Thai Gf Granted 3 Month Visa To Australia Today... But

[deanobambino]

She has a 3 month visa, she is entitled to stay for 3 months. There is no mention of a written promise to stay 1 month given by her, a verbal means nothing and can not be enforced.

End of story

Yes GB

This has been told to the OP several times.

He is aware that she can stay for the 3 months

but is concerned about it jeopardizing future

visitor visa applications which IMO it will.

Regards

Will

Thanks for your contributions Will. I have a feeling you are right. I plan to call DIAC next week to seek further clarification.

[swisstouristpattaya]

Verbal promess can be enforced indeed.

They have camera and witness.

Lie to your embassy and next time they will screw you....

You think people are dumb? They have hundred of Thai girl trying the same game with foreigners just to get access to another country.

If you ask for 1 month, it's 1, not3

You have been warned. Just play the game by the rule, don't think you are smarter kiddo

sent from tapatalk :-)

[deanobambino]

I cannot see what the fuss is. The government had a concern she would not return. She obviously showed she would. I really fail to see why one month or three would make a difference. If I was the OP I would make further enquiries at the department in Australia as to whether there would be any conseqwuences to her not staying for the period the visa is valid. If they say there is no problem (which I am sure they will have to) document this.

This is what I am thinking. As I've mentioned earlier, our intention was for her to visit only for one month but there is no one month option on the application, so you have no choice but to opt for the three month option. So legally you can stay for the entire three months, but if you do after stating you were given a month's leave from work, it deems you to be a liar or dishonest if you stay longer. What happens if she quits her job or gets approval from her employer to stay the entire three months? I just don't see what all the fuss is about either. It's almost as though all applicants are deemed to be liars until they prove otherwise. I'm sure the embassy does get a large volume of non genuine applications but it's frustrating for genuine people like us.

DB

With all due respect, you, Harry and some others seem to be missing the point.

DIAC granted the visa with the information that was provided to them,

ie a 1 month stay. Now if you applied for a 3 month visa, that might

have been rejected.

DIAC can still grant a visa and have concerns, which is what seems

to be the case as she was called in for a second interview.

And it seems their concerns are quite valid.

Just enjoy the month and and look forward to the next one.

Regards

Will

Will, she was called in for only one interview and we did apply for a 3 month visa but her letter from her employer mentioned a one month leave allowance so that's why they asked her to promise to return after only 4 weeks, even though she was issued the minimum three month visa. All this wouldn't be a problem for either of us if the guidelines were made more transparent.

[Will27]

I cannot see what the fuss is. The government had a concern she would not return. She obviously showed she would. I really fail to see why one month or three would make a difference. If I was the OP I would make further enquiries at the department in Australia as to whether there would be any conseqwuences to her not staying for the period the visa is valid. If they say there is no problem (which I am sure they will have to) document this.

This is what I am thinking. As I've mentioned earlier, our intention was for her to visit only for one month but there is no one month option on the application, so you have no choice but to opt for the three month option. So legally you can stay for the entire three months, but if you do after stating you were given a month's leave from work, it deems you to be a liar or dishonest if you stay longer. What happens if she quits her job or gets approval from her employer to stay the entire three months? I just don't see what all the fuss is about either. It's almost as though all applicants are deemed to be liars until they prove otherwise. I'm sure the embassy does get a large volume of non genuine applications but it's frustrating for genuine people like us.

DB

With all due respect, you, Harry and some others seem to be missing the point.

DIAC granted the visa with the information that was provided to them,

ie a 1 month stay. Now if you applied for a 3 month visa, that might

have been rejected.

DIAC can still grant a visa and have concerns, which is what seems

to be the case as she was called in for a second interview.

And it seems their concerns are quite valid.

Just enjoy the month and and look forward to the next one.

Regards

Will

Will, she was called in for only one interview and we did apply for a 3 month visa but her letter from her employer mentioned a one month leave allowance so that's why they asked her to promise to return after only 4 weeks, even though she was issued the minimum three month visa. All this wouldn't be a problem for either of us if the guidelines were made more transparent.

Yes DB

I'm hearing you, but on the application it states "when do you want to visit Australia

to and from dates". I assume you put 1 month?

If so, plus the fact that you're girlfriend said she would return after a month,

would make any future successful visitor applications unlikely IMO.

Regards

Will

[WarpSpeed]

Why aren't you asking your embassy? Just call them up and ask them if, now that you have 90 days, you can change your travel plans to utilise them effectively.

The embassy is no help, I assume you mean DIAC?

OP has stated his girlfriend has a 3 month visa so she

can stay for 3 months.

Regards

Will

Well don't know about Aussie land but my missuses was granted a 1 month visa to visit me in the States but she only got 3 weeks on entry inspite of that and that amount of time superseded the allotted visa time of a month for her return. It goes without saying we were quite peeved about that as I had an itinerary of things to do and see that still would be hard to complete in a month but we had no other choice.

[gburns57au]

Verbal promess can be enforced indeed.

They have camera and witness.

Lie to your embassy and next time they will screw you....

You think people are dumb? They have hundred of Thai girl trying the same game with foreigners just to get access to another country.

If you ask for 1 month, it's 1, not3

You have been warned. Just play the game by the rule, don't think you are smarter kiddo

sent from tapatalk :-)

Bulldust to the highlighted parts

[gburns57au]

She has a 3 month visa, she is entitled to stay for 3 months. There is no mention of a written promise to stay 1 month given by her, a verbal means nothing and can not be enforced.

End of story

Yes GB

This has been told to the OP several times.

He is aware that she can stay for the 3 months

but is concerned about it jeopardizing future

visitor visa applications which IMO it will.

Regards

Will

The OP states that he was concerned about a Prospective Spouse visa (In his words "intent to marry visa" This will have no effect on that application.

It may make things harder for a future 676 visa but then again so long as she complies with the visa and returns within 3 months then no offence has been committed irrespective of any promise that was verbally given......this has been tested previously and although questioned on the next application it was still approved if I remember rightly.

For such an agreement to be enforcable she would have needed to sign a document of sorts and it ahould have been made a condition of the visa. A notation on her file still carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it.

[deanobambino]

She has a 3 month visa, she is entitled to stay for 3 months. There is no mention of a written promise to stay 1 month given by her, a verbal means nothing and can not be enforced.

End of story

Yes GB

This has been told to the OP several times.

He is aware that she can stay for the 3 months

but is concerned about it jeopardizing future

visitor visa applications which IMO it will.

Regards

Will

The OP states that he was concerned about a Prospective Spouse visa (In his words "intent to marry visa" This will have no effect on that application.

It may make things harder for a future 676 visa but then again so long as she complies with the visa and returns within 3 months then no offence has been committed irrespective of any promise that was verbally given......this has been tested previously and although questioned on the next application it was still approved if I remember rightly.

For such an agreement to be enforcable she would have needed to sign a document of sorts and it ahould have been made a condition of the visa. A notation on her file still carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it.

Thanks for your input Graham. I'm thinking along the same lines. My girl's nick name is Apple too

[Will27]

She has a 3 month visa, she is entitled to stay for 3 months. There is no mention of a written promise to stay 1 month given by her, a verbal means nothing and can not be enforced.

End of story

Yes GB

This has been told to the OP several times.

He is aware that she can stay for the 3 months

but is concerned about it jeopardizing future

visitor visa applications which IMO it will.

Regards

Will

The OP states that he was concerned about a Prospective Spouse visa (In his words "intent to marry visa" This will have no effect on that application.

It may make things harder for a future 676 visa but then again so long as she complies with the visa and returns within 3 months then no offence has been committed irrespective of any promise that was verbally given......this has been tested previously and although questioned on the next application it was still approved if I remember rightly.

For such an agreement to be enforcable she would have needed to sign a document of sorts and it ahould have been made a condition of the visa. A notation on her file still carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it.

GB

If you read the thread carefully, you will see that the OP has been advised several times that staying for 3 months

will have no affect on a spouse visa.

Now your having it both ways by saying "it may be harder for a future s/c 676 but as long as she complies it probably won't".

Also you've said "a notation on her file carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it".

That's just plainly incorrect. Of course a notation on file carries weight. There were obviously

concerns to start with. You can bet 100% that said case officer will have documented their

concerns on both file and computer and it will be monitored and checked if another visa application

is lodged.

Regards

Will

[Will27]

She has a 3 month visa, she is entitled to stay for 3 months. There is no mention of a written promise to stay 1 month given by her, a verbal means nothing and can not be enforced.

End of story

Yes GB

This has been told to the OP several times.

He is aware that she can stay for the 3 months

but is concerned about it jeopardizing future

visitor visa applications which IMO it will.

Regards

Will

The OP states that he was concerned about a Prospective Spouse visa (In his words "intent to marry visa" This will have no effect on that application.

It may make things harder for a future 676 visa but then again so long as she complies with the visa and returns within 3 months then no offence has been committed irrespective of any promise that was verbally given......this has been tested previously and although questioned on the next application it was still approved if I remember rightly.

For such an agreement to be enforcable she would have needed to sign a document of sorts and it ahould have been made a condition of the visa. A notation on her file still carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it.

Thanks for your input Graham. I'm thinking along the same lines. My girl's nick name is Apple too

Well DB

You have enough information now to make your own decision. VisasPlus and myself

obviously have a difference of opinion to yourself and GB. BTW, you still haven't advised

what your agent has said.

Anyway, as they say over here "up to you".

All the best for the future with you and Apple anyway.

Regards

Will

[mickscottatlanta]

Without knowing all of the details, it seems to me that your girlfriend requested a one month visa, and she has one month's holiday from her job. She has also made a statement to the Australian government that she wil not stay more than one month. Probably, you also sponsored her, as an Australian citizen, and stated that she will have a one month holiday. If you now say that she is going to stay for the full 3 months, what exactly do you expect the Australian government to think ? The visa officer was fully aware that your girlfriend would probably never be granted 3 month's leave from her job ( or at least that it is highly unlikely ). If she doesn't return to her job after one month, then she probably doesn't have any job to return to. Visa officers are fully aware of what applicants often provide in the way of documentation for visas. Had your girlfriend applied for a 3 month visa, and provided a leave letter for 3 months, it would probably have been dismissed as fiction. In fact, some Embassies ( the Norwegian Embassy is an example ) actually say that if you produce a leave letter for 3 months they will not even consider it as being genuine.

So, you and your girlfrien have put yourselves in the position of making statements to the Australian government, and backed it up with documentation. From the way you word your post, it looks like you both intend for her to stay 3 months, rather than the one month she applied for ? What about her job ? That will not be waiting for her return, I suspect. Regarding how this might affect future applications, I think it will ceratinly affect any future applications for visit visas. Statements from you or your girlfriend will no longer be accepted as necessarily truthful. I cannot comment on how the Australian government would view it in a marriage visa application. The UK government would not necessarily use it adversely in a marriage application. That is, an application would not necessarily be refused because she has " broken a promise " as you put it.

With respect Visaplus you are waffling and clearly commenting on things that you have no knowledge/expertise off. It is irrelevant what verbal undertakings the applicant gave the case officer. If she was granted a three month visa and she fully complies with the conditions of THE VISA, she will have no problem. Often case officers ask probing questions to establish the genuineness of an applicant. At the end of the day if their is compliance with the conditions of the visa issued, then there will be no problem. Stick to UK visa pal.

[Wallaby]

Without knowing all of the details, it seems to me that your girlfriend requested a one month visa, and she has one month's holiday from her job. She has also made a statement to the Australian government that she wil not stay more than one month. Probably, you also sponsored her, as an Australian citizen, and stated that she will have a one month holiday. If you now say that she is going to stay for the full 3 months, what exactly do you expect the Australian government to think ? The visa officer was fully aware that your girlfriend would probably never be granted 3 month's leave from her job ( or at least that it is highly unlikely ). If she doesn't return to her job after one month, then she probably doesn't have any job to return to. Visa officers are fully aware of what applicants often provide in the way of documentation for visas. Had your girlfriend applied for a 3 month visa, and provided a leave letter for 3 months, it would probably have been dismissed as fiction. In fact, some Embassies ( the Norwegian Embassy is an example ) actually say that if you produce a leave letter for 3 months they will not even consider it as being genuine.

So, you and your girlfrien have put yourselves in the position of making statements to the Australian government, and backed it up with documentation. From the way you word your post, it looks like you both intend for her to stay 3 months, rather than the one month she applied for ? What about her job ? That will not be waiting for her return, I suspect. Regarding how this might affect future applications, I think it will ceratinly affect any future applications for visit visas. Statements from you or your girlfriend will no longer be accepted as necessarily truthful. I cannot comment on how the Australian government would view it in a marriage visa application. The UK government would not necessarily use it adversely in a marriage application. That is, an application would not necessarily be refused because she has " broken a promise " as you put it.

With respect Visaplus you are waffling and clearly commenting on things that you have no knowledge/expertise off. It is irrelevant what verbal undertakings the applicant gave the case officer. If she was granted a three month visa and she fully complies with the conditions of THE VISA, she will have no problem. Often case officers ask probing questions to establish the genuineness of an applicant. At the end of the day if their is compliance with the conditions of the visa issued, then there will be no problem. Stick to UK visa pal.

Yeah that is pretty much what I'm thinking as well. She can say she will come back in 1 month but if they issue a visa for 3 months and she is back within that time then she hasn't broken any rules. Next application they may look and see notation of a 1 month stay but then again, she's done nothing wrong as she has complied with her visa.

My gf has had letters from employers for both her 3 month stay and again on her 6 month stay so I think the issue with the employer about her staying 3 months is really between her and the employer. She was granted a 3 month visa with authorities knowing she had a letter for 1 month. Not her fault the Aus govt is inflexible by not giving a 1 month visa and that's not her concern.

If it were me, I'd get her for the full 3 months. When you make the application for the fiance visa next time you can say she has had a previous visa and complied with it. They can't say she hasn't.

[VisasPlus]

Without knowing all of the details, it seems to me that your girlfriend requested a one month visa, and she has one month's holiday from her job. She has also made a statement to the Australian government that she wil not stay more than one month. Probably, you also sponsored her, as an Australian citizen, and stated that she will have a one month holiday. If you now say that she is going to stay for the full 3 months, what exactly do you expect the Australian government to think ? The visa officer was fully aware that your girlfriend would probably never be granted 3 month's leave from her job ( or at least that it is highly unlikely ). If she doesn't return to her job after one month, then she probably doesn't have any job to return to. Visa officers are fully aware of what applicants often provide in the way of documentation for visas. Had your girlfriend applied for a 3 month visa, and provided a leave letter for 3 months, it would probably have been dismissed as fiction. In fact, some Embassies ( the Norwegian Embassy is an example ) actually say that if you produce a leave letter for 3 months they will not even consider it as being genuine.

So, you and your girlfrien have put yourselves in the position of making statements to the Australian government, and backed it up with documentation. From the way you word your post, it looks like you both intend for her to stay 3 months, rather than the one month she applied for ? What about her job ? That will not be waiting for her return, I suspect. Regarding how this might affect future applications, I think it will ceratinly affect any future applications for visit visas. Statements from you or your girlfriend will no longer be accepted as necessarily truthful. I cannot comment on how the Australian government would view it in a marriage visa application. The UK government would not necessarily use it adversely in a marriage application. That is, an application would not necessarily be refused because she has " broken a promise " as you put it.

With respect Visaplus you are waffling and clearly commenting on things that you have no knowledge/expertise off. It is irrelevant what verbal undertakings the applicant gave the case officer. If she was granted a three month visa and she fully complies with the conditions of THE VISA, she will have no problem. Often case officers ask probing questions to establish the genuineness of an applicant. At the end of the day if their is compliance with the conditions of the visa issued, then there will be no problem. Stick to UK visa pal.

I'm sure that you are right, and know better than anyone else, but please don't patronise. I don't know, but I probably, with respect. have more experience than you, so what makes your advice better ? Australian immigration laws are very similar to those of the UK, and, certainly, a UK visa holder ( holding a visa valid for 6 months, for instance) can be refused entry if the visa officer or an immigration officer has reason to believe that " false representations" were employed in order to obtain the visa, or if circumsatnces have changed since the visa was issued. An immigration officer might assume that false represenations were employed if a letter granting one month's leave was produced but the intention was in fact to stay 3 months. He might also believe that there had been a change of circumstances since the visa was issued if the visa holder no longer had a job to return to because she did not return to it on time, or didn't intend to return to it as stated. Now you can accept that or not, I really don't care, but please don't call the advice that we give waffle, "pal".

[VisasPlus]

Without knowing all of the details, it seems to me that your girlfriend requested a one month visa, and she has one month's holiday from her job. She has also made a statement to the Australian government that she wil not stay more than one month. Probably, you also sponsored her, as an Australian citizen, and stated that she will have a one month holiday. If you now say that she is going to stay for the full 3 months, what exactly do you expect the Australian government to think ? The visa officer was fully aware that your girlfriend would probably never be granted 3 month's leave from her job ( or at least that it is highly unlikely ). If she doesn't return to her job after one month, then she probably doesn't have any job to return to. Visa officers are fully aware of what applicants often provide in the way of documentation for visas. Had your girlfriend applied for a 3 month visa, and provided a leave letter for 3 months, it would probably have been dismissed as fiction. In fact, some Embassies ( the Norwegian Embassy is an example ) actually say that if you produce a leave letter for 3 months they will not even consider it as being genuine.

So, you and your girlfrien have put yourselves in the position of making statements to the Australian government, and backed it up with documentation. From the way you word your post, it looks like you both intend for her to stay 3 months, rather than the one month she applied for ? What about her job ? That will not be waiting for her return, I suspect. Regarding how this might affect future applications, I think it will ceratinly affect any future applications for visit visas. Statements from you or your girlfriend will no longer be accepted as necessarily truthful. I cannot comment on how the Australian government would view it in a marriage visa application. The UK government would not necessarily use it adversely in a marriage application. That is, an application would not necessarily be refused because she has " broken a promise " as you put it.

With respect Visaplus you are waffling and clearly commenting on things that you have no knowledge/expertise off. It is irrelevant what verbal undertakings the applicant gave the case officer. If she was granted a three month visa and she fully complies with the conditions of THE VISA, she will have no problem. Often case officers ask probing questions to establish the genuineness of an applicant. At the end of the day if their is compliance with the conditions of the visa issued, then there will be no problem. Stick to UK visa pal.

Yeah that is pretty much what I'm thinking as well. She can say she will come back in 1 month but if they issue a visa for 3 months and she is back within that time then she hasn't broken any rules. Next application they may look and see notation of a 1 month stay but then again, she's done nothing wrong as she has complied with her visa.

My gf has had letters from employers for both her 3 month stay and again on her 6 month stay so I think the issue with the employer about her staying 3 months is really between her and the employer. She was granted a 3 month visa with authorities knowing she had a letter for 1 month. Not her fault the Aus govt is inflexible by not giving a 1 month visa and that's not her concern.

If it were me, I'd get her for the full 3 months. When you make the application for the fiance visa next time you can say she has had a previous visa and complied with it. They can't say she hasn't.

Your assumption , and it's wrong, is that a visa guarantees entry. Well, it doesn't. A visa can be cancelled, or the holder can be refused entry ( see my previous post to the patronising guy). There is no guarantee of entry at all.

[gburns57au]

GB

If you read the thread carefully, you will see that the OP has been advised several times that staying for 3 months

will have no affect on a spouse visa.

Now your having it both ways by saying "it may be harder for a future s/c 676 but as long as she complies it probably won't".

Also you've said "a notation on her file carries no weight unless she has signed or initialled it".

That's just plainly incorrect. Of course a notation on file carries weight. There were obviously

concerns to start with. You can bet 100% that said case officer will have documented their

concerns on both file and computer and it will be monitored and checked if another visa application

is lodged.

Regards

Will

I didnt say "it probably wont"......I said if she complies then no offence has been committed. bit of a difference.

As I said it maybe harder to get a 676 visa in the future, I didnt say it wouldnt be possible...if a notation has been made then the next application will likely attract some extra questioning but at the end of the day no visa offences have been committed.

[Wallaby]

Yeah that is pretty much what I'm thinking as well. She can say she will come back in 1 month but if they issue a visa for 3 months and she is back within that time then she hasn't broken any rules. Next application they may look and see notation of a 1 month stay but then again, she's done nothing wrong as she has complied with her visa.

My gf has had letters from employers for both her 3 month stay and again on her 6 month stay so I think the issue with the employer about her staying 3 months is really between her and the employer. She was granted a 3 month visa with authorities knowing she had a letter for 1 month. Not her fault the Aus govt is inflexible by not giving a 1 month visa and that's not her concern.

If it were me, I'd get her for the full 3 months. When you make the application for the fiance visa next time you can say she has had a previous visa and complied with it. They can't say she hasn't.

Your assumption , and it's wrong, is that a visa guarantees entry. Well, it doesn't. A visa can be cancelled, or the holder can be refused entry ( see my previous post to the patronising guy). There is no guarantee of entry at all.

Of course I'm assuming she gets entry. If she doesn't get entry for any reason then that's the end of it. But if she does get entry she can stay the full 3 months and not be in breach of the visa. She has a 3 month visa.

[mickscottatlanta]

Visaplus,

Whilst I appreciate that you are a sponsor of this forum, that in itself does not make you an authority on Australia migration laws. What qualifications do you have?? Your post are in fact waffle, and are nothing more than padding in attempt to make an outward appearance that you know what you are talking about? Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 state the criteria for the grant of a tourist visa (clause 676 if you want to read it). Do you know what PAMS is, do you have access to it?? Look at how case officers interpret the regulations. It is irrelevant what some Thai Hi-So wannabe case officer says to an applicant and the promises they make. The key issue only is compliance with the visa granted and the regulations. Keep doing what you know best, and that is being a 'form filler'.

[VisasPlus]

Visaplus,

Whilst I appreciate that you are a sponsor of this forum, that in itself does not make you an authority on Australia migration laws. What qualifications do you have?? Your post are in fact waffle, and are nothing more than padding in attempt to make an outward appearance that you know what you are talking about? Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 state the criteria for the grant of a tourist visa (clause 676 if you want to read it). Do you know what PAMS is, do you have access to it?? Look at how case officers interpret the regulations. It is irrelevant what some Thai Hi-So wannabe case officer says to an applicant and the promises they make. The key issue only is compliance with the visa granted and the regulations. Keep doing what you know best, and that is being a 'form filler'.

Schedule 2 applies to the grant of visas, no ? We are all aware of the circumsatnces under which the visa was issued. The Migration Act itself applies to the cancellation of visas ( non-compliance) ? Are you seriously saying that there is no mechanism for the cancellation of a visa ? If so, then, with respect, I believe you are wrong.

Your patronising attitude now extends to Thai locally engaged personnel too ? You have a big chip on your shoulder, "pal"

[mickscottatlanta]

Visaplus,

Whilst I appreciate that you are a sponsor of this forum, that in itself does not make you an authority on Australia migration laws. What qualifications do you have?? Your post are in fact waffle, and are nothing more than padding in attempt to make an outward appearance that you know what you are talking about? Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 state the criteria for the grant of a tourist visa (clause 676 if you want to read it). Do you know what PAMS is, do you have access to it?? Look at how case officers interpret the regulations. It is irrelevant what some Thai Hi-So wannabe case officer says to an applicant and the promises they make. The key issue only is compliance with the visa granted and the regulations. Keep doing what you know best, and that is being a 'form filler'.

Schedule 2 applies to the grant of visas, no ? We are all aware of the circumsatnces under which the visa was issued. The Migration Act itself applies to the cancellation of visas ( non-compliance) ? Are you seriously saying that there is no mechanism for the cancellation of a visa ? If so, then, with respect, I believe you are wrong.

Your patronising attitude now extends to Thai locally engaged personnel too ? You have a big chip on your shoulder, "pal"

Schedule 2 provides for the criteria that needs to be satisfied for the grant of a particular visa subclass. Schedule 1 provides for how a valid application can be made. Cancellations are dealt with pursuant to the Migration Act. You don't know what PAMS is yet you supposedly offer Australian visa advice. Here is a head's up. PAMS is the Procedures Advice Manual that all case officers have before them. It tells them in lay speak how to interpret the Act and Reg's. If you take one baht of a client you should have access to that resource. If not, like I said you are a simple form filler like the rest of the rouge agents in Pattaya. Your advice in relation to OZ visas is simply wrong and you should be avoided.

[VisasPlus]

Visaplus,

Whilst I appreciate that you are a sponsor of this forum, that in itself does not make you an authority on Australia migration laws. What qualifications do you have?? Your post are in fact waffle, and are nothing more than padding in attempt to make an outward appearance that you know what you are talking about? Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 state the criteria for the grant of a tourist visa (clause 676 if you want to read it). Do you know what PAMS is, do you have access to it?? Look at how case officers interpret the regulations. It is irrelevant what some Thai Hi-So wannabe case officer says to an applicant and the promises they make. The key issue only is compliance with the visa granted and the regulations. Keep doing what you know best, and that is being a 'form filler'.

Schedule 2 applies to the grant of visas, no ? We are all aware of the circumsatnces under which the visa was issued. The Migration Act itself applies to the cancellation of visas ( non-compliance) ? Are you seriously saying that there is no mechanism for the cancellation of a visa ? If so, then, with respect, I believe you are wrong.

Your patronising attitude now extends to Thai locally engaged personnel too ? You have a big chip on your shoulder, "pal"

Schedule 2 provides for the criteria that needs to be satisfied for the grant of a particular visa subclass. Schedule 1 provides for how a valid application can be made. Cancellations are dealt with pursuant to the Migration Act. You don't know what PAMS is yet you supposedly offer Australian visa advice. Here is a head's up. PAMS is the Procedures Advice Manual that all case officers have before them. It tells them in lay speak how to interpret the Act and Reg's. If you take one baht of a client you should have access to that resource. If not, like I said you are a simple form filler like the rest of the rouge agents in Pattaya. Your advice in relation to OZ visas is simply wrong and you should be avoided.

For your information, we have not yet had an Australian visa application refused, so that kind of demolishes your last comment.

More importantly, rouge is a colour, a bit like your face at the moment i would guess.....pinkish.

I guess your attitude must come from the power of the unifiorm. A power junkie. But, you do look cute..........mwaaaah. Keep on patronising, "pal".

[mickscottatlanta]

Visaplus,

Whilst I appreciate that you are a sponsor of this forum, that in itself does not make you an authority on Australia migration laws. What qualifications do you have?? Your post are in fact waffle, and are nothing more than padding in attempt to make an outward appearance that you know what you are talking about? Schedule 2 of the Migration Regulations 1994 state the criteria for the grant of a tourist visa (clause 676 if you want to read it). Do you know what PAMS is, do you have access to it?? Look at how case officers interpret the regulations. It is irrelevant what some Thai Hi-So wannabe case officer says to an applicant and the promises they make. The key issue only is compliance with the visa granted and the regulations. Keep doing what you know best, and that is being a 'form filler'.

Schedule 2 applies to the grant of visas, no ? We are all aware of the circumsatnces under which the visa was issued. The Migration Act itself applies to the cancellation of visas ( non-compliance) ? Are you seriously saying that there is no mechanism for the cancellation of a visa ? If so, then, with respect, I believe you are wrong.

Your patronising attitude now extends to Thai locally engaged personnel too ? You have a big chip on your shoulder, "pal"

Schedule 2 provides for the criteria that needs to be satisfied for the grant of a particular visa subclass. Schedule 1 provides for how a valid application can be made. Cancellations are dealt with pursuant to the Migration Act. You don't know what PAMS is yet you supposedly offer Australian visa advice. Here is a head's up. PAMS is the Procedures Advice Manual that all case officers have before them. It tells them in lay speak how to interpret the Act and Reg's. If you take one baht of a client you should have access to that resource. If not, like I said you are a simple form filler like the rest of the rouge agents in Pattaya. Your advice in relation to OZ visas is simply wrong and you should be avoided.

For your information, we have not yet had an Australian visa application refused, so that kind of demolishes your last comment.

More importantly, rouge is a colour, a bit like your face at the moment i would guess.....pinkish.

I guess your attitude must come from the power of the unifiorm. A power junkie. But, you do look cute..........mwaaaah. Keep on patronising, "pal".

Oh good for you, you got me on my spelling of rougue.... Why we are at it, what is a "unifiorm".

Your website shows that you don't know jack about Oz visas. Shall I correct you on some of your mistakes:

Spouse Visa "You should be able to speak English to a reasonable standard" WRONG - Visas under the skilled stream require a level of English proficiency. Spouse visas don't require any level of English proficiency. Again, just because you know UK visas, doesn't mean the same rules apply to Australian visas.

Tourist Visas "You may be required to have a medical or X-ray especially if you plan to stay more than two weeks" WRONG, its three months, Again, you don't know what you are talking about.

Stick to charging high fees for filling out forms, as that is all you are a form filler with no knowledge.

[7by7]

As this thread has deteriorated into exchanging childish insults; closed.