Never let a rights destroying time limit to pass over a rejected credit card

 
 

Occasionally one sees cases where a client’s credit card has been rejected for payment and as a result an application is lodged out of time while all this is sorted out.

Obviously a judgment call needs to be made on each occasion, but if there is some issue then it may be that a migration advisor should pay the relevant fee so that the deadline is not missed. One would need to get an assurance from the client that re-imbursement would be made and best to cover this with an immediate letter or email to the client pointing out the payment has been made from the migration advisor’s resources and noting the client’s assurance that the client will re-imburse the advisor. There is a principle in law that if a letter is written to someone containing something adverse to the person’s interest, if the assertion is incorrect  one would expect an immediate response pointing out the error. Hence a letter like that referred to above, evidences a client’s agreement to pay.

The reason why the migration advisor should pay in the above circumstances is that if a rights destroying deadline is missed then the easiest person to blame is the migration advisor and the courts and the authorities tend to believe a client over a migration advisor or a lawyer, unless the lawyer has evidence to the contrary.

Much better to save the client’s rights and fight about re-imbursement later!

The vagaries of some migration time limits

 Here is an example of an unusual time limit. It applies to the expiry date of a subclass 417 working holiday granted onshore as the second working holiday visa (ie after the person has done 3 months working in a regional area):

417.5   When visa is in effect

417.511 

(1)  If the applicant is outside Australia at the time of grant —temporary visa permitting the holder:

(a)  to travel to and enter Australia within 12 months after the date of grant of the visa; and

(b)  to travel to, enter and remain in Australia until 12 months after the date of first entry to Australia.

(2)  If:

(a)  the applicant is in Australia at the time of grant; and

(b)  the applicant holds a Subclass 417 visa at the time of application;

 temporary visa permitting the holder to travel to, enter and remain in Australia until 12 months after the date that the visa mentioned in paragraph (b) would have otherwise ceased to be in effect.

(3)  If:

(a)  the applicant is in Australia at the time of grant; and

(b)  the applicant does not hold a Subclass 417 visa at the time of application;

temporary visa permitting the holder to travel to, enter and remain in Australia until 12 months after the date of grant of the visa.

So the second working holiday visa expires 12 months after the end of the first working holiday visa NOT 12 months after the grant of the second working holiday visa!  There are tricky issues like this all over the Migration Act and Regulations.

Always ask for an extension of time

If it is permissible to ask for an extension of time always ask for an extension of time – see s 58(4) of the Migration Act.

Barbara Davidson