> Where dose it say "it may be the case that DIMA is
> thinking about giving transitional protection to people who have a
> permanent residence visa granted before January 2007"
>
> On another note though there is a new clause in new citizenship bill
> to
> count up to 2 years on temp visa toward you citizenship.
>
> Jim
>
> gingerkitty wrote:
>
> > > As I have said already, its your call. If it doesn't work for you
> > > -
> > > that's fine. I'm not trying to compel you to apply for permanent
> > > residency. I'm simply making it known that there are pathways
> > > available for SIR visaholders to obtain p/r sooner than is more
> > > widely
> > > advertised - and some will certainly be interested.
> > >
> > > Note also that you will be incurring costs such as medicals and
> > > police
> > > certificates even if you take one of the "traditional" routes to
> > > p/r -
> > > and I'd take issue with how you get to your costings (not sure why
> > > you
> > > have even one week of hotel accommodation let alone a fortnight,
> > > when
> > > typically 3 to 4 days outside Australia is sufficient), but each
> > > to
> > > their own.
> > >
> > > Best regards.
> > It was successful in my case. I was recently granted a 134 Skill
> > Matching Visa.
> > I took one of the routes that Alan is mentioning. I am still in the
> > UK
> > and I was already the holder of a SIR visa but when my occupation
> > (welfare worker) came onto the occupations in demand list for SA in
> > July
> > 2005, I applied for state sponsorship (thinking I could apply for an
> > STNI visa but this is not allowed) so instead I applied for the skill-
> >
> > matching visa with my state nomination.
> > I applied in December 2005 and was granted my permanent visa in June
> > 2006. When I got my passport back from the Aus High Commission in
> > London, the SIR visa had been invalidated and the new permanent 134
> > visa
> > attached instead.
> > As regards to costs, yes I had to pay another visa lodgement fee
> > (around
> > £790) and pay for another set of medicals (around £220) and new
> > police
> > checks (£10.) I already had my skills assessment from the AIWCW so I
> > didn't have to pay for that again.
> > The benefits for me are:
> > 1. That I now have the leeway of 5 years to decide on what I want to
> > do
> > and and get myself sorted out etc. before having to commit to
> > moving
> > (whereas with the SIR visa I would have had to be in SA by last
> > month,
> > July 2006 to make the time deadline.)
> > 2. It's easier to get a job if you have a permanent visa. Especially
> > if
> > you are looking for jobs with local government which I was
> > intending to
> > do. (Now I'm thinking of retraining in the legal field.)
> > 3. It will be a lot quicker to get citizenship. In total, just 2
> > years
> > (3?) as a PR if I have the 134 visa. With the SIR 495 visa, I'd
> > need
> > to spend 2 years in SA on the SIR, then a further 2 years (3?) to
> > gain PR on an STNI visa after the SIR.
> > Also, if the rumours are correct, it may be the case that DIMA is
> > thinking about giving transitional protection to people who have
> > a
> > permanent residence visa granted before January 2007 (when the
> > new 3
> > year rules for PR are supposed to be being made law). ie. if you
> > have
> > been granted PR before Jannuary 2007 then whenever you actually
> > move to
> > Australia, you will only have to have 2 years PR to get
> > citizenship. If
> > I had gone ahead to Oz with my SIR visa, I would not get my PR
> > until
> > AFTER January 2007 and hence I'd likely be looking at 3 years PR
> > before
> > citizenship.
> > All in all, I think it was money well spent in my case.
> >
> > --
> > Posted via http://britishexpats.com
The transitional protection issue comes from the recommendation of a
Government controlled Senate committee. DIMA don't have to follow
it, but there is more chance of government Senate recommendations
being accepted.
--
This is not intended to be legal or professional advice in any
jurisdiction
Posted via http://britishexpats.com |