That depends where your case is processed.
It has long been our experience that where your case is processed and by whom is an important factor in the likely outcome.
A couple of weeks ago I met a man who had bussed 8 hours from Penang to Singapore to attend my seminar and meet with me for a personal consultation. He was deeply worried by a letter he had received from the Immigration Department about his residence application. He had or so he thought done everything he needed to do and presented all that was expected of him to secure a residence visa or at lest a work to residence visa
He had filed his own residence visa application under the Skilled Migrant Category and had enough points without a job offer to be selected from the pool and invited by the Department of Immigration. In their letter of Invitation they congratulated him. He is a fluent English speaking, University graduate who had crossed labour market boundaries and had carved out a highly successful career in Malaysia as an Electrical Engineer. Although he has not visited New Zealand he has many friends living here with whom he had been in regular contact and was well researched in terms of the risks and rewards of moving here.
He had carefully read the Immigration Department’s website, had a reasonable understanding of the visa process and importantly had identified that he had work experience in an area of absolute skills shortage (this list is updated twice a year and records those occupations deemed by the Labour Department to be in acute and ongoing demand).
What could go wrong?
Plenty.
He was invited to apply for residence by the NZ Government as New Zealand was about to officially exit the recession. They knew when they invited him to apply where he was from, what qualifications he was claiming points for, what field his work experience was in and presumably that New Zealand was coming out of recession. He filed his residence papers within a short space of time and was ultimately sent a questionnaire which covered the questions he would be asked at his settlement interview. The settlement interview took place by phone and within a few weeks received what we call a Potentially Prejudicial Information (PPI) letter – basically this is where INZ has some concerns upon which they seek comment.
The basic concern of the Department was that the applicant had no firm job offer and had not been shortlisted for any jobs and they had contacted the Ministry of Social Development in NZ and Work and Income (where the unemployed are registered) to check on the number of unemployed people in the Electrical Engineering field. The feedback they received was that there were 12 unemployed electrical engineers registered with the department in Auckland and on that basis the officer decided that it was unlikely the applicant would be able to find work and settle well. They gave him two weeks to reply. He came to see me.
Although we agreed to take on his case and fight it between seeing me and returning to Penang they declined him. The ‘critical labour market’ in NZ couldn’t cope with another Electrical Engineer from the Philippines apparently coming here trying to find work in that occupation or something similar but skilled. His entirely logical response to the PPI letter that he was aware of the risks if he was granted a work to residence visa (in order to come to NZ and find work), an absolute acceptance there could be no guarantees he would be successful and he only sought the chance he thought policy provided but this fell on deaf ears.
Whilst we are going to appeal the case (as INZ are refusing to look again at the case) a number of questions immediately occurred to us:
1. Why was he ever invited to apply for residence if he was not (subject to his documentation being verified) going to at least be granted a work visa?
2. Why was a labour market test applied when it is not provided for by policy?
3. Is INZ unaware that overwhelmingly New Zealand employers and recruiters demand candidates have work visas or permanent residence visas before they will be seriously considered for positions?
4. While INZ established there were a few people who called themselves electrical engineers registered as unemployed with WINZ why did INZ not take into account the fact that on WINZ’s own website there are 23 vacancies registered for Electrical Engineers?
5. Why did INZ not check out and consider taking into account NZ’s largest recruitment website on which there were over 300 vacancies in early December for Electrical Engineers?
6. Why at the very least was the applicant not granted a work to residence visa and allowed the chance to test himself in the labour market here (and possibly fail)?
7. Why if he was a South African, American or British citizen or a Philippino resident of one of the UK, South Africa or the US and his case processed through INZ London or Auckland could we be 99% certain the outcome would be permanent residence?
This decision sent shivers up my spine. What is going on here? How many immigration policies do we operate? – I thought it was only one for skilled migrants and decisions were based on sound thinking and consistent implementation of policy.
An applicant had filed and Expression of Interest in obtaining permanent residence of New Zealand in good faith relying on INZ’s information and website. He scored more than enough points to be selected from the pool. He is employed in a labour market recognised as being similar to New Zealand’s. He works in an occupation that appears on the Long Term Skills Shortages List. He was, once INZ was satisfied he had proven a prima facie claim to residence invited to apply for residence. He then spent around NZ$2000 filing his application. He demonstrated at interview that he was aware of the risks of coming to NZ if he was granted either a residence visa or a work to residence visa. He provided evidence that there were plenty of jobs here but employers and recruiters were demanding a work or residence visa before they would consider him. And they declined him. He was denied the right to test himself.
Yet had he been a South African, Brit or American and processed through INZ in London or in New Zealand he would in my view almost certainly have been granted a residence visa or at worst a work to residence visa.
Are decisions then made based on ethnicity or is it simply that some officers operating out of certain offices are interpreting policy aims differently? Their own little reality vacuum perhaps? I prefer to think it is the latter but do not exclude the former. While I think it is fair to conclude that the more like the dominant culture of New Zealand an applicant is and the more fluent their English the greater their chance of successfully finding work and settling well. But this guy is from the Philippines which is recognised by INZ as having a labour market similar to ours and from which thousands of people have successfully settled here in recent years as skilled migrants. In fact there are now special policies for highly skilled Philippine citizens introduced less than a month ago designed to encourage their migration to New Zealand. This applicant works in an occupation for which over 300 vacancies are listed on Work and Income NZ’s own website.
It is clear then that this is a case of INZ being at worst vulnerable to accusations of racism and at best simply incompetent.
This policy was designed to grant those that showed good awareness of what awaits them permanent residence visas and to those that did not show as good an awareness a work to residence visa to test themselves in the NZ labour market. The decline option was designed for those that presented false or fraudulent information or for whom aspects of their claim may not have been able to be verified. All of which it should be added is expected to be done before anyone is invited to apply for residence and considerable time and expense put into the process. Not to mention raising expectations of a new and better life for this man and his family.
This decision is a poor one and does not reflect my understanding of the aim and intent of policy and as someone whose input into the development of the policy was sought by the Department a number of years ago this is worse than disappointing. It is verging on fraud. Since coming across this case I have started to uncover similar letters going out to others in similar situations. If the NZ Government is serious about meeting its annual target of 27,000 skilled migrants as the country climbs out of recession, not wishing to be accused of racism, of falsely encouraging people to apply to come and live here and relieving them of many thousands of dollars along the way, at the very least it needs to be consistent in the implementation of this policy and the staff processing these cases need to be told they are not following policy. Quickly. That INZ is acting inconsistently is par for the course but for the hundreds and perhaps thousands of would be New Zealanders who are still being encouraged by INZ and the New Zealand Government to file residence applications and spend thousands of dollars in doing so to be declined based on spurious thinking and incomplete labour market information is simply unacceptable and scandalous.
I think 2010 is going to be a rough year for those who seek to emigrate to New Zealand from Israel across to Japan and down to Indonesia not because Government policy seeks to exclude them but because a few bureaucrats in our Embassy in Beijing and Consulate in Shanghai (where all these cases are processed) simply do not understand the aim and intent of this policy and are making decisions based on poor understanding of the policy criteria. Our advice to those from that that huge chunk of the planet is clear - once you are invited to apply for residence get on a plane and fly to NZ and sit out the processing here – you will find the outcomes are very different only because who processes the rest of your case is different.
Utter madness when outcomes are based not on whether you meet or do not meet policy objectives but on the person who processes your application!
.jpg)
Subscribe