Australia Forum banner
Status
Not open for further replies.
1 - 4 of 4 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 · (Edited)
Hey guys I'm happy to say I have some relief and for a change some truly GREAT NEWS for you all. So the stack updated today and here is the updated directive. The bold and big text is the most important part.

10.3.3 Approvable occupations specified in the latest legislative instrument

For RSMS any occupation specified in the relevant legislative instrument with ANZSCO skill levels 1 to 3 may be nominated.

Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) (ENS Direct Entry stream) and Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D)(RSMS Direct Entry stream) provide that the delegate must be satisfied that that the tasks to be performed in the position will correspond to the tasks of an occupation specified by the Minister in an Instrument in writing. In practice, this means that:

when assessing nominations under Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) delegates must confirm that the nominated occupation is included on the Medium and Long term Strategic Skills List (MLTSSL) or the Short term Skilled Occupation List (STSOL), which lists occupations that can be approved in relation to permanent employer sponsored nominations under the ENS Direct Entry stream;
when assessing nominations under Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(D) delegates must confirm that the nominated occupation is included in the legislative instrument in relation to permanent employer sponsored nominations under the RSMS Direct Entry stream.
delegates must be satisfied that the tasks of the nominated position effectively align with the tasks for that occupation as outlined in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO).
Important:

As of 19 April 2017, the legislative instrument for Regulation 5.19(4)(h)(i)(A) referred to above contains two lists, the MLTSSL, which replaced the former Skilled Occupation List (SOL), and the STSOL which replaced the Consolidated Sponsored Occupation List (CSOL).
Occupations listed in the MLTSSL and STSOL are eligible for the PESE ENS Direct Entry stream. A full list of these occupations is available on the Department's website.
Some occupations on the list are restricted to certain situations via a caveat - refer to the legislative instrument.
The list will be reviewed periodically and can change with occupations being removed or added. If the Direct Entry stream nomination application was made before the updated list came into effect, then the application will be considered against the list that was current at the time the nomination was lodged. If the Direct Entry stream nomination application was lodged on or after the date the updated list came into effect, then officers should confirm that the nominated occupation is specified in the current legislative instrument. If the nomination application and associated visa application are for a removed occupation, then the applications cannot be further assessed and the applicants should be offered the opportunity to withdraw.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 ·
Also, update in re processing times.

RSMS and ENS processing

RSMS and ENS processing times are currently being affected by a number of factors – including:
the high on-hand RSMS/ENS caseload, which is further exacerbated by a particularly high number of lodgements in recent months (note: more than 16,000 applications were lodged in June 2017 alone, which is equivalent to approximately four months of average application lodgements)
there are increased levels of non-genuine applications or applications with integrity concerns which require a higher level of scrutiny and
incomplete visa application lodgements.
At no point in time has processing stopped on these cases and the Department is continuing to work through the on-hand caseload as fast as possible.
Note: Applications lodged more recently may be allocated for assessment ahead of older applications to facilitate more efficient processing of the pipeline and reduce processing time
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
25 Posts
Discussion Starter · #3 ·
And finally, for those people who have pending applications to perth, i received this email the other day from the MIA.

Email I got from MIA on Wednesday as an FYI:

Dear Colleagues,

I have as a matter of urgency asked the Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection and the Assistant Secretary of the Department of Immigration and Border Protection in charge of visa policy for transitional arrangements to apply to RSMS applications in the pipeline which will be affected by Migration (IMMI 17/059: Regional Certifying Bodies and Regional Postcodes) Instrument 2017 https://www.legislation.gov.au/Details/F2017L01460 which comes into effect on Friday 17 November 2017 and replaces and repeals the current Instrument (IMMI 16/045)

The major effect of this Instrument is to re-define "Regional Australia" and exclude the postcodes of Perth metropolitan area. Specifically, the Instrument re-defines the postcodes that make up "regional Australia" under subregulation 5.19(7)

The relevant part of Regulation 5.19, that deals with Direct Entry RSMS Nominations, falls under Subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii), which has seven sub-subparagraphs, A, B, C, D, DA. E and F.

All these 7 sub-subparagraphs are "Time of Decision" requirements.

The relevant sub-subparagraph affected by a re-definition of "Regional Australia" is sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A): "the position is located in regional Australia".

Without any transitional arrangements to this new Instrument, any Nominations on or after 17 November 2017, will not meet Sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A) and must be refused.

This would also retrospectively affect Nominations refused prior to 17th November 2017, that are still undecided with the AAT.

I am grateful for WA Branch President James Clarke and his Committee for alerting me to this.

We will keep you informed of the progress of our request

Second email:


Dear Colleagues,

Update on processing of Perth RSMS applications lodged prior to 17 November 2017 when Legislative Instrument IMMI 17/059 (which removes Perth as a "regional" area) comes into effect: NO RETROSPECTIVITY!

Following my representations to the Assistant Minister and the Department I have just received the following advice from the Department of Immigration and Border Protection:

Hi Kevin,

The new Instrument applies to applications lodged from 17 November and will not be applied retrospectively.

Under the new Instrument [Legislative Instrument IMMI 17/059] the Perth metropolitan area is not considered regional for RSMS applications.

The RSMS applications in the Perth metropolitan area that we have on-hand and lodged before the 13 March 2017 with RCB certification will proceed to assessment.

Those RSMS applications lodged from 13 March 2017 onwards do not have RCB certification as the WA government's RCB declined to provide certification. These applications will be finalised and as they cannot be approved without RCB certification, will be offered the option to withdraw or be refused.

The department will be sending an e-newsletter shortly with this information.

The department has since confirmed that this means that those applications lodged before 13 March 2017 with RCB certification from Perth will proceed to assessment AND when they are assessed the consideration of sub-subparagraph 5.19(4)(h)(ii)(A), which is a time of decision matter, will use the old Instrument and Perth will be acceptable for those applications.

I trust this information will be of some comfort to many of you and your clients.

Kind regards,

Kevin Lane
National President
Migration Institute of Australia
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
187 under AAT process

Hi Barker,
Thank you very much for the first-hand information.
Yet I am a little confused with the second email from MIA regarding RSMS visa retrospective.

According to the first email:
"This would also retrospectively affect Nominations refused prior to 17th November 2017, that are still undecided with the AAT."

Does this condition still applies to all AAT case to which nominations refused prior to 17th November 2017?
Or the above situation is not affected retrospectively as long as AAT made a positive decision to the case now?

Thank you very much, Barker.
Any feedback is much appreciated.
 
1 - 4 of 4 Posts
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top