# moral obligation



## paddygunner (Dec 1, 2009)

Is it correct that state sponsorship is a moral obligation and not a legal one and that if you wish to move to another state it would not effect your permanent residence status.


----------



## Dolly (Feb 17, 2008)

Yes. But TBH I wouldn't like to risk it.

Dolly


----------



## amaslam (Sep 25, 2008)

No one on the forum has tested that yet.

From the immi website for subclass 176:
Main applicant and secondary applicant obligations

1. You and any secondary applicants must comply with all Australian laws as permanent residents.

2. If you are nominated by a State or Territory government, you need to agree to:

* remain in the State or Territory for a period of at least two (2) years
* keep the State or Territory government informed of changes in address details before and after arrival
* be prepared to complete surveys and provide information as required.


***
At the very least you'll get a 'please explain why you couldn't' and it's ??? what happens if they don't like the explanation.

***
The 475 Regional Sponsored definitely has a legal obligation where the failure to meet conditions does lead to loss of the visa.

***
I have heard of some 176 visa holders who worked in another state, however they had to show that they had made an effort to find employment in their sponsoring state and could not.



paddygunner said:


> Is it correct that state sponsorship is a moral obligation and not a legal one and that if you wish to move to another state it would not effect your permanent residence status.


----------



## matjones (Jan 30, 2009)

paddygunner said:


> Is it correct that state sponsorship is a moral obligation and not a legal one and that if you wish to move to another state it would not effect your permanent residence status.


I would be worried that it might come back around and bite you in the ass when it comes time to apply for your AU citizenship. If you don't have the moral character to fulfill your obligations to the state, then you might not meet the 'standards' to get your citizenship.


----------



## riversandlakes (Nov 18, 2009)

I would think it's legally enforceable. The lack of news of 176 folks not being shown arrested on TV doesn't make it legal?


----------



## Aurita (Feb 23, 2009)

i would be interested to know people's experience if they did make reasonable effort, informed the state and moved. 

I am ACT sponsored and I have been applying like crazy in ACT roles, but already have a nice stack of rejections- could be because i am still off shore. however, any company that does not want to interview me for that reason, despite reasonably good work exp and referrals, is a bit of a dampener. having said that, ACT was kind enough to sponsor me so i am going to go and stay there for a bit and try for jobs but it's likely that i will not get anything even remotely using my skills and background...


----------



## anj1976 (Apr 24, 2008)

I have spoken to a few, some say you can go without informing then, some said it might be a risk when you finally apply for citizenship. I dont suggest doing it unless you have really tried finding a job, did not manage and are unable to sustain. You need to inform every few months about your whereabouts to the respective state. If you can prove you are unable to find a job and that your are almost finished with your funds and have somehow secured a job in another state, there is a possibility, they might give you a green to move out. There is also an option of getting your sponsorship transferred, provided the other state is willing to sponsor you.


----------



## riversandlakes (Nov 18, 2009)

I don't mean to be sour grapes. But 175 has a tougher time and marks than 176, right? So if 176 folks get to inform and move out of the state, that sounds a tad unfair on the part of the system, eh?


----------



## reddy.n (Jul 24, 2009)

I am a SS Applicant and have been researching about SS rules for a while.

Here are few points I would say:-
1) State Sponsors Applicants based on whether state is in demand of Applicant's skills.
2) State has no obligation for your employment.
3) It is because you declared you will stay within the state, state has sponsored you.
4) It is not only a moral obligation to stay inside a state, but is is legally en-forcible if state conducts a survey and finds large number of people are mis-using the visa. In history, no state might have done this before, because not many people jump states.
5) A state will *or rather must agree* for *making a wrong decision* in a applicants case by giving sponsorship without having any demand for such skills. If this can be proved by staying and applying for jobs within the state for at-least few (3-4) months, they may not ask the applicant about switching state.
6) All SS applicants will sure remember showing movable assets/bank deposits for 6 months expenses. This is required for settling down. The settling down part includes staying in the state for few months and applying for skilled jobs so that employers won't have tough time getting skilled people.

As Mat & Anj have mentioned, it might affect citizenship application. If you do follow #5 above, you can prove them you did put all effort to stay put in the sponsoring state.

Hope this helps.


----------



## reddy.n (Jul 24, 2009)

If you went through VIC guide for Immigrants, there is a graph which shows it takes 4 months to settle down (Find a home, enroll with Govt agencies, join kids to school etc) and another 1-2 months to find a job! So here they already have answers to your questions, and since they have given this kind of prior information, they have all rights to question an any early move.

Other states too may have something similar.


----------



## matjones (Jan 30, 2009)

riversandlakes said:


> I don't mean to be sour grapes. But 175 has a tougher time and marks than 176, right? So if 176 folks get to inform and move out of the state, that sounds a tad unfair on the part of the system, eh?


Yes, this would be very unfair. Definitely gaming the system if you don't live in that state, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances.


----------



## Aurita (Feb 23, 2009)

Hi Reddy, your perspective was thoughtful and useful- thanks for sharing


----------



## raspberrykitty (Jan 6, 2010)

matjones said:


> Yes, this would be very unfair. Definitely gaming the system if you don't live in that state, unless of course there are extenuating circumstances.


Agreed!


----------



## Lankan1 (Jul 9, 2010)

Aurita said:


> i would be interested to know people's experience if they did make reasonable effort, informed the state and moved.
> 
> I am ACT sponsored and I have been applying like crazy in ACT roles, but already have a nice stack of rejections- could be because i am still off shore. however, any company that does not want to interview me for that reason, despite reasonably good work exp and referrals, is a bit of a dampener. having said that, ACT was kind enough to sponsor me so i am going to go and stay there for a bit and try for jobs but it's likely that i will not get anything even remotely using my skills and background...


Even my problem is that suppose SA sponsor me and I go there and try to find skill job. If I'm unable to find jobs cann I inform the state and ask for an excuse, I mean in written form, this way I'm not braking any rule, legally or morally!


----------



## Lankan1 (Jul 9, 2010)

reddy.n said:


> I am a SS Applicant and have been researching about SS rules for a while.
> 
> Here are few points I would say:-
> 1) State Sponsors Applicants based on whether state is in demand of Applicant's skills.
> ...




Hi

Thanks for your valuable post! These days states give sponsorships not for the actual skill demand as per point 1) but based on population. If they want population to balance they issue nominations to the jobs which can provide more head count. for an example last time SA SMP had most specialized IT occupations, but If you go to seek.com & see they advertise only few of such vacancies compared with NSW or VIC. If an applicant is unable to find a job within the given state there should be a way that he could inform about that to the state and move away without breaking any legal or moral obligation!


----------

