ESC

Click the "allow" button if you want to receive important news and updates from immigrationboards.com


Immigrationboards.com: Immigration, work visa and work permit discussion board

Welcome to immigrationboards.com!

Login Register Do not show

Advice on recent visa refusal

Australia: Points Calculator | Skilled Immigration
New Zealand: Points Calculator | work visas

Moderators: Casa, archigabe, CR001, push, JAJ, ca.funke, Amber, zimba, vinny, Obie, EUsmileWEallsmile, batleykhan, meself2, geriatrix, John, ChetanOjha, Administrator

Locked
ma11achy
Newly Registered
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:28 pm

Advice on recent visa refusal

Post by ma11achy » Tue Oct 27, 2009 11:30 pm

Hi all,

I recently had a refusal for VE, Subclass 175 Skilled - Independent visa from the Australian Department of Immigration and Citizenship and would like your advice on my next steps.

I had applied for it myself online, choosing to avoid the agencies on advice I had been given.
The summary of the decision is that I had delayed attaching my Skills Assessment to the Visa application,
instead attaching evidence of the skills assessment I had undertaken. I then attached it later, when I received the formal approved Skills Assessment letter. The Immigration agent said that since I had attached it later, I was in breach of their legislative requirements and thus refused. I have inserted a summary of the decision below, with the dates removed for security reasons.


Your application was lodged on XX June 2009. Whilst you have submitted a favourable skills
assessment from the Australian Computer Society in your nominated occupation of Unix
Specialist
(ASCO: 2231-79), the skill assessment is dated X September 2009 and was therefore determined
after the date on which you lodged your application. As it is a legislative requirement that at the
time of application your skills must have been assessed by the relevant assessing authority as
suitable for your nominated skilled occupation I find that you are unable to meet the requirement
of clause 175.212(1).



Does anyone think this decision was a bit harsh and if so, is there a possibility of appealing it?
Otherwise, the only other option is to go and spend another $2525....

Many thanks.

Locked