I didn’t realize until I started blogging on this subject how many people were interested in what is going on in those two branches. I think it is fair to say that all hell has been breaking loose with INZ Head Office scrambling to prove they are on top of this scandal since our revelations that skilled migrant applications processed through those two branches (and to that we can add India) have a far lower chance of success than those processed either here in New Zealand or through INZ in London.
Senior Officials within INZ Head Office in Wellington now acknowledge that they have serious problems within those two branches and have proposed “refresher and retraining” courses for Case Officers which they hope will address the shortcomings and the understanding of the aim and intent, along with delivery of the policy. I am not holding my breath. As recently as a week ago INZ was still following inappropriate processes following their settlement interview for skilled migrant cases in INZ Shanghai at least. Incorrect points assessments are still being produced. They are still confused by policy aims and intents.
What is interesting is the difference in skilled migrant outcomes for applications filed in INZ London and those filed in India, Shanghai or Beijing. Figures released under the Official Information Act to us reveal how different the application of policy is.
We first asked in the recent past, how many applicants were granted a nine month Work to Residence Visa following the settlement interview in Beijing, Shanghai, New Delhi and London.
The following was provided.
|
Branch
|
No of Applicants
|
|
Beijing
|
252
|
|
Shanghai
|
204
|
|
New Delhi
|
28
|
|
London
|
93
|
When asked to provide the number of applications where following the same interview a Residence Visa was granted rather than the Work to Residence Visa:
|
Branch
|
No of Applicants
|
|
Beijing
|
29
|
|
Shanghai
|
8
|
|
New Delhi
|
17
|
|
London
|
760
|
There is only one rule book and one set of criteria and these figures beg the question why if your case is processed through London do you generally end up with a Residence Visa, but if you are processed through Shanghai, Beijing or India you end up with at best Work to Residence?
Thus far no-one can actually answer that question inside the Immigration Department and what beggars belief is that they don’t appear to have either noticed the differences in outcomes, they have ignored the differences in outcomes or if one believed this bureaucracy was capable of conspiracy theories that some direction has been given to treat applicants differently depending on where they are processed.
It is our strong view that there is no conspiracy theory and that this is simply a case of different processing hubs doing their “own thing” and Branch and Regional Managers not applying the policy in the same way.
We have made a number of suggestions to the Immigration Department and the Minister to try and offer greater certainty to the Case Officers and also to applicants (not to mention their Immigration Consultants). It is our view that if following the settlement interview credible evidence has been presented that satisfies INZ that the applicants are awake to both the risks and opportunities that await them in terms of employability in New Zealand; they can show a degree of familiarity with cost of living, lifestyle, education system and so on and they may have some friends or family in New Zealand; if they have claimed points for qualifications and work experience in an area of absolute skill shortage and they have been awarded points for work experience from a labour market deemed comparable to New Zealand, they should be granted a Residence Visa.
Everyone else should expect a Work to Residence Visa.
On a more academic level I, and my senior colleagues here within IMMagine New Zealand, have read the applicable part of policy which guides Immigration Officers on how to assess whether to decline a skilled migrant case, grant a Work to Residence Visa or a Residence Visa and frankly each time we read it we come to a different conclusion! We are, however, helped by the Residence Review Board who for four years (!) has been offering feedback to Immigration which appears to have been ignored. Our reading of the RRV decisions and our own analysis of the policy, makes clear that the expected outcome for those people who are subjected to the interview, is a Work to Residence Visa. Declines should be rare and Residence Visas should also be rare.
The question then has to be asked “Why is INZ London so liberal when it comes to granting Residence Visas and why are Beijing, Shanghai and India so conservative?” We have strongly suggested that the applicable part of policy be rewritten to offer greater certainty and perhaps refine the policy somewhat. What is quite clear is that this policy is designed to enable applicants to get the Work to Residence Visa, travel to New Zealand, test themselves in the local labour market and if then they can secure skilled and relevant employment, to be granted Residence Visas.
What that then means is that not only Shanghai, Beijing and India need “refresher and retaining” but so too does INZ London.
It is certainly my view that the fact that the quality assurance processes within INZ are so poor that it took us and the Residence Review Board (over a period of four years!) to point out this scandal must mean that it is not simply a matter of refresher and retraining courses, but a few Managers either at branch level or above should be replaced. The fact that the decline rates have soared over the last twelve months surely could not have gone so unnoticed by so many for so long.
.jpg)
Subscribe