Heretic wrote:
> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 00:26:22 -0700, Ketut Royson wrote:
>
> >
> > Heretic wrote:
> >> On Mon, 05 Jun 2006 16:49:32 +1000, Sylvia Else wrote:
> >>
> >> > Ketut Royson wrote:
> >> >
> >> >> tony.kidd@mygreatconsultants.com.au wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>>Yes thanx Gill
> >> >>>Much better for you to blow my trumpet than for me to do it myself! Yes
> >> >>>I have years of experience on this issue.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>re legend, there is a non-profit subscription for $750 if that's what
> >> >>>you mean? I'm not aware of any free subscriptions
> >> >>>
> >> >>>Ketut, feel free to contact me if you want more specific information.
> >> >>>
> >> >>>tony
> >> >>
> >> >> Tony,
> >> >> Thanks for the perspective. Its interesting to know that there are
> >> >> often things certified that shouldn't be & the approach of the MRT.
> >> >> There must be an irony that I actually have the document that the MRT
> >> >> isn't allowed to shere with me - how would they approach it - a
> >> >> "neither confirm nor deny" when I make submission on the content?
> >> >> regards
> >> >> KR
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> > The tribunal's obligation is only to ensure that they do not disclose
> >> > the document to you. They are not under any obligation to conceal its
> >> > existence, or the fact that they have it. Since you have the document,
> >> > the tribunal should have no difficulty in agreeing that they have it
> >> > too, and then discussing its content.
> >>
> >> Although, from what the OP says about it, it seems to be quite irrelevant
> >> to the substance of the matter before the MRT.
> >
> > In fact its the core issue before the MRT. The MRT have to decide if
> > the spousal relationship is bona fide. The original decision maker had
> > reference to a document which alleged it was not and decided
> > accordingly without affording the visa applicant an opportunity to
> > respond to the undisclosed allegation. The Magager of the Sydney
> > Residence section then certified that it was not in the public interest
> > to disclose the document or information, having the effect of requiring
> > the MRT to keep the lid on the fact that the primary decision maker had
> > not done their job. So the MRT is placed in a position of not being
> > able to disclose the content of a document which has one side of an
> > argument which they have to decide.
>
> Quite so. But these matters are typically full of the opinions (good, bad
> and indifferent) of various decision-makers in the past. The only
> decision-maker who will now count is the MRT, and it will decide on the
> merits of the claims made by the applicant. That should be the focus of
> attention.
>
> This is not a review or reconsideration of what happened
> administratively in the past, but a consideration of facts of the
> applicants claims.
Heretic, I couldn't agree with you more. Ketut, tough though it is
when you are so clearly protective of somebody's wife, it is necessary
on this sort of occasion to try to keep your own emotional responses
right out of the equation if you possibly can. Very easy to say,
though. Very difficult to do in reality when the applicant is someone
you love and want to protect.
Why not set the gamekeeper-turned-poacher (Tony Kidd) onto the dogs?
It sounds to me as if he could sort this out for you. I've never been
in front of the MRT, but I think that if too much is heard about
neurotic delegates at DIMA, there must be a risk of people wondering
whether these allegations are a smoke-screen, designed to deflect
attention away from whether or not the spouse relationship you describe
really is as solid as you say.
I think you should try to get away from a witch-hunt about DIMA's
shortcomings and focus instead on adducing evidence which proves that
the original decision was perverse because the spouse-relationship was
obviously genuine and clearly stacked up from Day One. That is the
real issue here, as you have said. Win that bit first and the
Ombudsman would then have to bash DIMA for you, I reckon. A
professional such as Tony would be able to keep the two sides of this
issue firmly apart by reason of having no personal emotional
involvement in it, which would lead to a much smoother ride through the
MRT, I suspect.
However, that decision is for you alone to make. I'm sure Tony
wouldn't charge you or a word on the phone, though. Talk to him first,
see what you think, find out what sort of fees you might be looking at,
and then make a decision, I suggest. You can get Tony's
contact-details from the MARA website (Migration Agents Regulatory
Authority or something.) He is registered as Anthony Kidd. I don't
work for him and have never even spoken to him on the phone. I've
simply come across him via this forum and I reckon he is very good at
his job.
Cheers
Gill
|