|
I have recently blogged about what is the very different treatment (meted out) to Skilled Migrant Category applicants processed through Immigration NZ Shanghai and Beijing over, for example, London. I have previously written of three cases; a Malaysian IT Specialist, a Philippine Electrical Engineer and Malaysian Lawyer, all of whom filed Skilled Migrant Category applications themselves and were ultimately declined or, at least were told they were going to be, following their settlement interview.
A war has raged for the last few months between ourselves, INZ Head Office in Wellington (all the way to the Associate Minister) and the Shanghai and Beijing Branches over what we see as real injustices toward applicants from Asia.
It has been our contention that the Immigration Department operates individual processing fiefdoms with their own interpretations of policy despite a clear expectation in the market place that applications filed under a particular Category should be processed and assessed the same regardless of where the applicant comes from, which Branch and indeed which Immigration Officer processes the case. We were very quickly coming to the conclusion that an applicant's ethnicity had a greater impact on the outcome than anybody inside the Department cared to admit.
It appears, however, to be simpler than that – basic incompetence.
If you have been following the drama, statistics obtained under the Official Information Act show that overwhelmingly the Immigration Branch in London granted significantly more Residence Visas (given their three choices of decline, Work Visa or Residence Visa following the settlement interview) yet the opposite was true in Shanghai and Beijing which saw Residence Visas granted very rarely (less than 10% of the time), some Work to Residence Visas but a significant number of people declined. This was justified (by Shanghai and Beijing) on the back of New Zealand labour market tests (which were all flawed in their execution but that is another story) translating into (in their minds) the strong possibility applicants would not find work here.
We now have it from the highest authorities that the Immigration Department in Shanghai and Beijing have been incorrectly interpreting the aim and intent of policy and those people who have been declined residence and who have chosen not to appeal, or whose appeal rights have expired because forty-two days have elapsed since the decision was made, may well have a chance to file a new application and succeed. The admission has come that those people claiming points for qualifications and/or work experience on the Long Term Skill Shortage List should not be subjected to labour market tests before or after the settlement interview and Residence Visas should be granted.
It took representations from IMMagine New Zealand and feedback from the Residence Review Board to alert the Immigration Department that they had a major systemic issue. Senior management appear not to have noticed.
We are now advised that Officers in the Shanghai and Beijing Branches will be receiving “refresher” training and will attend workshops which will be attended by their colleagues from INZ London to try and get a consistent approach.
The admission has also been made that the default position under this policy should see applicants granted Work to Residence Visas and exceptional applicants a Residence Visa e.g. if they are on the Long Term Skills Shortage List.
We have made it clear to the hierarchy of INZ that following the review they have been undertaking in recent weeks and advice given to us that policy is colour-blind that we will continue to monitor over the coming months, the outcomes between INZ London and other branches to ensure all applicants are treated equally.
In relation to the three cases which we were alerted to I can confirm that one has been reviewed and sent back to the branch for reassessment with an apology from the Associate Minister of Immigration for the inconvenience, the second was granted a Work to Residence Visa and the third has a decision pending.
Watch this space.
|