# Visa refused need guidance about review



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

My offshore 190 visa application got refused by dibp after i reply to natural justice. It rejected under 4020 clause that means false information. Now i want to review my application because the decision is on case officer assumtions. Can anyone help me to guide what to do now

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## Rajaastha (Jun 11, 2016)

harvy dhiman said:


> My offshore 190 visa application got refused by dibp after i reply to natural justice. It rejected under 4020 clause that means false information. Now i want to review my application because the decision is on case officer assumtions. Can anyone help me to guide what to do now
> 
> Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


Can you explain in details ,what was the false information you provided so that I can give some help.

You got any ban?

Please tell in details of your CO contact also.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

Nothing false dibp called my office for verification and there are two companies of my boss and the attendent talked pn the behalf of other company, but i proved with all docs in the NJ reply

They mention exclusive period may apply for 3 years.

Reasons rae low salary, tax avoiding company, small business company, ur profile is limited bla bla which are just assumptions of case officer


Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## Toscana (Jan 12, 2017)

*Read the legislation or get expert advice*

The official must base their decision on the relevant legislative provisions, usually found in regulations. If you wish to challenge their decision you must read the legislative provisions they have cited and understand them. Of course, just because someone cites legislation, it does not mean they have interpreted/applied it correctly. If they have made a mistake you can demonstrate it. If interpreting legislation is not your strength, go to an immigration lawyer/agent, if you can afford one. In the long run, it will save time, money and stress. Do not become aggressive, even if you feel provoked!
Best wishes!


----------



## sounddonor (May 1, 2013)

harvy dhiman said:


> Nothing false dibp called my office for verification and there are two companies of my boss and the attendent talked pn the behalf of other company, but i proved with all docs in the NJ reply
> 
> They mention exclusive period may apply for 3 years.
> 
> ...



Unbelievable reasons these are not your faults.


----------



## Rajaastha (Jun 11, 2016)

harvy dhiman said:


> Nothing false dibp called my office for verification and there are two companies of my boss and the attendent talked pn the behalf of other company, but i proved with all docs in the NJ reply
> 
> They mention exclusive period may apply for 3 years.
> 
> ...


As per my knowledge no review for offshore applications.

You can reply after 3 year ban.

Please check with a migration agent also


----------



## Rajaastha (Jun 11, 2016)

harvy dhiman said:


> Nothing false dibp called my office for verification and there are two companies of my boss and the attendent talked pn the behalf of other company, but i proved with all docs in the NJ reply
> 
> They mention exclusive period may apply for 3 years.
> 
> ...


As per my knowledge no review for offshore applications.

You can reapply after 3 year ban.

Pls check with a migration agent


----------



## TheExpatriate (Feb 7, 2014)

You have no merit review rights with the tribunal, however you have Judicial Review rights with the Federal Circuit Court

You need an immigration lawyer for that, not a migration agent, and the court would not review the case merits but would only see if the department made a jurisdictional error in the process of making the decision

It could be very costly btw


----------



## dave85 (Sep 8, 2015)

harvy dhiman said:


> Nothing false dibp called my office for verification and there are two companies of my boss and the attendent talked pn the behalf of other company, but i proved with all docs in the NJ reply
> 
> They mention exclusive period may apply for 3 years.
> 
> ...


What are the "assumptions of case officer"? You can copy and paste here the exact statements in the refusal letter. PIC4020 is not a small matter. What sort of documents did you provide in your NJ letter? 

Is your company legit in the first place? Were you paid a salary that is in accordance to the average pay of your nominated occupation? What are your roles and responsibilities?


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

dave85 said:


> What are the "assumptions of case officer"? You can copy and paste here the exact statements in the refusal letter. PIC4020 is not a small matter. What sort of documents did you provide in your NJ letter?
> 
> Is your company legit in the first place? Were you paid a salary that is in accordance to the average pay of your nominated occupation? What are your roles and responsibilities?


My CO assumed these points below;

The references above suggest that you are a repair person rather than a qualified engineer.

This is also reflected within the passbooks and payslips you have provided to support your

salary.

Your salary as stated in your bank passbooks and payslips are low and do not

commensurate for a person who is claiming to be a qualified Engineer in India. Your

passbooks and payslips also show that you are not being paid provident fund contributions.

In addition, as the company allegedly pays its Engineers this low amount it would suggest

it is a small business and that the range of tasks you would carry out would be very limited,

questioning if you are a skilled Engineer.

Furthermore, you stated the following in your response in a word document named

‘Comments’ dated 21st November 2016: ‘The employee who received the verification

call did not reply to any of your questions/queries relating to ABC because

he believed the said call was from the Sales Tax Department for the tax registration of

XYZ.’ This is not plausible because DIBP investigators clearly identity

themselves and the purpose of the call prior to questioning persons regarding employment

claims. This also raises concerns that ABC is involved in tax avoidance as

your response states the employee who answered the phone believed the call was from Tax

Registration authorities, so he denied the phone number being used by ABC

Your argument for this matter is implausible and questions the integrity and legitimacy of

the company as a whole. Therefore, I am not satisfied the evidence you have provided to

support your claims outweighs the adverse information DIBP gathered at the time of the

interview with regards to your claimed employer ABC

I have carefully considered the above findings in conjunction with the information which has

been provided with this application. Having assessed all of the information available, I am

not satisfied that you have provided a genuine work reference dated 10 August 20116 and

I reasonably suspect it was obtained because of a false or misleading statement regarding

your work experience claims at ABC whether or not made knowingly for this

visa application.

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## dave85 (Sep 8, 2015)

harvy dhiman said:


> My CO assumed these points below;
> 
> The references above suggest that you are a repair person rather than a qualified engineer.
> 
> ...


It is unbelievable that you wrote in your NJ reply: "The employee who received the verification call did not reply to any of your questions/queries relating to ABC because he believed the said call was from the Sales Tax Department for the tax registration of XYZ." Your statement really puts your job position in a bad light. 

Addressing the "small business" assumption, how big is your company? How many personnel does your company employ? What is the annual turnover in terms of revenue? How does the organisational chart looks like? 

My opinion is that DIBP did not make a jurisdictional error in the process of making the decision. DIBP made the decision based on available information, either provided by yourself (through the NJ reply), through the verification call, and other sources (e.g., payslips, bank accounts). To be sure, you have to consult a migration lawyer.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

dave85 said:


> It is unbelievable that you wrote in your NJ reply: "The employee who received the verification call did not reply to any of your questions/queries relating to ABC because he believed the said call was from the Sales Tax Department for the tax registration of XYZ." Your statement really puts your job position in a bad light.
> 
> Addressing the "small business" assumption, how big is your company? How many personnel does your company employ? What is the annual turnover in terms of revenue? How does the organisational chart looks like?
> 
> My opinion is that DIBP did not make a jurisdictional error in the process of making the decision. DIBP made the decision based on available information, either provided by yourself (through the NJ reply), through the verification call, and other sources (e.g., payslips, bank accounts). To be sure, you have to consult a migration lawyer.


I provided the all docs to support my concerns 

As engineer australia assessed my job duties than why dibp assums wrong profile

There is no any specification abt size of company to apply visa in dibp

I am getting average good salary in india this is not this much low

Dont know what made them to refuse my application straight away

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## dave85 (Sep 8, 2015)

harvy dhiman said:


> I provided the all docs to support my concerns
> 
> As engineer australia assessed my job duties than why dibp assums wrong profile
> 
> ...


DIBP conducts its own verification checks. This is independent from the skills assessment done by Engineer Australia. 

DIBP does not assume - It is their job to check and verify. DIBP gave you a chance to clarify through the NJ letter and your replies seemed to be poorly written. 

To be clear, what is your salary range? What is the size of your company? Are you the only engineer employed in your company? What documents did you provide? 

Did you provide an organisational chart? Did you provide signed declarations from your boss/relevant HR department? 

While there is no specification about company size in DIBP, it is clear that they had serious doubts about your work experiences and nominated occupation.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

dave85 said:


> DIBP conducts its own verification checks. This is independent from the skills assessment done by Engineer Australia.
> 
> DIBP does not assume - It is their job to check and verify. DIBP gave you a chance to clarify through the NJ letter and your replies seemed to be poorly written.
> 
> ...


 This was my NJ

Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) officer contacted the phone

number provided on your reference letter and spoke with an employee for another

company which was not ABC.

● The company the employee worked for has used the phone number stated in the work

reference for at least the last 2 years

● The employee confirmed his employers address is the same address as on the your

reference letter, however he stated the businesses are not connected.

● An official website for ABC was not located during open source searches.



i replied company registration docs including land docs on company name 

Landline contact old bills

Official ids of employer

My itemised mobile bills 

Photographs, catalogues, magazines

Docs of other company by name of same employer

Website whois.net info

Reference letters from clients 

My official fb account, email 

My visit visa copies 


My company dont have too much employees, even no HR department, its basically an import/export company and all staff works in the field. 






Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## FrozenAh (Apr 30, 2014)

I am no expert but your case has been messed up pretty bad, there is no point in reviweing. The problem is you do not match the occupation profile according to DIBP. Its usually believed to be impossible for your field to have a salary that is not taxable. Your response and your employers response all raised the red flags. If you do not match the occupation profile there nothing much you can do.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

FrozenAh said:


> I am no expert but your case has been messed up pretty bad, there is no point in reviweing. The problem is you do not match the occupation profile according to DIBP. Its usually believed to be impossible for your field to have a salary that is not taxable. Your response and your employers response all raised the red flags. If you do not match the occupation profile there nothing much you can do.


I submitted all tax docs even my salary is taxable but the provident fund is not mendatory for us which is not an only proof of salary.

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## Abubakr (May 10, 2016)

I think the main issue here is that you told them that the employer didnt say the truth because he was worried its the taxes authorities and as they said its not possible.
Why did the employer lie to them ??


----------



## FrozenAh (Apr 30, 2014)

sorry what I meant was your job profile including your salary does not fit the occupation according to DIBP. Its mostly because the emloyment verification did not went well and it raised enough red flags to make you ineligible for the occupation you applied for. the size of your company, the response from your employer, low salary plus your job title as a repair man all raised the red flags. Size of the company and proper skills required to perform the job matters a lot especially in occupations like engineering. Like I said I am no expert, you may have chance so consult a good lawyer.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

Abubakr said:


> I think the main issue here is that you told them that the employer didnt say the truth because he was worried its the taxes authorities and as they said its not possible.
> Why did the employer lie to them ??


Because the newly opened company by my same employer registration process was going on that time, the peon thought call is from sale tax department

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## Patriotic Soul-001 (Jun 27, 2016)

Well i think the CO had a valid reasons to refuse ur visa, if u were in his place u would hv done the same. Just think calmly wht mistakes u did.

1. Embassy call for verification, ur Peon receive the call & he confirm the address but tell them its XYZ company not ABC company, while u provided all the documents of ABC company. (In ideal situations Peon doesnt answer calls)

2. The call receiving Peon does not answer any of his questions.

3. The address & contact number is same as you provided but the company is different, no information about u is provided. (Dont u think tht will make anyone suspicious?) 

4. In your NJ u tell them ur company will not provide info to Govt cz they want to evade taxes.

5. You claim to b an engineer but ur salary is even lower as per indian standards.

You got everything missed up from start. The verification call ruined ur case. You should have given head up in advance to ur staff about the verification call so they might hv been prepared & handled things more professionally. Anyhow u can consult wit some good immigration lawyer & provide him all the information. He will be in better position to judge ur case. Good Luck


----------



## dave85 (Sep 8, 2015)

harvy dhiman said:


> This was my NJ
> 
> Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) officer contacted the phone
> 
> ...


It is either you messed up thoroughly during the visa application process, or you were untruthful about your nominated occupation. 

The documents that you provided for the NJ letter are mostly useless. What's the use of you providing the official ids of employer, itemised mobile bills, your facebook and email account? Probably the worse item on the list is the reference letters from your clients.

Did you even provide a signed affidavit from your "boss"? 
Did you provide a signed affidavit from the person who answered the DIBP phone call? 
Did you provide a signed affidavit from a fellow engineer in your company (or at least the employee managing your payroll)?

And why does an "import/export company" (and a small-sized one) need a qualified engineer? 

Given what you said in the previous posts, DIBP did not simply made assumptions about your case. There are real grounds and red flags for DIBP to refuse you the visa. 

Sad to say, I highly doubt that you have any merits for review. You can try speaking to a migration lawyer, but it does not sound promising at all.


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

Hi everyone,

DIBP said it was a jurisdictional error and they reopened my case again. Now again new NJ to justify truthfulness of my employment and job duties.

Kindly suggest 

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## sounddonor (May 1, 2013)

harvy dhiman said:


> Hi everyone,
> 
> DIBP said it was a jurisdictional error and they reopened my case again. Now again new NJ to justify truthfulness of my employment and job duties.
> 
> ...


All the best. Talked to MARA agent immediately. Or you can withdraw your application to avoid the ban of 3 years and start fresh!


----------



## harvy dhiman (Apr 1, 2016)

sounddonor said:


> All the best. Talked to MARA agent immediately. Or you can withdraw your application to avoid the ban of 3 years and start fresh!


So u mean i am out of the ban now?
But still the status comes as finalised in the immi account.I dont want to withdraw as i have all evidences, suggest me how to prove the truthful now?

Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


----------



## Kaursingh (Jul 27, 2020)

I also Got Natural justice letter. can you Telle which information was suspicious 
And what you replied


----------



## noman561 (Nov 19, 2019)

harvy dhiman said:


> So u mean i am out of the ban now?
> But still the status comes as finalised in the immi account.I dont want to withdraw as i have all evidences, suggest me how to prove the truthful now?
> 
> Sent from my SM-E500H using Tapatalk


@harvy dhiman Curious to know that what was the final decision DIBP gave on ur application??

Sent from my SM-A520F using Tapatalk


----------



## Hamadeh (Jul 9, 2018)

Guys, are you aware that this post since 2017? Even the last login of the member was 2018.


----------

