Evidence and document standards
Start with the official checklist for your application category. Pier's preparation review checks whether the information is complete, consistent and supported. Our optional evidence suggestions are advisory guidance, not additional ICA requirements or an approval score.
What we check before submission
- Eligibility category
- Identify the correct route and the people included. Use its current ICA checklist; requirements are not identical for every work-pass, spouse, child or citizenship application.
- Names and dates
- Check passport, civil, qualification and employment records against the form. Keep supporting records for name changes or explain a discrepancy through the appropriate channel.
- Employment and income
- Identify the legal employer and employment dates. Distinguish fixed salary from variable payments so the form, employer letter, payslips and tax information agree.
- Translations
- Use translations accepted by ICA for non-English documents. ICA lists accepted translation arrangements and does not endorse private translation companies.
- Optional supporting context
- Use relevant records you are permitted to disclose. Identify your own role accurately; do not expose client secrets, patient or student records, protected systems or other people's personal information.
How we show where a claim comes from
Government eligibility, fees, forms and work-pass rules should point to the responsible agency. A preparation recommendation should be labelled as advisory judgment. A hypothetical document problem should be labelled as an illustrative example. Client feedback, where used, remains a client's account and does not prove why ICA made a decision.
A source note identifies the page used and may show when that source was checked. That review date applies to the cited material on that page; it is not a blanket validation of every statement on the website. When a captured source is retained for audit evidence, applicants should still follow the current live agency page before acting.
Illustrative example: reconciling employment dates
Suppose a draft form shows a role starting in March, the employer letter says April, and the first payslip is dated May. The dates may describe different events, but the difference needs to be checked. This is a preparation example, not a client case or an approval result.
| Record | Question to resolve | Preparation action |
|---|---|---|
| Draft form | Does March mean joining, an offer or a transfer? | Check the actual employment start date. |
| Employer letter | Does April refer to a different role or legal employer? | Ask the employer to confirm the relevant dates. |
| Payslip | Does May describe payment timing rather than joining? | Keep the original record and state the verified employment date consistently. |
A reasonable review output would record the verified start date, note what each document's date represents, request an issuer correction only if a record is wrong, and flag the final form for re-checking. Do not alter an original record to make it match. A clearer file does not establish that ICA will approve it.
What the assessment can and cannot establish
An assessment can identify missing records, conflicting details, relevant preparation tasks and the limits of the proposed service. It cannot calculate an approval probability, reveal ICA's unpublished weights or establish why ICA rejected a particular application.
Timing recommendations are tied to specific preparation tasks or changed circumstances. They are not compulsory waiting periods or predicted decision dates. Applicants and sponsors remain responsible for reviewing and declaring their information.