 applicants have been processed).
• Priority 4) Indefinite (Priority 4 applicants will only enter processing after all Priority 1, 2 and 3 applicants have been processed).

The '10 day' timeframe given for Priority 1 applicants is confusing, with some incorrectly assuming that 10 days after lodging their state sponsored Skilled Sponsored (subclass 176) visa for Australia application, a DIAC case officer will be in touch to request the police and medical checks for the final stage of the application process. Unfortunately, this is very rarely the case due to the state nomination application process.

State nomination application process

What is the state nomination application process and how does it affect the '10 day' timeframe?

The timeframe is often different due to the state nomination application process that must be completed before a lodged subclass 176 visa can enter processing.

To explain, applicants for a state sponsored Skilled Sponsored (subclass 176) visa can be divided into two types for this purpose; applicants that lodged to DIAC as a subclass 176 from the beginning, and those who lodged a subclass 175 and now want to be considered for a subclass 176 visa. 

We've found that the first type (i.e. applicants who have been preparing to lodge a subclass 176 visa application from the very start of the process) will typically not be subject to a significant delay in having their visas enter processing because they will have already completed the state nomination application process and had the relevant form (i.e. Form 1100) submitted to DIAC before they even lodged their visa application.  For these applicants, it should typically take approx. 3 to 4 weeks from lodging their application to be allocated a case officer and enter processing, but we have seen it sometimes take longer.

However, as the second type (i.e. applicants who 'switched' to a subclass 176 application later in the process) had NOT already lodged the state nomination application when they lodged their application to DIAC, there are a number of things that have to happen for these applications to be considered eligible under subclass 176 and for processing by DIAC to continue.

As previously reported, the timeframes in which the states are deliberating has increased, with some (such as Western Australian) taking in excess of 3 months to decide if they wish to approve your state nomination application.

However, after the state has sent you notification that they are willing to sponsor you, there are still a number of other administrative tasks that need to be completed. In order for DIAC to begin or continue processing an application under subclass 176, they will have to wait for all the necessary steps following a successful state nomination to be completed.  

What are the necessary steps and how long should it take for them to be completed?

The steps involved depend somewhat on the state, but there is generally the requirement that a document/declaration be completed by the applicant which indicates that the applicant agrees to certain requirements of the sponsorship (i.e. that they will reside in the sponsoring state for 2 years, that they will transfer a certain amount of money to Australia, that they will participate in settlement surveys conducted by the state following their migration etc.)

Along with this agreement, the applicant (or agent) also needs to provide their DIAC file reference number to the sponsoring state. Only once the state has both this file reference number and an indication that the applicant agrees to the terms of the sponsorship will the state complete a Form 1100 and forward it directly to DIAC.

This is quite a bit of paperwork, and means there are a number of places where there could be delays faced or a clerical error that holds the whole process up.

How do the states differ in processing a state nomination application?

Each state has different rules when it comes to processing a state nomination application. For example, the South Australian government have proactively reacted to their new workload and they are now asking the client  to record the required information in an online portal, which they can then push through to DIAC, making the management of the situation easier and shortening the chain of events, and the time in which it takes for it to be done.

However, some other states still have a more cumbersome process that requires the declaration to be sent to the client, the signed declaration to be sent from the client to the state, the state to complete the Form 1100, and the completed Form 1100 to be sent from the state to DIAC.

These steps can take anywhere from a few days to a few weeks or months depending on the workload, and as an acknowledgement is not given when a state forwards an applicant's details to DIAC, it is still somewhat shrouded in mystery.

Once DIAC receives the state nomination, can I assume I will be entered into processing within 10 days?

Once DIAC receives a state nomination, they need to record the fact a nomination has been approved on their system, which is another part of the process that takes time, is not mentioned often and is somewhat hidden from the eyes of applicants and/or their migration agents. Recent correspondence with DIAC has revealed the following information:

"If you have obtained state or territory sponsorship your visa application will be processed as a priority. However it  can take up to 2 months from the time sponsorship is approved until it is registered on our system. Once registered on our system your application will be allocated to a case officer for assessment and once conducted they will make contact if they require additional information or documentation."

Essentially, this means that there will be even more of a wait once sponsorship has been approved due to the many layers of administration.  Even once you have been allocated a case officer, it could take a number of weeks from them to contact you, depending on the case officer's individual workload.  For example, we have some clients who were allocated a case officer some months ago, but are still waiting for any sign of progress on their visa.

Is there any way that this can be done quicker?

The best thing to do is give the DIAC case officers and the state a grace period of a few weeks before contacting them. Please understand that DIAC and the states' workloads have been increased hugely in recent months, and having to deal with queries will only lengthen the process for everyone.

As I said before, this is one part of the application process that is largely hidden from the eyes of applicants and migration agents. As it is entirely in the hands of the state and DIAC, there's very little transparency into exactly how long each step takes in any individual case, making it hard for 'outsiders' to determine whether an application is still progressing as it should or if there has been a 'break in the chain' along the way.

Therefore, the balance should always be to give the states and DIAC time to carry out what they need to BUT ensuring that you (or your agent) follow it up within a reasonable period of time, just in case something fell down along the way and you are waiting patiently for something that will never come because of an error or omission.

It's frustrating for us and our clients, but as we've seen before, there really are no fixed timeframes when it comes to the Australian migration process and all that you can do is keep abreast of the changes, read materials you are sent thoroughly, and ask questions where you need to.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

 

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

We've blogged previously on the changes to Australian skilled migration and specifically how the Skilled Regional Sponsored visa (subclass 475) and the Skilled Sponsored visa (subclass 176) have become a more attractive proposition to potential migrants, due to these state sponsored visa subclasses receiving 'Priority 1'  visa processing status.

However, we've not really touched on the criteria of the state sponsorship lists, or the all-important question of what financial demands an Australian State or Territory will ask an applicant to meet before they are deemed eligible for sponsorship.

To put it briefly, some states have clear and interpretable rules, and others do not. As a result, this often makes it difficult to anticipate exactly what funds an applicant must hold for them to receive sponsorship by a specific state.

For example, South Australia, Tasmania, the Australian Capital Territory and the Northern Territory have clear financial criteria for an applicant and their dependants, stating exactly what the financial requirements are for the primary applicant and any dependants they might have.

Other states’ financial criteria are vaguer, with both Western Australia and Queensland asking just that applicants hold "sufficient funds" to settle in the state. Victoria takes this even further and doesn't specify any financial criteria, giving the applicant absolutely no indication as to what requirements might be made. 

This comes in stark contrast to most other aspects of the Australian migration process, which are tightly legislated and bound by regulations that are supported by (mostly) clear policy. That's not to say that lodging an Australian visa is a clear-cut process, but the answers to most questions regarding visa policy can generally be found if you know where to look. 

This issue becomes especially pertinent as the state sponsored skilled visa subclasses are becoming increasingly favoured by Australian visa applicants due to other subclasses such as the Skilled Independent visa (subclass 175), family sponsored Skilled Sponsored visa (subclass 176) and family sponsored Skilled Regional Sponsored (subclass 475) visa subclasses currently taking an indefinite time to process (unless the applicant is listed on the Critical Skills List).

Without all states making a more transparent explanation of all sponsorship criteria available, it makes it very difficult for skilled sponsored visa applicants to fully assess their chances of success from the very beginning of the process, even as more and more applicants are forced to take this pathway.

As a migration consultancy that is registered with the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA), we are obliged to outline the risks and likelihood of success as best we can before taking on a client. Thankfully, our years of experience in successfully lodging state sponsored visas means we have some hands-on experience with each state's specific requirements, but not every agency or applicant will have the same resources to understand the almost hidden financial criteria that can come with applying for sponsorship.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

Many potential migrants should be breathing a sigh of relief today as the sponsored South Australia visa program has removed just one occupation from the Permanent Sponsorship list. 

This announcement comes after concerns that the changes would be far more severe, with these fears originally sparked as a result of the Minister of Immigration's announcement that the Department of Immigration & Citizenship (DIAC) will be cutting the skilled program by 14%.  Many speculated that the individual States and Territories would soon follow suit and close their doors on potential migrants by making big changes to their sponsored visa programs.

Initial reports seemed to confirm this with Tasmania immediately suspending their processing of sponsorships on 17 March, pending a review of their policy due to be announced on 20 April. However, such dramatic changes were not made to South Australia's permanent sponsorship list, with the only change being the removal of one occupation from the South Australian Permanent Sponsorship list, which was:

• Hairdresser (ASCO: 4931-11) 

Applicants who list this as their nominated occupation in the points test will no longer be eligible for permanent sponsorship by South Australia. Additionally, there have also been a number of occupations removed from the South Australian Provisional Sponsorship list:

• Construction Project Manager (ASCO: 1191-11)
• Biochemist (ASCO: 2113-17)
• Life Scientists (nec) (ASCO: 2113-79)
• Agricultural Scientist (ASCO: 2114-19)
• Agricultural Advisor (ASCO: 2114-21)
• Statistician (ASCO: 2293-13)
• Health Information Manager (ASCO: 2299-11)
• Social Professionals (nec) (ASCO: 2529-79)
• Hairdresser  (ASCO: 4931-11)

Essentially, the changes were not as bad as initially feared and gaining sponsorship for a South Australia visa remains a very feasible reality for Australian migration hopefuls. 

Additionally, after all the difficulties and confusion surrounding the new visa processing priorities, there's also some clarification on that front provided by Immigration SA; they have now officially stated that permanent sponsorship applications (i.e. for the Skilled Sponsored visa (subclass 176)) will be processed within 4 weeks and provisional sponsorship applications (i.e. for the Skilled Regional Sponsored visa (subclass 475)) will be processed within 6-8 weeks.

Any further changes to the sponsorship lists of South Australia or any other State/Territory will be reported by the Australian Visa Bureau as soon as we learn of them.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

The 27th of March marks the date that the new Australian visa application form updates take effect, with the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) promising that these new visa application forms will be on their site from the close of business today.

While this isn't the first time that DIAC have changed their forms by any means, it has sparked an interesting debate over what the change means for people who have completed an old Australian visa application form but have yet to lodge it; will these completed forms be accepted by DIAC, or will they be returned?

It's a concern shared by those emigrating to Australia and their migration agents, since DIAC have yet to give any upfront advice regarding the protocol in such cases. However, by looking at how these changes have been handled in the past and through examining the Policy Advice Manual (PAM) that is used to guide DIAC case officers, a few questions can be answered.

The debate can basically be boiled down to the definition of an "approved form".  The PAM advises that "old" versions of forms are NOT revoked so all versions of forms are "approved forms" . This opinion is further strengthened by the fact that the Minister (or delegate) approves a form by signing a statement on the design version of the form; however, nothing in the Australian Migration Act or Regulations operates to automatically revoke previous versions of that form.

It can then be taken that all previous versions of that form remain approved until officially revoked. Therefore, should a visa applicant use an old version of a form, that form is still an approved form for the purposes of the Act and Regulations and it must be accepted.

Of course, we would advise very strongly that applicants use the most current Australian visa application form whenever possible; however, if obtaining the latest version of the form results in your application being delayed to the extent that your visa eligibility could be damaged, then I think it should be taken as acceptable to use the previous version of the form.

We're currently awaiting for further advice from DIAC, so look for further updates as they come in.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

As we reported in February, the Australian Immigration Minister has made the decision to move the responsibility of maintaining the Migration Agents Registration Authority (MARA) to the government, in response to the concerns raised regarding fraudulent migration agents taking advantage of individuals emigrating to Australia. Previously regulated by the Migration Institute of Australia (MIA), Minister Chris Evans has stated that the MARA will be handed over to the government as of 1 July 2009 and be renamed the Office of the MARA. 

According to Senator Evans, the new regulatory framework will "administer the function through a discrete office attached to the Department [of Immigration and Citizenship], headed by a specifically designated senior officer, solely responsible for MARA activities."

It's hard to argue against the Senator's concerns that the integrity of the MARA is somewhat tarnished when agents have to regulate their co-workers. There are around 3,700 agents that need monitoring for "unprofessional, incompetent or unethical behaviour" and when a person's chance of a better life as a result of emigrating to Australia hangs in the balance, a regulatory body needs to ensure that correct and lawful advice is given to migrants. 

Arguments can be made both for and against the change.  One concern I have is that, as an office of the government, the MARA will lose the communication channel it had with migrants while serving as a functioning arm of the MIA. As MIA members are migration agents themselves, they facilitate communication between themselves and migrants, resulting in a positive sharing of knowledge in such places as the MIA online forum, where agents can discuss migration issues and stay ahead of the game.

Additionally, as MARA is removed from such close communication with the public, its entirely possible that they will instead take on the interests of DIAC, although it remains to be seen how influential the motivations of the government will be.

There is also a strong argument for control of MARA being taken away from MIA though.  One of the problems in the past is that MIA would be unable to assist or represent a member in relation to any MARA-related complaint as they were the body in control of both associations. Clearly, this defeats the purpose of MIA existing as the professional body for migration agents as they are esentially rendered unable to help when aid is most needed by one of their members.

Some members have justified this conflict of interests by reasoning that having DIAC act as the controllers of MARA would result in their agenda be compromised to suit the needs of the government, which would be a far worse proposition than the current arrangement (even with its flows). However, when you consider that the duties of controlling MARA is preventing MIA from helping and representing its members, it seems like not only should these responsibilities be lifted from MIA but they should never have been made to burden them in the first place. 

With MIA shedded of its MARA function, it will be able to concentrate on what it was originally established to do: provide aid and assistance to the legitimate migration agents who are trying to help genuine candidates emigrating to Australia. Additionally, should DIAC ever unfairly perform its MARA functions, at least migration agents will have the comfort of knowing that MIA will be able to truly assist in any disputes.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

In another change to the processing of Australian visas and the Skilled Migration program, the Australian Minister of Immigration and Citizenship, Chris Evans, has signed (or is about to sign) an instrument to effect a cap on the business skills program of 7,500 for the 2008/09 program.

Upon this announcement, Perth Business Centre have advised an immediate freeze on off-shore business skills subclasses and a careful management of the onshore caseload.  This would be against the Minister's direction that State Sponsored visas be processed ahead of non-State Sponsored visas.

This news comes as another example of the drastic cuts and changes being implemented across the Skilled Migration program.  The program for 2008/09 was initially set at a total of 133,500, which included a provision of 7,000 visas for the business skills sub-program. However, as reported on the 16th March 2009, the Minister announced that the Department of Immigration and Citizenship (DIAC) were going to reduce the total number of visas from 133,500 to 115,000 visas for the 2008/09 Skilled Migration Program. 

To achieve this reduction, the government has already taken some significant steps, such as removing construction and manufacturing trades from the Critical Skills List (CSL) as well as announcing their intention to progressively cap sub-programs within the Skilled Migration Program, of which the business skills sub-program has been the first.

Taken at face value, this appeared to be a strange move for DIAC to make. The majority of the Skilled Migration program changes have been implemented to 'save Australian jobs' and ensure that as the Australian job market feels the effects of the global economic crisis, Australians don't find themselves being put out of work due to an influx of skilled migrants.

However, it could be assumed that anyone arriving through the business skills program would be launching new business ventures in Australia and CREATING new jobs, as opposed to taking them away.  Therefore, putting any kind of cap on this sub-program seems counter-intuitive to the larger goals of the government and the health of the Australian economy.

Statistically speaking, the cap limits the number of business skills visas to 7,500 for the 2008/09 program, which is actually an increase of 7% on the initial planning level against a nearly 14% reduction in the program as a whole.  However, this planning level was not capped previously, and would typically have run on demand to approximately 8,000 visas for the year 2008/09. 

As an indication of just how serious the capping of this visa sub-program is, almost immediately after receiving the news that the business skills sub-program was going to be capped, we learned that no further visa grants for off-shore business skills visas will be granted until July 1 2009.  Further information regarding the capping of the Skilled Migration program is available in questions 1-14 of DIAC's FAQ PDF, but applicants for off-shore business skills visas will now have to wait until the 2009-10 program begins.

Significant changes are constantly coming in to the Australian migration program, and it will be interesting to see which visa category will be capped next.

- Lauren Mennie is Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.

After 13 months of closure, the South Australian Government has temporarily reopened the Capital Investment Scheme pathway for applications lodged before 1 September 2007.  However, after all the changes to the priority processing of visas instated by the introduction and amendment of the Critical Skills List (CSL), many are wondering if the scheme's return provides a genuine pathway to Australia or just another route to more delays.

To give you a little history regarding the changes, the Capital Investment Scheme was initially designed by the government for migrants in need of extra points to count towards their points-based migration assessment. By investing a minimum of AUD$100,000 into a nominated investment bond for at least one year, applicants could earn themselves an extra five points towards their Australian visa application.

Initially, most of the State and Territory governments provided applicants with the facilty for making this investment. However, after one of the major Australian banks suspected they were the victims of a widespread fraud as a result of investments made (and took subsequent legal action to try and claim ownership of many of these investments), all States and Territories withdrew from the Capital Investment Scheme, leaving many applicants stranded.

DIAC had already withdrawn the investment option for new applications made on or after 1 September 2007, and in December 2007, they suspended the processing of all affected applications that were lodged prior to 1 September 2007 (an issue previously addressed on the Visa Bureau blog).

However, good news finally came in January 2009 as applicants who were affected by the Capital Investment Scheme's closure may now lodge a deposit with the South Australian Government Financing Authority (SAGFA).  This is the only scheme currently available which the department is satisfied meets the requirements in the regulations.

Of course, there's a bit of a catch; SAGFA are only offering an interest rate of around 2.2% on all deposits lodged. A reasonable rate would have been at least half as much again, but it seems that SAGFA understand all too well that frustrated applicants, who have been caught in migration limbo for the last 18 months, will be happy to take any means necessary at this stage.

Many of the affected applicants have been sent new requests to make the investment, but more still are waiting to receive such notification.  Additionally, there was initial concern that visa grants for these applicants may be delayed due to the new processing priorities (covered in yesterday's blog), as the majority of these applicants are not CSL-listed. Fortunately, the Minister’s Office has confirmed that Capital Investment Scheme applicants will be an exception to the current priority processing rules and their applications will be processed to visa grant. Further information on the Capital Investment Scheme can be found on the DIAC Capital Investment Scheme FAQ.

There are still other issues that applicants should consider though.  For example, applicants are being requested to go for health and character checks as well as make the investment. The best thing for anyone in this situation is to begin the process of completing these health and character checks BEFORE you lodge the investment, and advise DIAC that you intend to make the investment immediately after they have confirmed your health and character checks are clear.  Another benefit to taking this approach is that it should also help financially, as it could buy you some time before having to liquidate any assets necessary to make the investment.

- Lauren Mennie is the Casework Department Manager for the Australian Visa Bureau

©Visa Bureau 2003-2009

Visa Bureau takes no responsibility and cannot be held accountable for action taken as a result of any information or comment provided on this blog, and we recommend that you always seek a number of opinions before making a decision regarding your migration or visa application. Please refer to the Visa Bureau terms of use for more information.