Gill Palmer wrote:
> 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.
>
Thanks Gill - I'll look into it. Don't misunderstand my post - I do see
the separation of the issues and I don't intend to make the MRT hearing
an indictment of DIMA. Nevertheless, when allegations are raised (even
in secret) then they have to be answered - the cases have a number of
situations where allegations contained in documents covered by s375A
certificates, have been believed. Apart from that you'd think the five
years of marriage, a newborn child and seven affidavits saying that the
couple had been cohabiting for seven years, together with 3 temporary
resident visas issued by DIMA on the basis of the spousal relationship
over a period since the year 2000, tax returns and US residence granted
on a spousal basis would speak for itself. ;)
>cheers
|
