1. SKILLED VISA PROCESS - Review of Skills Assessment outcome
Amar contacted us when he received the negative outcome for his Skills Assessment.
After reviewing Amar’s case we could see that the evidence he submitted for the Skills Assessment did not show the full scope of his duties. However, the main reason for the negative outcome was that his interview with the Assessor was not satisfactory: Amar received the call from the Assessor during busy hours of his work so he answered Assessor’s questions very briefly and did not provide all the necessary explanations to satisfy the Assessor that he performed duties required for his occupation.
What we did
- We collected broader evidence of Amar’s duties and made sure that it was covering all aspects and areas of the skilled occupation in question.
- We created Amar’s company profile showcasing the level of responsibilities and duties assigned to his position.
- We assisted Amar in preparing a detailed description of the tasks he routinely performs at work and highlighted the importance of his role for the successful operation of the company.
- We prepared Amar for the interview and rehearsed the interview several times to ensure that he was able to answer all questions fast, clear and in enough detail.
Amar received a positive review outcome (i.e. positive Skills Assessment) and was able to continue his immigration process.
2. STUDENT VISA – Dealing with the Tribunal
Wang has contacted us after he received a refusal of his Student visa application. Wang was in breach of his previous Student visa conditions but his original Student visa expired before the Department of Immigration could start the cancellation process. The Department refused Wang’s new Student visa application based on his previous breach. Wang requested the review of the refusal but the Tribunal indicated that it was leaning towards upholding the Department’s position.
What we did
- We have carefully researched and examined Student visa's cancellation policy and procedures.
- We made submissions to the Tribunal highlighting that the visa cancellation process has mechanisms in place that protect visa applicants’ rights. In particular, as the Department has not followed the required cancellation process, our client was deprived of an opportunity to present evidence in relation to the breach and defend himself against the cancellation. Therefore, we argued that the Department should not be allowed to base its decision to refuse our client's new visa application on the previous breach which our client had no opportunity to dispute.
The Tribunal accepted our arguments, and Wang received his new Student visa.
3. PARTNER VISA – Dealing with the Department of Immigration
Kate approached us when she received a notification that her Partner visa is going to be refused on the grounds that she has allegedly provided misleading information in her previous Visitor visa application. A refusal on the ground of misleading information would prevent Kate from lodging any other application for an Australian visa for the next 3 years. In addition, we were advised that the Department received unfavourable information from a third party.
What we did
- We conducted a detailed interview with Kate and her partner and found out all the details related to their applications for the Visitor and the Partner visas.
- We carefully reviewed Kate’s previous Visitor visa application and found that some questions in the application form were ambiguous and could have been interpreted in many different ways, depending on the applicant’s understanding.
- We provided a detailed explanation to the Department, clarifying why the information (which the Department viewed as misleading) was provided.
- We proved to the Department that at the time of the Visitor visa application's lodgement the information provided was not misleading.
- We also considered all the documentation and information provided in support of Kate’s Partner visa application and found that the evidence submitted was not sufficiently clear and persuasive. We helped Kate and her partner to obtain strong supportive evidence from their families, friends and the community, and prepared a revised application, which provided more detailed information about their relationship.
- Additionally, we considered in detail the Department’s Policy for dealing with allegations of misleading information and found that the Department was in breach of their own policies. We submitted this additional information for the consideration of the officer handling Kate's case.
- To put some extra pressure on the Case Officer to reconsider the decision favourably, we have also notified the regulatory authorities of the Department’s breaches in relation to their dealing with Kate’s matter.
Kate’s Partner visa was granted.
4. FAMILY VIOLENCE during the visa process. Dealing with the expert opinion in Tribunal
The Department of Immigration refused to grant a Partner visa to Maria, who claimed to be a victim of family violence while her visa was still under consideration. The Tribunal has forwarded the case to an independent expert appointed by the Department. The independent expert concluded that there was no family violence in the Maria’s case. Maria contacted us for assistance.
What we did
The legislation states that an Independent expert’s opinion has to be accepted by the Tribunal and there are very limited possibilities of having the opinion set aside.
• We conducted a specialised research and consulted with the top experts in the industry to find ways to invalidate this expert’s opinion.
• We submitted to the Tribunal that the expert’s opinion was compromised as he formed his opinion without following appropriate process and did not take into consideration all of the relevant evidence.
• We provided the Tribunal with further strong evidence and found new witnesses that could testify about the family violence that Maria has experienced.
• We also argued that the referral of the case to the expert was conducted with procedural errors.
The Tribunal accepted our arguments and made a favourable decision for Maria, despite the unfavourable expert opinion.