Australian 'Spouse Visa' Application update from Dec.2014 lodgement

[richard peters]

Members

92 posts

Posted A minute ago

Having Problems With My Wife’s Visa Application, (Australian Embassy in Bangkok)

(They are asking for a ‘Police Report” or similar from a country where she merely worked)

In a ‘sworn declaration’ made by my wife, to the Australian Embassy in Bangkok, she stated that both herself and her lawyers had contacted the <deleted> Embassy in Thailand and have both been told separately that these ‘Police Reports, etc’ are not available! I have researched the “Migration Act 1958” [+ Amendments] and associated ‘legal requirements’ at length, but nowhere have I been able to find (in the case of a ‘Visa Application’), where a “Police Report” from a country that the applicant has merely visited [and NOT their country of residence’], is required. (These are not available from most nations in this region, including China, because they consider them to be totally unnecessary and very time consuming).

2) I have requested from both the Office of the ‘Federal Immigration Minister’ and the ‘Australian Embassy in Bangkok,’ that the ‘text’ and ‘sub-section’ relating to “Visa Applicants’ requiring a mandatory “Police Clearance” (or similar) from a country that they have merely visited, be sent to me for an “expert legal opinion.” (As I have never received this information, I am beginning to believe that it does not exist within the Australian ‘Immigration Act 1958’ or its ‘Amendments’). I cannot see that this would become legal, when it appears that as in this case, such requirements are not possible for the “Applicant” to fulfill.

3) The Manager of the “Immigration Section” in Bangkok, then stated in a phone conversation to me that a mandatory “Police Clearance” (or similar) from a country that a ‘Visa Applicant’ has merely visited, is contained in “Section 4001” of the Immigration Act, so I duly researched this document and found that this was NOT TRUE.

“Section 4001” only refers to the necessity for “A FEW” and NOT all ‘Visa Applicants’ to be classed as “Persons of Public Interest” and to fulfill this requirement it appears that they must be a “suspected terrorist” or be a known “international criminal.” I asked why my wife had been unjustly classed in this category, when in fact she was working as a “health consultant and senior health practitioner?” The reply was that this is now ‘mandatory’ for all ‘visa applicants,’ but this is NOT LEGALLY STATED in “Section 4001” of the Immigration Act, so again this comment appears o be UNTRUE.

Furthermore, I took strong exception to the actions of the “Immigration Section” in Bangkok, with their decision to list my wife as a “Person of Public Concern,” or a “Controversial Visa Applicant.” She has no police record what-so-ever and does not fit into even one of the twelve and / or thirteen criteria requirements [respectively], as laid out under “Section 4001” or “Controversial Visa Applicants” in the ‘Australian Immigration Act 1958;’ - It is therefore ‘Not Mandatory’ and ‘Without Legal Basis,’ so it appears to be ‘Unsubstantiated,’ and ‘Discriminatory.’

4) I asked Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx at the Australian Embassy in Bangkok, why she had threatened my wife and the lawyer's consultant, by stating that a ‘Visa’ would not be granted if my wife could not produce a “Police Report” from the ‘<deleted> Government,’ and that it was a “mandatory” requirement? I also asked why they continued for around 2-months with this impossible and impractical request when both myself and our lawyers had told them that the <deleted> Embassy does not issue “Police Reports” for its ‘Visitors.’ I suggested that they should have discontinued this impossible request and searched for an alternative solution to this problem.

5) At this point the Department Manager intervened and stated that there was the provision for a “Waiver” in such situations where a request for information could not be met. If this is so, then why did the Australian Embassy waste around 2-months of everyone’s time, expenses and resources, with absolutely impossible requests that in many cases were NOT LEGAL. I find this to be rather amusing (LOL), as how can a ‘request’ be nullified when it was never ‘legal’ in the ‘first instance.’ I was also informed by the Manager, that Xx Xxxxxx Xxxxxxxx was still the “case officer” in spite of me having lodged a serious objection with Senator the Hon. Michaelia Cash, Assistant Minister for Immigration and Border Protection.

6) The question remains, - ‘Why did the Australian Embassy not take a few minutes on the phone to the <deleted> Embassy to verify everyone’s statements? Was it because they knew that they were acting improperly and did not want to be exposed? Has this has led to further lies from the Embassy staff concerned, in an effort to cover up their initial malpractices?

7) I finished my visit to the ‘Immigration Section’ of the Australian Embassy in Bangkok by commenting that I believed that they were both “incompetent” and very “unprofessional.” The Manager very diplomatically answered that I could lodge any further complaints with them (LOL); - Their department is the problem! I replied that any further complaints would be lodged at a “higher level” and he then stated that this would lead to further delays. My comment was that I was prepared to suffer this inconvenience, so he went on to remind me of their expected 12-month ‘decision making process.’ (I note that most ‘Visa Applications’ are processed in 6 – 8 months, so I suspect that some of the above comments were made as ‘veiled threats’). I strongly suggested that as a business and professional person with over 50-years of experience, that their ‘Department’ should lift their performance or I would be obliged to take this matter further!

Whilst the Embassy staff are very polite, one must instead, look at their actions: - They have a distorted ‘mind set’ of treating “Thai spouses,” (who have worked over seas), as particularly low class individuals. They should be regarding such applicants as superior, as they have more international ‘life-experience’ and have shown that they can successfully integrate into a foreign cultures. Regulations cannot be made ‘on the run,’ but follow a proper legislative process before they become “law.” Other cases show that this is a widespread policy of the Immigration Department and that they belong in the “dark ages,” as do many of the other practices in Australian Government Departments.

##############################################################

[harrry]

https://www.border.gov.au/Forms/Documents/1127.pdf

does indicate a police check is required for every country the applicant has resided in for 12 months.

Resided has nothing to do with visa type.