Sub Class 100 Visa

[Old Croc]

It's all a tad confusing gburnsy.

On checking in at Suvarnabumi a while back for a Singapore Airlines flight to Aus via Singapore, their system would not print a Boarding Pass for my flight fom SIN to MEL.

After several staff were running backward and forward for near 30 minutes trying to sort the problem out I was finally given a hand written pass. Lucky we checked in quite early.

I was told that the problem eminated from the Australian end and they needed to contact Canberra to get permission for me to travel. Hmmmm I know I'm a good boy so <deleted>!

Needless to say, when arriving at Melbourne Airport, I was looking down the aisle to see if any burly officers were going to march in and grab me.

I asked Immigration if there was any problem with my Passport or status and no......nothing at all.

On arriving home, I immediately phoned SIA and was told that the problem was within their OWN reservations system and a data mismatch had occured, thus the pass would not print!

I thought this was not good enough, the incident had caused me reasonable concern and I emailed SIA.

I received a reply sticking to the original story that they needed to TELEX Canberra, to get permission for me to travel.

(Do they still have Telex?)

Anyway to cut a long story short, I ask Immigration each time I leave now....Am I going to be allowed back?

Last time the nice lady officer said yes, no problem you are a good boy!!!!!

I strongly suspect SIA were the problem. My ex wife who is a travel agent says that it is not uncommon for SIA to have a glitch in their system with data mismatching.

It's possible your name is a close match to an alert (a real bad guy) and the system rejected you.

It seems the airline contacted Canberra Immigration operations centre who would've assessed you to not be the subject of the alert and gave permission to uplift. This is done with a telex/cable type system. This exchange would have been passed on to the arrival port so they would be aware and you wouldn't have problems being landed.

[david96]

The one problem if they are a foreign citizen and are a resident of Australia and they purchase a ticket to Australia overseas eg in Bangkok. If the airline checks for a valid visa and there is no label they may be refused boarding.

So they should carry a copy of the letter with the visa number or get the label inserted in ones passport before departing Australia.

If you are an Australian citizen and travelling on an Australian passport you will not have any problem.

One fails to see why the label could not have been enclosed with the letter from DIAC and sent by registered mail to the applicant.

And if you do not live near a DIAC office it will have to be done by registered mail or perhaps it can be inserted at an Australian international point of entry.

[Will27]

The one problem if they are a foreign citizen and are a resident of Australia and they purchase a ticket to Australia overseas eg in Bangkok. If the airline checks for a valid visa and there is no label they may be refused boarding.

So they should carry a copy of the letter with the visa number or get the label inserted in ones passport before departing Australia.

If you are an Australian citizen and travelling on an Australian passport you will not have any problem.

One fails to see why the label could not have been enclosed with the letter from DIAC and sent by registered mail to the applicant.

And if you do not live near a DIAC office it will have to be done by registered mail or perhaps it can be inserted at an Australian international point of entry.

Sorry David,

I don't know where you're getting your information from.

An Australian resident should not be refused from boarding.

Not all airports have the facility to print visa's.

Regards

Will

[david96]

The one problem if they are a foreign citizen and are a resident of Australia and they purchase a ticket to Australia overseas eg in Bangkok. If the airline checks for a valid visa and there is no label they may be refused boarding.

So they should carry a copy of the letter with the visa number or get the label inserted in ones passport before departing Australia.

If you are an Australian citizen and travelling on an Australian passport you will not have any problem.

One fails to see why the label could not have been enclosed with the letter from DIAC and sent by registered mail to the applicant.

And if you do not live near a DIAC office it will have to be done by registered mail or perhaps it can be inserted at an Australian international point of entry.

Sorry David,

I don't know where you're getting your information from.

An Australian resident should not be refused from boarding.

Not all airports have the facility to print visa's.

Regards

Will

The key word here is "may". One may be refused boarding, one may be able to get the visa inserted at an Australian International Entry point.

In 1993 my UK passport was checked by Qantas in Bangkok for a RRV. I was an Australian citizen then and in 1994 obtained an Australian passport. I had an RRV so there was no problem.

[gburns57au]

I should have been a bit more clear!

I meant how long after you were approved for the '309' in BKK and the delivery of the '100' papers here in AUS?

Was it at the 2 year point.

Interested as we will be back in Thailand at the 2 year point!

I always advise 2nd Stage Processing when not at our home address here for any length of time, and have already advised them that we will be out of Australia between end Dec and mid March next year. I give them an Email address which I usually access a few times a day.

************************* SORRY,

I've just re-focused my reading glass!!!!!! So you got the "100" stuff, some months prior to the normal 2 year wait?

Yep and approved before the 2 year limit was up.

[fishhooks]

"O" Croc:

Thanks for that info re the SIA check-in in BKK, particularly that they have this Telex link-up.

The remaining aspect though that was confusing, was the SIA Customer Service guy by telephone when I returned said that it was an SIA internal problem!

[Will27]

The one problem if they are a foreign citizen and are a resident of Australia and they purchase a ticket to Australia overseas eg in Bangkok. If the airline checks for a valid visa and there is no label they may be refused boarding.

So they should carry a copy of the letter with the visa number or get the label inserted in ones passport before departing Australia.

If you are an Australian citizen and travelling on an Australian passport you will not have any problem.

One fails to see why the label could not have been enclosed with the letter from DIAC and sent by registered mail to the applicant.

And if you do not live near a DIAC office it will have to be done by registered mail or perhaps it can be inserted at an Australian international point of entry.

Sorry David,

I don't know where you're getting your information from.

An Australian resident should not be refused from boarding.

Not all airports have the facility to print visa's.

Regards

Will

The key word here is "may". One may be refused boarding, one may be able to get the visa inserted at an Australian International Entry point.

In 1993 my UK passport was checked by Qantas in Bangkok for a RRV. I was an Australian citizen then and in 1994 obtained an Australian passport. I had an RRV so there was no problem.

Yes but using "may" applies to anything.

You could also say an Australian citizen MAY be deported.

Let's be honest, the chances of an Australian resident

being refused to board would be remote at best.

Regards

Will

[david96]

Will27.

Example, a UK passport holder lived in Australia 10 years, leaves Australia and returns in 4 years time after perhaps working overseas. No RRV when he returns to Australia even when the airline let him board. What do DIAC say to him? You have no RRV, why did you not obtain it before you left Australia? Why did you not obtain one from our Embassies? What is your current ties with Australia? He will have a lot of answering to do, and yes he may not be refused entry in the end. But he will have problems.

DIAC may not regard him as an Australian permanent resident any more. That is why citizenship is important. He could be returned to the country he departed his flight from.

[Will27]

Will27.

Example, a UK passport holder lived in Australia 10 years, leaves Australia and returns in 4 years time after perhaps working overseas. No RRV when he returns to Australia even when the airline let him board. What do DIAC say to him? You have no RRV, why did you not obtain it before you left Australia? Why did you not obtain one from our Embassies? What is your current ties with Australia? He will have a lot of answering to do, and yes he may not be refused entry in the end. But he will have problems.

DIAC may not regard him as an Australian permanent resident any more. That is why citizenship is important. He could be returned to the country he departed his flight from.

David,

No offense intended but you keep changing the scenerio.

Firstly you say an Australian resident may be refused to board.

When I advised that this is unlikely, you put forward the example

above.

Now in the example just quoted, the person is no longer an Australian

resident. If he fronted up to the the airlines with a visa that expired 4

years ago, then more than likely he would be refused boarding.

If however the airlines contacted DIAC and they issue a RRV, he has

no problem. What he would be advised to do, is to get himself an ETA and

fly to Australia on that and then sort out his status.

Either way, if he is granted an ETA or an RRV he WOULD not be returned

to the country he just departed from.

Regards

Will

[Old Croc]

I suppose a better scenario would be if the passenger was from a non ETA eligible country.

Airline staff at ports connecting to Australia ususally have access to Australian Liason Officers (ALOs) who are Oz Immigration Officers outsourced to the airlines to handle problems with pax and their documents on departure. They are not there as a visa issuing centre, rather than a first line defense against document fraud, but they can authorise uplift on their own judgement. In their absence airlines can contact a 24 hr op centre in DIAC Canberra to resolve difficult visa issues.

[Will27]

I suppose a better scenario would be if the passenger was from a non ETA eligible country.

Airline staff at ports connecting to Australia ususally have access to Australian Liason Officers (ALOs) who are Oz Immigration Officers outsourced to the airlines to handle problems with pax and their documents on departure. They are not there as a visa issuing centre, rather than a first line defense against document fraud, but they can authorise uplift on their own judgement. In their absence airlines can contact a 24 hr op centre in DIAC Canberra to resolve difficult visa issues.

All true and valid points.

What I was trying to say however,

is that once he has been boarded,

ie given uplift approval, he would not

be returned as David has suggested.

IMHO, he would only be given uplift

approval if he was eligible for an RRV.

In this case, the ALO may refer him

back to the embassy rather than

allow him to board.

David keeps saying "would & could"

as a "get out of jail clause".

Regards

Will

[david96]

I will give another example and this actually occured in the early 1980s. A person I knew at school left on a yacht for a trip around SE Asia. He returned after the voyage to Darwin and it was here that on checking his UK passport it was found that he did not have a RRV.

They asked him a lot of questions and in the end he was allowed entry but they told him that he could have been denied entry and advised him to obtain a RRV before he left Australia again in the future.He related the story to me personally about six months later and said they ( Customs/Immigration) had him worried at the time. One of the statements he made was that he had been to school in Australia and that helped him and he had some other documentary proof that he had employment in Australia before he left.

Why take the risk? I use the word "may" in the posts as "may"= a possibility not "shall" = strong assertion, command or duty. Source: Australian OED 6th Ed.

( He was in fact denied entry for a short time until his statements could be checked out.)

Edited November 29, 2009 by david96

[Will27]

I will give another example and this actually occured in the early 1980s. A person I knew at school left on a yacht for a trip around SE Asia. He returned after the voyage to Darwin and it was here that on checking his UK passport it was found that he did not have a RRV.

They asked him a lot of questions and in the end he was allowed entry but they told him that he could have been denied entry and advised him to obtain a RRV before he left Australia again in the future.He related the story to me personally about six months later and said they ( Customs/Immigration) had him worried at the time. One of the statements he made was that he had been to school in Australia and that helped him and he had some other documentary proof that he had employment in Australia before he left.

Why take the risk? I use the word "may" in the posts as "may"= a possibility not "shall" = strong assertion, command or duty. Source: Australian OED 6th Ed.

( He was in fact denied entry for a short time until his statements could be checked out.)

David,

he wasn't refused entry. End of story!!

And you're either allowed to enter or not.

While DIAC check your details, you're not

being refused.

If you have an example of an Australian

resident being refused and sent home,

please let me know. It probably may

have happened due to a DIAC error

but not in the context you suggest.

Regards

Will

[gburns57au]

David

It is pointless relating something from 25 -30 years ago as relevent now....

Technology has made things a lot different....

[Old Croc]

I will give another example and this actually occured in the early 1980s. A person I knew at school left on a yacht for a trip around SE Asia. He returned after the voyage to Darwin and it was here that on checking his UK passport it was found that he did not have a RRV.

They asked him a lot of questions and in the end he was allowed entry but they told him that he could have been denied entry and advised him to obtain a RRV before he left Australia again in the future.He related the story to me personally about six months later and said they ( Customs/Immigration) had him worried at the time. One of the statements he made was that he had been to school in Australia and that helped him and he had some other documentary proof that he had employment in Australia before he left.

Why take the risk? I use the word "may" in the posts as "may"= a possibility not "shall" = strong assertion, command or duty. Source: Australian OED 6th Ed.

( He was in fact denied entry for a short time until his statements could be checked out.)

David,

he wasn't refused entry. End of story!!

And you're either allowed to enter or not.

While DIAC check your details, you're not

being refused.

If you have an example of an Australian

resident being refused and sent home,

please let me know. It probably may

have happened due to a DIAC error

but not in the context you suggest.

Regards

Will

I know of a "resident " who arrived on false, forged documents, was refused entry, held in a detention centre for about six months before eventually winning his case in federal court and finally getting a sizable damages payout from the dept.

Not your average situation, and I wont go into details, but it was a landmark case about the rights of a resident.

[david96]

David

It is pointless relating something from 25 -30 years ago as relevent now....

Technology has made things a lot different....

On should never put 100% trust in any public servant.

Take these cases, A Philipino - Australian deported to the Philipines, she had Australian

citizenship. A German permanent resident detained in an Australian detention centre.

A Chinese - Australian detained in a detention centre and was only released when his solicitor

was able to get his Australian passport and show it to Immigration. All since 2000.

If Immigration had done there job properly they would not have been detained, what we have here is purely physical and mental laziness on the part of some officials and their refusal to take responsibility.

[Will27]

David

It is pointless relating something from 25 -30 years ago as relevent now....

Technology has made things a lot different....

On should never put 100% trust in any public servant.

Take these cases, A Philipino - Australian deported to the Philipines, she had Australian

citizenship. A German permanent resident detained in an Australian detention centre.

A Chinese - Australian detained in a detention centre and was only released when his solicitor

was able to get his Australian passport and show it to Immigration. All since 2000.

If Immigration had done there job properly they would not have been detained, what we have here is purely physical and mental laziness on the part of some officials and their refusal to take responsibility.

Whatever David.