To - The Australian Embassy
Attn - Mr Paul - Ambassador Northern Territory - Australia's Outbackian Embassy Moscow.
Concerns re: Aarons girlfriend. Decision Record - Refusal of Visitor Visa
Dear Paul,
I wish to apply soon for another Visitor Visa (3rd) for my girlfriend. Before that I need confirmation the assessment will be conducted in a neutral and impartial stance that is the right of the applicant, and a requirement of the case officer. We need this conformation as we do not believe the last application was - for reasons listed below.
"I am not satisfied that you genuinely intend to visit Australia temporarily"
The primary issue I have with this is that there is no evidence cited to indicate a non-genuine intention, only doubtful language interjected by the case officer such as "claim to be" and other phrases used by the case officer which reflect an attitude of doubt and negative connotations, yet no positive evidence is given of a non-genuine intent, only doubt introduced into the substantial evidence provided reflecting a genuine intent.
"I have also referred to the previous application. You have failed to submit any new evidence to show that the doubts about your circumstances and intentions are not justified."
This statement defies belief on the face of it. The current application contained far more detailed evidence and documents about the children, applicant's employment, statutory declarations from well-known community members, and a point-by-point submission describing how the applicant successfully addresses many points of the Genuine Visitor policy. It would seem from this statement that the case officer made up his/her mind (interestingly the case officer refused to put his or her name on the decision letter, a choice that seemingly goes against DIBP policy of informing applicants of the name and contact details of their case officer. If one were to turn the same degree of doubt and suspicion on the case officer that the case officer blatantly showed towards the applicant, one might wonder why the case officer is hiding his or her name and whether that is some sort of an attempt to avoid accountability for what appears to be a position of doubt and suspicion by the case officer, rather than a neutral and impartial stance that is appropriate and is the right the applicant is entitled to.
"I find from the application that you have failed to adequately demonstrate strong employment"
The applicant included documentary evidence from her employer reflecting 7 years of employment working for a well-regarded university. Given this is far longer than the typical employment term of people these days, I find this statement is not supported by the facts of the applicant, and appears to be yet another unsubstantiated attempt to discredit the applicant. To further support this, in other areas of DIBP processing, seven years of employment at a well-known and respected employer would be treated far differently if, for instance, the applicant was applying for a skilled or employer sponsored work visa. In the skilled visa area, 7 years of offshore employment would earn the applicant close to the top score in the skilled visa points test regarding permanent visas. Instead, it's used against this applicant when applying for a 90 day temporary visitor visa. Describing 7 years of documented employment in this way is simply not consistent with virtually every other processing policy of DIBP when dealing with employment.
"I have noted that you have claimed to be employed as a laboratory assistant for the last 7 years…"
The case officer uses language such as "claimed to be" seeming to introduce doubt and suspicion into the application, yet the applicant included a certified statement from her employer. If the case officer suspects the statement is false or the document is bogus, then let the case officer present data indicating as such. In the absence of such data or any stated basis for these apparent doubts and suspicions, the usage of this language would seem to indicate a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset of the decision maker, which would hardly be reflective of an impartial and fair position regarding the application. It is neither fair or just for a case officer to discredit a claim by an applicant, even by inference and the use of language to indicate suspicion, without presenting evidence. It goes against every component of DIBP's evidence-based processing regime.
"While your employment claims are not doubted…"
The usage of "claimed to be employed" by the case officer is direct evidence of doubt and suspicion. The curious attempt to say there is no doubt when the case officer has just deliberately used language that directly indicates doubt and suspicion is in itself non-genuine.
"Given you are requesting such a long period of stay in Australia, I consider that [the children] are not intending to go back to them in Ukraine."
Beyond the question of who or what "them in Ukraine" refers to, there appears to be no evidence to support this statement. The applicant has applied for a 90 day visa, and the statement of a psychologist included with the statement indicates an assessment of no damage to the children by this brief trip. In many countries a three month summer vacation is normal, and is certainly not indicative of an intention to abandon one's homeland. If the case officer has now decided to introduce migration policy that indicates that stays of 90 days for children are indicative of a plan to abandon their homeland, then that should be stated in the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and it should be formalised as a policy so there is a level playing field and the policy is given proper scrutiny and examination by DIBP management before implementation. This appears to be an on-the-fly implementation of the case officer's opinion that 90 days is "too long" for a temporary visit for children, which in this decision has been cited as a direct reason not to grant the visa. Once again, no evidence is presented, only the suspicions and doubts of the case officer based in this case solely on the length of the proposed visit. It is a dangerous and unfair precedent to allow case officer's to go beyond stated policy and "make up" their own policy based on their personal opinions, and it deprives the applicant of a fair and impartial decision based on established policies and regulations. The fact that there is no appeal process only makes the damage worse, as the case officer becomes judge, jury and punisher with no possibility of appeal.
"Your proposed travel is inconsistent with your limited previous international travel"
Due to the requirements and responsibilities of bringing up 2 children alone, the applicant has only had a limited opportunity to travel before, and on that international trip she obeyed all immigration conditions. Yet instead of being credit for a 100% positive immigration record, it's used against her by the case officer as yet another suspicion that she will overstay. If DIBP is now going to implement new policy that visitor visas can only be extended to persons with a certain minimum amount of international travel, then as said before, let that go through the proper process of being enshrined into official DIBP policy. Yet again, policy is seemingly made "on the fly" by the case officer who apparently has decided that despite no evidence of a negative immigration record, one international trip with a perfect record is indicative of a risk, rather than evidence of the applicant's record of obeying all visa conditions. The case officer also attempts to discredit the applicant's previous international trip by inferring that because the location (Vietnam) is of a lower socioeconomic status than Australia, the applicant's positive immigration history as proven by this trip somehow is to be discredited or held as insufficient. Yet again, the case officer introduces doubt and suspicion and turns a positive immigration history with no history of visa breaches into another risk factor to justify the refusal.
"I have carefully considered the representations of your inviter."
Interestingly, no mention is made of the many statutory declarations made by well known community members in support of the applicant, her children, and the proposed trip. And no mention is made of the detailed Genuine Visitor submission prepared by the applicant's migration agent and submitted along with detailed evidence demonstrating how the applicant's circumstances satisfy many of the Genuine Visitor policy elements.
In conclusion, this decision demonstrates many hallmarks of bad and biased decision making, including:
· Ignoring evidence if it does not support the opinion of the case officer
· Forming a conclusion at the outset based on a faulty comparison to a previous application and ignoring any and all facts and evidence that then do not support that pre-determined conclusion
· Making up policy on the fly regarding length of stay, international travel, and other matters
· Adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude towards an application, depriving the applicant of a fair and impartial decision making process
· The case officer attempting to avoid accountability by breaching DIBP policy that provides for an applicant to be informed of the name and contact information for their case officer.
If this applicant is to be given any measure of fairness and due process, it is essential that bias and a biased attitude be removed from the decision making process so a fair and impartial decision, based on the entirety of the applicant's submitted evidence as it addresses published policy and migration regulations, can be delivered.
Yours Faithfully
Aaron
Attn - Mr Paul - Ambassador Northern Territory - Australia's Outbackian Embassy Moscow.
Concerns re: Aarons girlfriend. Decision Record - Refusal of Visitor Visa
Dear Paul,
I wish to apply soon for another Visitor Visa (3rd) for my girlfriend. Before that I need confirmation the assessment will be conducted in a neutral and impartial stance that is the right of the applicant, and a requirement of the case officer. We need this conformation as we do not believe the last application was - for reasons listed below.
"I am not satisfied that you genuinely intend to visit Australia temporarily"
The primary issue I have with this is that there is no evidence cited to indicate a non-genuine intention, only doubtful language interjected by the case officer such as "claim to be" and other phrases used by the case officer which reflect an attitude of doubt and negative connotations, yet no positive evidence is given of a non-genuine intent, only doubt introduced into the substantial evidence provided reflecting a genuine intent.
"I have also referred to the previous application. You have failed to submit any new evidence to show that the doubts about your circumstances and intentions are not justified."
This statement defies belief on the face of it. The current application contained far more detailed evidence and documents about the children, applicant's employment, statutory declarations from well-known community members, and a point-by-point submission describing how the applicant successfully addresses many points of the Genuine Visitor policy. It would seem from this statement that the case officer made up his/her mind (interestingly the case officer refused to put his or her name on the decision letter, a choice that seemingly goes against DIBP policy of informing applicants of the name and contact details of their case officer. If one were to turn the same degree of doubt and suspicion on the case officer that the case officer blatantly showed towards the applicant, one might wonder why the case officer is hiding his or her name and whether that is some sort of an attempt to avoid accountability for what appears to be a position of doubt and suspicion by the case officer, rather than a neutral and impartial stance that is appropriate and is the right the applicant is entitled to.
"I find from the application that you have failed to adequately demonstrate strong employment"
The applicant included documentary evidence from her employer reflecting 7 years of employment working for a well-regarded university. Given this is far longer than the typical employment term of people these days, I find this statement is not supported by the facts of the applicant, and appears to be yet another unsubstantiated attempt to discredit the applicant. To further support this, in other areas of DIBP processing, seven years of employment at a well-known and respected employer would be treated far differently if, for instance, the applicant was applying for a skilled or employer sponsored work visa. In the skilled visa area, 7 years of offshore employment would earn the applicant close to the top score in the skilled visa points test regarding permanent visas. Instead, it's used against this applicant when applying for a 90 day temporary visitor visa. Describing 7 years of documented employment in this way is simply not consistent with virtually every other processing policy of DIBP when dealing with employment.
"I have noted that you have claimed to be employed as a laboratory assistant for the last 7 years…"
The case officer uses language such as "claimed to be" seeming to introduce doubt and suspicion into the application, yet the applicant included a certified statement from her employer. If the case officer suspects the statement is false or the document is bogus, then let the case officer present data indicating as such. In the absence of such data or any stated basis for these apparent doubts and suspicions, the usage of this language would seem to indicate a "guilty until proven innocent" mindset of the decision maker, which would hardly be reflective of an impartial and fair position regarding the application. It is neither fair or just for a case officer to discredit a claim by an applicant, even by inference and the use of language to indicate suspicion, without presenting evidence. It goes against every component of DIBP's evidence-based processing regime.
"While your employment claims are not doubted…"
The usage of "claimed to be employed" by the case officer is direct evidence of doubt and suspicion. The curious attempt to say there is no doubt when the case officer has just deliberately used language that directly indicates doubt and suspicion is in itself non-genuine.
"Given you are requesting such a long period of stay in Australia, I consider that [the children] are not intending to go back to them in Ukraine."
Beyond the question of who or what "them in Ukraine" refers to, there appears to be no evidence to support this statement. The applicant has applied for a 90 day visa, and the statement of a psychologist included with the statement indicates an assessment of no damage to the children by this brief trip. In many countries a three month summer vacation is normal, and is certainly not indicative of an intention to abandon one's homeland. If the case officer has now decided to introduce migration policy that indicates that stays of 90 days for children are indicative of a plan to abandon their homeland, then that should be stated in the Procedures Advice Manual 3 (PAM3) and it should be formalised as a policy so there is a level playing field and the policy is given proper scrutiny and examination by DIBP management before implementation. This appears to be an on-the-fly implementation of the case officer's opinion that 90 days is "too long" for a temporary visit for children, which in this decision has been cited as a direct reason not to grant the visa. Once again, no evidence is presented, only the suspicions and doubts of the case officer based in this case solely on the length of the proposed visit. It is a dangerous and unfair precedent to allow case officer's to go beyond stated policy and "make up" their own policy based on their personal opinions, and it deprives the applicant of a fair and impartial decision based on established policies and regulations. The fact that there is no appeal process only makes the damage worse, as the case officer becomes judge, jury and punisher with no possibility of appeal.
"Your proposed travel is inconsistent with your limited previous international travel"
Due to the requirements and responsibilities of bringing up 2 children alone, the applicant has only had a limited opportunity to travel before, and on that international trip she obeyed all immigration conditions. Yet instead of being credit for a 100% positive immigration record, it's used against her by the case officer as yet another suspicion that she will overstay. If DIBP is now going to implement new policy that visitor visas can only be extended to persons with a certain minimum amount of international travel, then as said before, let that go through the proper process of being enshrined into official DIBP policy. Yet again, policy is seemingly made "on the fly" by the case officer who apparently has decided that despite no evidence of a negative immigration record, one international trip with a perfect record is indicative of a risk, rather than evidence of the applicant's record of obeying all visa conditions. The case officer also attempts to discredit the applicant's previous international trip by inferring that because the location (Vietnam) is of a lower socioeconomic status than Australia, the applicant's positive immigration history as proven by this trip somehow is to be discredited or held as insufficient. Yet again, the case officer introduces doubt and suspicion and turns a positive immigration history with no history of visa breaches into another risk factor to justify the refusal.
"I have carefully considered the representations of your inviter."
Interestingly, no mention is made of the many statutory declarations made by well known community members in support of the applicant, her children, and the proposed trip. And no mention is made of the detailed Genuine Visitor submission prepared by the applicant's migration agent and submitted along with detailed evidence demonstrating how the applicant's circumstances satisfy many of the Genuine Visitor policy elements.
In conclusion, this decision demonstrates many hallmarks of bad and biased decision making, including:
· Ignoring evidence if it does not support the opinion of the case officer
· Forming a conclusion at the outset based on a faulty comparison to a previous application and ignoring any and all facts and evidence that then do not support that pre-determined conclusion
· Making up policy on the fly regarding length of stay, international travel, and other matters
· Adopting a "guilty until proven innocent" attitude towards an application, depriving the applicant of a fair and impartial decision making process
· The case officer attempting to avoid accountability by breaching DIBP policy that provides for an applicant to be informed of the name and contact information for their case officer.
If this applicant is to be given any measure of fairness and due process, it is essential that bias and a biased attitude be removed from the decision making process so a fair and impartial decision, based on the entirety of the applicant's submitted evidence as it addresses published policy and migration regulations, can be delivered.
Yours Faithfully
Aaron
