Regarding the report published over the weekend by SMH/AGE and 60 Minutes — concerning Yongge (Henry) Qi, an international student connected to our firm, who was said to have been exploited by an employer — the following is our firm’s formal response.
The information and evidence available to our firm show the following:
First: Our firm processed Yongge (Henry) Qi’s entire student visa application in line with the standard study-abroad visa procedure, with all the necessary authorisations in place. Multiple pieces of evidence obtained by our firm cross-confirm that Yongge (Henry) Qi himself was fully aware throughout that he was applying for a student visa; his claim in the interview that he had no knowledge of the student visa application is inconsistent with the facts.
Second: As for the downstream exploitation by an employer that Yongge (Henry) Qi describes, our firm had absolutely no way of knowing about it — let alone any involvement. Neither he, his lawyer, nor the media coverage has provided any evidence that our firm was in any way involved.
Third: Our firm absolutely does not participate in, encourage or support any form of labour-market exploitation. Yet on the question of how Yongge (Henry) Qi was exploited by an employer, not a single piece of supporting evidence has been provided. The entire coverage relies on just one photograph of accommodation — showing a clothes rack, a desk and a large bed — to demonstrate his supposedly appalling living conditions. Not even the most basic details of the employer accused of exploitation, such as a name, are mentioned.
Fourth: All the relevant evidence and explanations set out in this article were also handed to the media by our firm when the journalist contacted us for a response. Unfortunately, the final coverage still largely amounts to a one-sided account from Yongge (Henry) Qi.
On the basis of these four points, our firm considers this to be a clearly unfair piece of reporting, and has decided to issue a formal response and explanation, together with the relevant supporting evidence. We will also send additional evidence and statements to the media organisations concerned in due course.
Timeline of events:
12 May 2021: Our consultant received an enquiry, through the intermediary known as “Sister”, that the applicant Yongge (Henry) Qi needed to arrange a study-abroad visa.
13 May 2021: Our firm obtained Yongge (Henry) Qi’s signature on the service contract. After the contract was signed, we progressively received the visa-lodgement materials, including his passport and the signed Form 956 visa-lodgement authorisation, and the name and signature on the Form 956 were checked and found to match those on his passport.
27 May 2021: Our firm lodged Yongge (Henry) Qi’s student visa.
04 June 2021: Yongge (Henry) Qi’s student visa was granted.
15 March 2022: Our firm received an email from the school advising that Yongge (Henry) Qi had not enrolled as scheduled. From that point on, our firm contacted Yongge (Henry) Qi repeatedly by email and phone, but received no response. We then fell back on our contingency option of contacting the intermediary “Sister” to see whether she could reach him. “Sister” advised our firm that he had been unable to adjust to life in Australia, no longer wished to continue his studies here, wanted to leave and return home, and had therefore not attended classes. Our firm asked repeatedly for confirmation, and advised that this would have consequences such as the cancellation of the COE and of the student visa.
April 2023: Yongge (Henry) Qi and his legal representative requested information and documents relating to his visa application from our firm. It was only then that our firm learned the intermediary “Sister” was not in fact a blood relative of Yongge (Henry) Qi.
Evidence and explanation 1:
Our firm handled only the visa-related and school-application services, every step of which was confirmed by the signed authorisation of the applicant, Yongge (Henry) Qi; we checked every signature against his passport and confirmed they were consistent.
Evidence and explanation 2:
The information obtained by our firm shows that the applicant, Yongge (Henry) Qi, was fully informed throughout the school and visa applications and clearly understood that he was applying for a student visa.
After Yongge (Henry) Qi received the school’s warning letter, we contacted him repeatedly to notify and reconfirm, advising him of the consequences and the process on multiple occasions.
Evidence and explanation 3:
It was not until April this year that our firm learned that the intermediary known as “Sister”, who first contacted us, was not in fact the applicant’s biological sister — and we still have no way of knowing whether this “Sister” was the employer herself.
Throughout the period of handling the school and visa applications for the applicant Yongge (Henry) Qi, we had no idea that this “Sister” was not the applicant’s biological sister, and we never discussed any matters relating to work or employment with her; all communication concerned only the school application and the visa application.
Moreover, throughout the school and visa applications, our firm repeatedly and explicitly required, or obtained, confirmation from Yongge (Henry) Qi himself on the information, materials and notifications.
Evidence and explanation 4:
On the question of the applicant’s English-language results, in the student visa application, the applicant Yongge (Henry) Qi — holding a mainland Chinese passport — fell into the lowest risk tier, level 1, for Australian student visa applications; English-language results were therefore not a mandatory document for the visa application.
As for the school application, the applicant Yongge (Henry) Qi personally sat the school’s own internal English placement test, and the offer was issued only after the school assessed him as meeting its requirements.
In summary, the news coverage in question is clearly an unfair piece of reporting
The entire report reads as though it had been scripted by someone; what it presents to the public is only the tip of the iceberg of the facts — and a distorted tip at that. As public opinion has intensified, our firm believes it is necessary to show everyone the full story as we understand it.
In the past, the present and the future, our firm is committed to handling visas honestly and diligently. Once clients have obtained their visas, the choices and conduct they make in Australia are beyond our control. On matters such as work rights in Australia, we encourage everyone to consult the requirements on official websites such as Fair Work in a timely manner; if you genuinely have been exploited, you can report it straight away. May there be a little less exploitation and injustice in this world.
