|
|
|
马上注册，结交更多好友，享用更多功能，让你轻松玩转社区。
您需要 登录 才可以下载或查看，没有帐号？FreeOZ用户注册
x
This is the message that has been posted on PIO about todays meeting at Australia House:
Dear Fellow PIO members,
Apologies for the delay in sticking some news on the site, but I have had some snags loggin on. Anyway 5 of us went to Australia House and met with Mr.Wilden. After all of the worries/concerns we have all been experiencing I would like to add I feel a lot happier after having a chat with this guy.
The first thing I would like to state is the following;
Mr.Wilden has confirmed that the 3500 cases they are dealing with are non-CSL CAT5 State sponsored applications, so that is applictions, not applicants. he also hastened to stress that there was no ommission of Trades from the process. His team were also keen to emphasis that they had worked through the CSL's and were now dealing with CAT5 aaplications.
In terms of the 2012 statement by the Mr.Evans for off-shore GSM applicants, that ws a forecast date at that time, which they would appear to be suggesting will improve. Whether this has an impact on those who lodged pre-23rd Sept I am not certain. Mr.Wilden stated that as this is now set on the Website, it provides a more accurate timeline for applicants now wishing to lodge for a visa.
The issue of Meds & Police checks was raised. I was under the impression that these were not to be carried out until requested by DIAC, but I forgot that once we all lodge our applications, it is stated as a requirement for the visas. Mr.Wilden has stated that he will investigate on our behalf to ensure that future correspondence states that Meds & Police checks should only be carried out when requested by DIAC during the further information process.
It was also highlighted that those of us with letters for further evidence of Meds & Police checks have completed this action only for the 12 months to expire, found this to be highly unfair and a request should only be made when DIAC are in a position to potentially issue a visa.
Mr.Wilden understood our concern and will look into this issue.
Gill also raised the issue regarding dependants and the concerns where a child reaches the age where dependancy could be questioned. In a nutshell the normal or guide for cut off is 18 years of age, however if a child is in full time education, then they could be deemed to be a dependant. He stated that if a child is adult enough to go to full time work then they may not be totally dependant. After leaving the meeting I wondered about this and thought does this include those on apprenticeships?
There were other points raised which included family sponsorship and CAT6 applicants. Perhaps one of the others at the meeting could mention about families, but Mr.Wilden and his colleagues did promise to look into CAT6 applications and try and provide a realistic timescale for processing. |
|
发表于 1-12-2009 12:35:42
收藏
赞
踩
