UMA barred from applying visa

Australia calls me “U.M.A”. This is my story:

I was barred by five (5) types of BAR which prevents me from making a valid visa application:

  1. Section 46A BAR

  2. Section 48A BAR

  3. Section 48 BAR

  4. Section 91P BAR

  5. Regulation 2.43(1)(p) BAR

I travelled by boat where it was intercepted by the Australian navy. When I finally managed to get a BVE, the Department cancelled my bridging visa based on minor criminal charges, even before a court could determine if I am guilty or innocent. These criminal charges were eventually dropped but the awful effect of this weird cancellation power cannot be reversed even if a person is later found innocent. However, the consequences of this type of cancellation causes me to be barred from making a valid BVE application. With 5 different types of bar, this means I have no choice but be detained and removed from Australia. After using several lawyers and humanitarian immigration experts, I found AGAPE. Even after exhausting all avenues and being at the last stage of all appeals, with no hope left, I was very surprise that AGAPE’s tactical team could even present me with several technical loopholes, which allowed me to choose according to my preference of speed, costs, risks, and degree of effort required on my side. Today, I have my visa to work in Australia because I finally got sick and tired of changing different lawyers. I thank Haakon my best friend in Australia and Riya my Australian partner and myself for making the only good decision in my life, ie. to pay extra money to have 2 of the 41 Accredited Specialists in Immigration Law (NSW) makes a difference.

- L.A

UMA, s.48 bar, s.46a bar, s.48a bar, s.91p bar, r.2.43(1)(p) barIT Agapes48 bar, s46A bar, s48A bar, s91p bar, r2.43(1)(p) bar, uma, unauthorised maritime arrival, criminal charges