Peter Dutton MP

by

Seeking money for Visa sponsorship is a crime with upto 2 years prison and upto $324,000 fine

Re-blogging on Tuesday, 19 June, 2018

It’s a crime to receive or offer a benefit for visa sponsorship

JailedFines (pic from Herald Sun newspaper)

Up to 2 yrs jail &/or up to $324,000/case fine for people requesting/receiving a benefit in return for a work sponsorship including 457 visa. 457 visa scamming is making some unethical & unscrupulous employers rich at the cost of employees and Australia. Some of these people are masquerading as community leaders.

I have copied the information below from Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Paying for visa sponsorship – certification requirement

On 14 December 2015 new criminal and civil penalties and visa cancellation provisions were introduced as part of a framework that allows for sanctions to be imposed on a person who asks for, receives, offers or provides a benefit in return for a visa sponsorship or employment that requires visa sponsorship (otherwise known as a ‘sponsorship-related event’).

The certification requirement

Sponsors, nominators and visa applicants must provide a statement in their online application about current or previous conduct that constitutes a breach of ‘paying for visa sponsorship’. You will need to provide a separate certification form only if you applied before July 2016 or have been requested to provide it. See:Certification Form.

The mandatory certification required from sponsors and nominators requires you to have an understanding of the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), which you are making your certification.  As a sponsor or nominator, sections 245AQ and 245AR of the Act are applicable.

This information is presented below for your reference.

245AQ definitions

benefit includes:

  • a payment or other valuable consideration
  • a deduction of an amount
  • any kind of real or personal property
  • an advantage
  • a service
  • a gift.

sponsorship-related event means any of the following events:

  • a person applying for approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class
  • a person applying for a variation of a term of an approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class
  • a person becoming, or not ceasing to be, a party to a work agreement
  • a person agreeing to be, or not withdrawing his or her agreement to be, an approved sponsor in relation to an applicant or proposed applicant for a sponsored visa
  • a person making a nomination under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing a nomination made under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa
  • a person applying under the regulations for approval of the nomination of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing the nomination under the regulations of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa
  • a person employing or engaging, or not terminating the employment or engagement of, a person to work in an occupation or position in relation to which a sponsored visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for
  • a person engaging, or not terminating the engagement of, a person to undertake a program, or carry out an activity, in relation to which a sponsored visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for
  • the grant of a sponsored visa
  • a prescribed event.

A prescribed event within 245AQ(l) of the Act, is defined at 5.19N of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) and includes:

  • a person becoming, or not ceasing to be, a party to a labour agreement that is not a work agreement
  • a person nominating a position in accordance with such a labour agreement in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for,  a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing a nomination of a position made in accordance with such a labour agreement in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa.

245AR Prohibition on asking for or receiving a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship-related event

  1. A person (the first person) contravenes this subsection if:
    1. the first person asks for, or receives, a benefit from another person; and
    2. the first person asks for, or receives, the benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship-related event.
  3. To avoid doubt, the first person contravenes subsection (1) even if the sponsorship-related event does not occur.
  4. Subsection (1) does not apply if the benefit is a payment of a reasonable amount for a professional service that has been provided, or is to be provided, by the first person or a third person.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

    Offence
  5. A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1). The physical elements of the offence are set out in that subsection.Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 360 penalty units, or both.Civil penalty provision
  6. A person is liable to a civil penalty if a person contravenes subsection (1).Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.
  7. A person who wishes to rely on subsection (3) in proceedings for a civil penalty order bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in that subsection.Note: It is not necessary to prove a person’s state of mind in proceedings for a civil penalty order (see section 486ZF).

The legislation was introduced addressing payment for visas activity through criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, and visa cancellation powers. Asking for, receiving, offering or providing a benefit in return for visa sponsorship or related employment is now illegal.

The payment for visas legislation applies to a range of temporary sponsored and permanent skilled employer nominated visas. It is unacceptable for sponsors, nominators, employers or third parties to make a personal gain through a payment for visa arrangement.

New criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment and/or penalties of up to $324,000 for each instance apply to people requesting or receiving a benefit in return for a sponsorship event. Civil penalties of up to $216,000 may apply for people found to have offered or provided a benefit in return for a sponsorship event occurring. In addition to these penalties, if the people involved in this conduct hold a visa, either temporary or permanent, this may also be subject to cancellation. If visa applicants are involved, their applications can be refused.

Payment for visas undermines the integrity of skilled work programmes, which address genuine skill shortages in the Australia labour market by making employees available from overseas.

For more information about what constitutes payment for visas behaviour including the list of temporary sponsored and permanent skilled employer nominated visas affected, go to: www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work-1.

If you have been a victim of, or are aware of payment for visas conduct, please report it to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection: http://www.border.gov.au/about/contact/report-suspicious-activities-behaviour.

————————————————————————–

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/18th Feb, 2016

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

by

457 Visa class terminated

Sydney, April 18, 2017

457 class Visa

Malcolm Turnbull TwitterAustralian Prime Minister, Malcolm Turnbull and Immigration and Border Protection Minister, Peter Dutton, announced today that they have abolished Temporary Worker (Skilled) Visa (subclass 457),  effective immediately.

457 Visa will be replaced by two new temporary Visa classes, which will allow employers and businesses to hire a skilled person from overseas provided they can’t find a suitably skilled local person.

People who will get these visas must have relevant work experience of at least 2 years, have better English proficiency and pass criminal check. This is to ensure that only the best people get this visa.

One of these new classes will be for a shorter period of 2 years. After the conclusion of 2 years, the employees will not be able to apply for PR visa.

Another of the new visa will be able for 4 years, if they have a minimum relevant work experience of 2 years, fulfil tougher English proficiency test and clear the criminal and background check, the criteria which are not applicable for current 457 visa presently.

Fees for both these new visa ($1,150  for 2 years Visa and $2,400 for 4 years Visa) will be higher than what is the case presently. Special concessions in a variety of ways and manners will continue to be available for regional Australia.

Out of about 600 categories of occupations in the list for 457 visa, about 200 categories will be removed.

A minimum wage will be fixed to stop unfair advantage to overseas employees when it comes to wages.

Employers will have to do a mandatory labour testing of the job market and offer the job to a suitably skilled Australian (or a PR visa holder), before such job can go to an overseas person.

Employers and businesses, who employ overseas workers would be required to contribute some funds for training of local people.

As of September, 2016, there are about 95,000 primary 457 visa holders and about 76,000 secondary 457 visa holders (family members of primary 457 visa holders).

Indians constitute about 25% of the total 457 visas, followed by the British at 20% and people from People’s Republic of China (PRC) at about 5%.

Total 457 visa holders are less than 1% of total workers in Australia.

Peter Dutton TwitterMinister for Immigration and Border Protection, Peter Dutton, confirmed that these changes will not affect those who are already holding 457 visa, and current 457 visa holders will be able to apply for the PR visa at the end of their 4 years employment.

The new visa category will be finalised in March 2018, and will be implemented immediately.

It is expected that the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) will release more details in days to weeks from now.

More details: http://www.news.com.au/national/politics/prime-minister-malcolm-turnbull-has-banned-457-visas/news-story/7064434e051073a0882a3e11dd8bc87f

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/457-visas-to-be-scrapped-new-visa-rules-explained/news-story/0c83d69f94d61c7d81c4dbcccbb56050

http://www.news.com.au/finance/work/what-you-need-to-know-about-the-457-visa-changes/news-story/3894724396a5c7f99491c961ae9b8088

Rob Harris, journalist from the Herald Sun newspaper has posted following information about which categories are excluded from sponsored visa categories.

List of removed occupations: https://www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work/Skills-assessment-and-assessing-authorities/skilled-occupations-lists/removed-skilled-occupations

It is well-known that 457 Visa system was scammed by many employers and businesses. Many times, employers were not testing the market for the availability of suitably skilled local people. Even worse, many employers and businesses were taking money for sponsoring people on 457 visa. Market rates for such bribe ranged from $40,000 to 70,000. I personally know an example of a so-called businessman, who also masquerades as community leader, who took $150,000 from 3 people to sponsor them for 457 visa. Despite this, he didn’t do the proper job, before selling his business to someone else. The new owner demanded money again. Victims contacted a few of us (4 people), seeking assistance. You should not be surprised to know that this particular “businessman” has been given an “Excellence in community service” award by an association. Another example is that of a “businessman” who is known as a “Go to” man in the community for arranging the “match making” for this type of visa. Obviously, he makes his money from not only the “sponsoted” employee, but also from the one who “sponsors” the “employee”. Many of this type of “businesspeople” are often awarded “role model of the community” titles and are listed in Who is Who columns in the communities, because of variety of reasons, none of which can be called genuine or clean. Some foolish Government ministers include them in their delegations and these people are often seen around political leaders to create an impression of their high connections to scare the victims and stop them from complaining to authorities.

There is no doubt that quite a lot of employers, likely to be the majority, sponsor right type of people on 457 visa for the right reasons and act ethically, but it’s undeniable that corruption and rorting are rampant. Exploitation for some of these visa holders is not uncommon. There  is always a sword of the threat of cancelling the sponsorship hanging over 457 visa holders, if they did not do and pay what employers wanted. Once this sponsorship gets cancelled, the employee must find a new  sponsor within 60 days, which is very difficult, if not impossible in many cases.

This behavior not only harms the Australian job seekers, because they miss out on a job, but it also promotes corruption and creates exploitation-based employment industry. This also contributes to cash economy, because the money exchange involved in this, by necessity, is in cash form.

There are already comments from the opposition and Unions that these changes are not enough and are just window dressing.  Looking at the changes, one thing becomes obvious that the shorter term visa  (2 years variety) is likely to be used only for genuine employees.  Nobody is going to pay for a sponsorship which doesn’t lead to PR visa at the end of the sponsored job. Let us see what outcome these changes deliver. Their efficacy in tackling 457 visa rorts will become clear in due course.

I am of the firm opinion that Labour market testing to see if an Australian worker is available before hiring someone from overseas should be done independently, as recommended by the John Azarius inquiry. It is hard to rely on such testing by the employers themselves.

In my view any action to control and eradicate the corruption is welcome. In fact, I believe that Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) should do everything including strengthening the resources for surveillance, investigation and prosecution against those who are involved in the rorting of sponsored visa programmes, They will have a better chance to catch the scammers if DIBP gives protection, including offering Justice visa, to the victims, to encourage them to testify and provide the necessary evidence against the visa scammers.

I hope that these changes make the sponsored jobs programme good and fair for Australia and Australians, as well as those who apply for this visa. Anything which cleans this visa programme is certainly going to be better than what we have today.

The programme for the obvious reasons will need regular reviewing and fine tuning to make it effective and to be meeting the needs of Australia

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

by

Not just fines, jail terms should also be given to fake doctors

Sydney, 11 March, 2017

It is a matter of grave concern that Shyam Acharya stole the identity and medical degrees of Dr Sarang Chitale, and then entered Australia where he worked as a junior doctor in 4 NSW hospitals-Hornsby, Manly, Wyong and Gosford hospitals during 2003-2014. He was on a limited registration and was permitted to work under supervision in public hospitals. He never went though rigorous medical registration processes.

The identity and degrees he stole from is Dr Sarang Chitale who is a reputed Rheumatologist in North England.

Shyam Acharya obtained Australian citizenship too. After co-workers developed suspicion about his medical background after 2014-15, when worked in pharmaceutical companies, a complaint was made to Australian Health Practitioners Regulation Authority (AHPRA). AHPRA has taken him to the court under relevant laws. The case is pending in a Sydney court. He is facing a maximum of $30,000 fines. His whereabouts are unknown presently. It is suspected that he has fled to India.

———————————————————–

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/fake-doctor-shyam-acharya-shows-big-failing-of-the-system-peter-dutton-says-20170309-guuwjj.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/nsw-health-minister-to-seize-home-of-alleged-fake-doctor/8345566?smid=Page:+ABC+News-Facebook_Organic&WT.tsrc=Facebook_Organic&sf61580228=1

http://www.mamamia.com.au/nsw-fake-doctor/?utm_campaign=Mamamia&utm_source=SocialFlow&utm_medium=Facebook

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-03-11/nsw-health-minister-to-seize-home-of-alleged-fake-doctor/8345566

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/nsw-health-to-seize-home-of-fake-doctor-shyam-acharya/news-story/b9c4629ffc4189dd403d1f5c45cd9e95

http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/fake-doctor-shyam-acharya-left-wife-and-child-behind-in-australia-when-he-fled/news-story/a3f4c960f3b78297dc5a58dc90c31c2d

———————————————————–

NSW Health Minister, Brad Hazzard, is keen for the relevant rules to be amended so that Mr Acharya or anyone else who acts or pretends as a doctor, but is not a registered doctor and not entitled to hold himself/herself out as a medical doctor, is also punished with a jail term. Federal Health Minister, Greg Hunt, supports this proposal.

NSW Health is exploring the possibility to recoup the money paid by NSW Government to this fake doctor by forcing the sale and seizing his share in this house, which he co-owns in Ryde. Apparently, this house is of $1.5 million value.

Multiple investigations are under way currently to get to the bottom of how a fake doctor could work for 11 years within NSW Public Health System and obtain Australian citizenship, before getting caught.

This case is all over the news and people are talking about it because of its brazen nature and long duration. Many doctors are quite concerned about this case because of its real and potential consequences for patients. It also has a potential to create a substantial harm to medical profession, especially to those who share his geographical origin as a way of their background or ethnicity.

System failed here big time, but it is well-known that systems and processes for medical registration have been tightened in 2013. Identification and credentialing are performed stringently.

In due course, investigating authorities will find out ins and outs of this matter, and get him extradited from wherever he is currently hiding. He must be brought to justice.

We believe that fines alone are not sufficient penalties for such people. Jail terms should also be in place to create a significant deterrence against such behaviour. Federation of Indian Associations of NSW is demanding a review of the punishment regime for those who violate the law in this regard. PRESS RELEASE: NOT JUST FINES, JAIL TERMS SHOULD ALSO BE GIVEN TO FAKE DOCTORS Final

It is not appropriate or permissible for any person to write “Dr” before their names and hold themselves as medical practitioners if they are not registered as a medical practitioner in Australia.

Similarly, there is a trend for some with a PhD from overseas to write “Dr” before their names, even when they are working in a totally unrelated area (to the field of their PhD) to gain undeserved reputation and credibility. Unfortunately, some of these people are involved in disreputable, if not illegal, activities like exploitation of vulnerable people and are not known to have integrity. We believe that people should not be permitted to hold themselves out as scientists or research scholars,  with word “Dr” before their names, if they are not working in the field of their PhD.

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

by

It’s a crime to receive or offer a benefit for visa sponsorship

JailedFines (pic from Herald Sun newspaper)

Re-blogging on Tuesday, 19 June, 2018

Up to 2 yrs jail &/or up to $324,000/case fine for people requesting/receiving a benefit in return for a work sponsorship including 457 visa. 457 visa scamming is making some unethical & unscrupulous employers rich at the cost of employees and Australia. Some of these people are masquerading as community leaders. 

I have copied the information below from Department of Immigration and Border Protection.

Paying for visa sponsorship – certification requirement

On 14 December 2015 new criminal and civil penalties and visa cancellation provisions were introduced as part of a framework that allows for sanctions to be imposed on a person who asks for, receives, offers or provides a benefit in return for a visa sponsorship or employment that requires visa sponsorship (otherwise known as a ‘sponsorship-related event’).

The certification requirement

Sponsors, nominators and visa applicants must provide a statement in their online application about current or previous conduct that constitutes a breach of ‘paying for visa sponsorship’. You will need to provide a separate certification form only if you applied before July 2016 or have been requested to provide it. See: Certification Form.

The mandatory certification required from sponsors and nominators requires you to have an understanding of the relevant sections of the Migration Act 1958 (the Act), which you are making your certification.  As a sponsor or nominator, sections 245AQ and 245AR of the Act are applicable.

This information is presented below for your reference.

245AQ definitions

benefit includes:

  • a payment or other valuable consideration
  • a deduction of an amount
  • any kind of real or personal property
  • an advantage
  • a service
  • a gift.

sponsorship-related event means any of the following events:

  • a person applying for approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class
  • a person applying for a variation of a term of an approval as a sponsor under section 140E in relation to a sponsor class
  • a person becoming, or not ceasing to be, a party to a work agreement
  • a person agreeing to be, or not withdrawing his or her agreement to be, an approved sponsor in relation to an applicant or proposed applicant for a sponsored visa
  • a person making a nomination under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing a nomination made under section 140GB in relation to a holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa
  • a person applying under the regulations for approval of the nomination of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing the nomination under the regulations of a position in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa
  • a person employing or engaging, or not terminating the employment or engagement of, a person to work in an occupation or position in relation to which a sponsored visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for
  • a person engaging, or not terminating the engagement of, a person to undertake a program, or carry out an activity, in relation to which a sponsored visa has been granted, has been applied for or is to be applied for
  • the grant of a sponsored visa
  • a prescribed event.

A prescribed event within 245AQ(l) of the Act, is defined at 5.19N of the Migration Regulations 1994 (the Regulations) and includes:

  • a person becoming, or not ceasing to be, a party to a labour agreement that is not a work agreement
  • a person nominating a position in accordance with such a labour agreement in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for,  a sponsored visa, or including another person in such a nomination
  • a person not withdrawing a nomination of a position made in accordance with such a labour agreement in relation to the holder of, or an applicant or proposed applicant for, a sponsored visa.

245AR Prohibition on asking for or receiving a benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship-related event

  1. A person (the first person) contravenes this subsection if:
    1. the first person asks for, or receives, a benefit from another person; and
    2. the first person asks for, or receives, the benefit in return for the occurrence of a sponsorship-related event.
  2. To avoid doubt, the first person contravenes subsection (1) even if the sponsorship-related event does not occur.
  3. Subsection (1) does not apply if the benefit is a payment of a reasonable amount for a professional service that has been provided, or is to be provided, by the first person or a third person.Note: A defendant bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in this subsection (see subsection 13.3(3) of the Criminal Code).

    Offence
  4. A person commits an offence if the person contravenes subsection (1). The physical elements of the offence are set out in that subsection.Penalty: Imprisonment for 2 years or 360 penalty units, or both.

    Civil penalty provision

  5. A person is liable to a civil penalty if a person contravenes subsection (1).Civil penalty: 240 penalty units.
  6. A person who wishes to rely on subsection (3) in proceedings for a civil penalty order bears an evidential burden in relation to the matter in that subsection.Note: It is not necessary to prove a person’s state of mind in proceedings for a civil penalty order (see section 486ZF).

 

The legislation was introduced addressing payment for visas activity through criminal, civil and administrative sanctions, and visa cancellation powers. Asking for, receiving, offering or providing a benefit in return for visa sponsorship or related employment is now illegal.

The payment for visas legislation applies to a range of temporary sponsored and permanent skilled employer nominated visas. It is unacceptable for sponsors, nominators, employers or third parties to make a personal gain through a payment for visa arrangement.

New criminal penalties of up to two years imprisonment and/or penalties of up to $324,000 for each instance apply to people requesting or receiving a benefit in return for a sponsorship event. Civil penalties of up to $216,000 may apply for people found to have offered or provided a benefit in return for a sponsorship event occurring. In addition to these penalties, if the people involved in this conduct hold a visa, either temporary or permanent, this may also be subject to cancellation. If visa applicants are involved, their applications can be refused.

Payment for visas undermines the integrity of skilled work programmes, which address genuine skill shortages in the Australia labour market by making employees available from overseas.

For more information about what constitutes payment for visas behaviour including the list of temporary sponsored and permanent skilled employer nominated visas affected, go to: www.border.gov.au/Trav/Work/Work-1.

If you have been a victim of, or are aware of payment for visas conduct, please report it to the Department of Immigration and Border Protection: http://www.border.gov.au/about/contact/report-suspicious-activities-behaviour.

————————————————————————–

Dr Yadu Singh/Sydney/18th Feb, 2016

http://www.twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/DoctorYaduSingh

 

by

Australia approves Visa for Hassan Asif’s family

Sydney, NSW                                                                                        23rd Dec, 2015

We are very pleased that Australia has approved temporary Visa to student Hassan Asif’s family, allowing them to be with Hassan, who is suffering from a terminal stage Cancer, and has weeks to live.

Hassan came to Australia last year to study in a Melbourne University. He is currently in the care of Melbourne City Mission. He has no family or community connections in Australia.

Hassan Asif holds a picture of his mother and brother, who are not allowed to come and see him in his last days. Picture: Mike Keating

(Pic by Mike Keating, News Corps)

(Pic by Mike Keating News Corps)

Immigration Minister, The Hon Peter Dutton MP outlined this Visa decision in a press conference today.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-23/visas-for-parents-of-hassan-asif-approved/7050822

http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/health/health-problems/hassan-asifs-family-is-not-allowed-into-australia-to-say-goodbye/news-story/f5bbe6828861bbb70adad2c613fa7126

There was some suggestions yesterday that Hassan should have gone to Pakistan, instead of subjecting his family for the expenses in travelling to Melbourne.

I want to clarify that Hassan too did want this to happen, but due to his health, no airline was prepared to fly him to Pakistan.

I wrote a Post on this subject yesterday, appealing the authorities to treat this case with compassion and kindness.

https://yadusingh.wordpress.com/2015/12/22/hassan-asif-deserves-compassion-kindness/

There has been an extensive media coverage and a Change.org appeal too on this subject. Social media too played its role.

Our thanks are due to the Immigration Minister and the Department of Immigration and Border Protection (DIBP) for their quick decision.

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.Twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.facebook.com/dryadusingh

 

 

 

by

Hassan Asif deserves compassion & kindness

Sydney, NSW                                                                                           22nd Dec, 2015

Hassan Asif is 25 years old student, who came to Australia from Pakistan in 2014 to study in a Melbourne University.

Hassan Asif

He is suffering from a terminal/advanced Cancer and is under the care of Melbourne City Mission. He is reported to have only weeks to live.

Hassan has no family in Australia and has no community ties or connections.

He was keen to have his mother and brother to come to Australia to be with him, but their temporary Visa applications have been rejected.

From reports, Department of Immigration & Border Protection (DIBP) has encouraged them to submit fresh applications.

Reading the reports, his situation is saddening and heart-wrenching.

I believe that Hassan’s case deserves to be treated with compassion and kindness.

I am hopeful that Pakistani Australian community members and many others, including members of Indian Australian community, will come forward to raise funds for Hassan’s family members’ living expenses.

One good friend of mine, Sydney businessman, Kashif Amjad, responded to my Facebook post just now with “I will follow up with Australian Ambassador in Islamabad and ppl here. I will give my personal assurance if they come i will ensure they comply with all visa conditions.”

I urge my friends, especially Pakistani Australians, to come forward and help us persuade DIBP and Immigration Minister, The Hon Peter Dutton MP to treat this case with deserved compassion & kindness, and review the case. Family members can be asked to resubmit the applications.

——————————-

Further info:

http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/dying-pakistani-student-denied-final-visit-from-family-by-immigration-department-20151222-gltoso.html

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-12-22/man-with-cancer-has-weeks-to-live,-family-denied-visa/7049116

———————————

 

Dr Yadu Singh

http://www.Twitter.com/dryadusingh

http://www.Facebook.com/dryadusingh