INZ’s Absurd Accusations in Character Assessments

We have recently encountered a partnership case where Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”) have accused the applicant of providing false and misleading information to INZ without any valid basis. The provision of false and misleading information to INZ is a serious accusation and potentially making the applicant ineligible for grant of a temporary entry visa unless granted a character waiver.

The general rule is that every applicant must meet the good character requirement for entry to New Zealand. This information is also available on INZ’s Knowledge Base. Under immigration instructions A5.45 Applicants normally ineligible for a temporary entry class visa unless granted a character waiver, include any person who: “in the course applying for a New Zealand visa, has made any statement or provided any information, evidence or submission that was false, misleading or forged, or withheld material information” A5.45(b)

During the interview the applicant and supporting partner confirmed they typed the letters and did it based on the conversations they had with their parents about their relationship. The letters were then signed by the parents who acknowledged the content is true and correct. In this case example, INZ wrote

In a recent case, INZ have interviewed a couple for a temporary entry partnership application. During the interview, the immigration officer questioned the applicant and the supporting partner about the letters of support provided from their parents. The parents knew about the relationship and the letters but did not write the letters. No questions were raised to the parents as to whether they signed the letters as INZ focused on who typed (wrote) the letter.

Is typing a letter on behalf of someone considered false /misleading information?

The first step was to identify whether INZ’s accusation is genuine. We had to hear the full interview as this is a crucial step, knowing exactly how the questions were phrase and the answers received to each of those questions and whether it was within context. In this case; upon hearing the full interview; we identified that INZ’s emphasis on who wrote the letter was flawed and unreasonable. INZ are aware the parents signed the letters, approved the content of the letter and acknowledged the relationship. However, INZ advised the applicant during the interview that they need to write on the form that this letter was typed following a conversation with the parents. This is factually incorrect, because it is irrelevant who writes the letter, what is relevant is whether the content of the letter is correct and whether the parents signed the letters.

Therefore, the applicant’s actions cannot be interpreted as providing false and misleading information as there was nothing false or misleading in the information provided. A5.45(b) does not apply and character waiver is not required. A person who types or writes a letter to help someone else before they sign it, is not committing a crime. If a document is transcribed by one person which records what someone else says, the writer is effectively acting as their secretary taking down dictation. So, there is no dishonesty or misleading information that was provided. The accountably lies on the person who signs it. A person is tempted to provide false or misleading information when they are trying to prove something that is not true and INZ have made serious accusation which is not based on valid evidence.

What to take out of this?

The claim that this discloses a character issue warrants a proper consideration of the definition of false and misleading information and the application of the balance of probabilities test before reaching the conclusion that it falls under A4.45(b) of the character instructions. If we have not stepped in to challenge the fact there was no false or misleading information provided to INZ, the consequences would have been serious due to the absurd accusations. The application could have been declined if the character waiver was denied and the applicant would have had an alert on INZ records.

INZ’s concerns are not necessarily accurate and spot on. Like any other human, immigration officers can make mistakes. If you receive a letter from INZ raising character concerns, don’t panic, but this is when you stop and consider reaching out for professional help to address such concerns. If you encounter such an issue, contact Laurent Law for assistance.

Posted in Immigration Visas | Leave a comment

Information Requests – a Key Tool for Immigration Professionals

The Official Information Act 1982 and the Privacy Act 1993 (“the OIA and the Privacy Act”) are important pieces of legislation in the New Zealand immigration context.  With their help, applicants for Visas can get a copy of file information held about them. This file information can include:

  • copies of previous applications including documents provided;
  • records of interactions with Immigration New Zealand;
  • information such as travel history;
  • history of Visas granted, Visa applications approved and declined.

The size of the file released can vary, but it is not uncommon in many situations for it to be over 100 pages long. It may come as a surprise to some the amount of information that can be released by way of a request for file material.

Having access to information under the OIA and the Privacy Act is meant to increase the transparency of decision making by INZ.  When the process by which a decision was reached can be seen and scrutinised, we can identify ways to contest a bad result.  Where for example a challenge to a decision is successful, it is more likely a correct outcome has been reached.

Here at Laurent Law we are often asked to assist with difficult immigration matters.  Getting a copy of a client’s file from INZ can form an important first step in order to determine what the next steps should be.

By law, Government agencies must respond to an information request in 20 working days.  In some cases we ask the INZ Privacy Team for urgency where it is justified, and they are often helpful.  However, due to the statutory timeframe, and the fact that the release of information may not occur quickly, it is not always possible to get the file in time to act upon a case – for example, when addressing an INZ “letter of concern” with a deadline of 10 working days to respond.. Therefore, while having a copy of the file is usually helpful, it is not always possible.  If we believe that file material is required, it is best that the request is made as early as possible.

In some cases, INZ will not release full information and may black it out on the documents that it does send.  Justifications for withholding information are set out mainly in the Privacy Act, and include:

  • disclosure would endanger the safety of an individual;
  • disclosure would be likely to prejudice the maintenance of the law, including the prevention, investigation and detection of offences, and the right to a fair trial;
  • release would result in disclosure of the affairs of another person;
  • in the case of an individual under the age of 16, disclosure would be contrary to that individual’s interests.

If the person requesting the information is not happy with a decision to withhold information under the Privacy Act, they can complain to the Office of the Privacy Commissioner in Wellington.  Complaints about information withheld under the OIA go to the Ombudsman – for example, a refusal to disclose internal staff operating procedures which do not relate to a particular client, but are relevant to whether INZ has followed its own rules.

If you have an immigration matter which may require investigation of your file in depth, contact us here at Laurent Law to see how we can help.

Posted in Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas, Practice of Law | Leave a comment

Is Immigration New Zealand cracking down on partnership visas or are our Partnership rules simply outdated?

Immigration New Zealand’s assessment of partnership cases is old fashioned and narrow minded. Uniting families in New Zealand is becoming a mission. As a result, we see families being separated for a good period of time, leaving their kiwi partners and their children with undue stress and an unforeseeable future.

You might be a New Zealand citizen or resident who, while you were overseas, found yourself a partner from another country. You come to realise that your partner needs a visa to live with you in New Zealand. By doing a simple search on the Immigration New Zealand website you will come to know that as a New Zealander you can support your overseas partner for a:

1. Work Visa based on partnership.

2. Resident Visa based on partnership.

In both types of visa applications, you need to demonstrate that as a couple you are living together in a “genuine and stable” relationship. For a Work Visa you need to provide evidence of living together for at least 4 -6 months; and for a Resident Visa you need to prove that you have lived together for at least 12 months.

As a New Zealander, you might think this a simple process.  The problem is, however, that how you define a genuine relationship and what you can provide to demonstrate your living arrangement is different to what Immigration New Zealand expects in order to process a partnership application.

Partnership Instructions (Policy)

The process of securing a visa for a partner to live in New Zealand is not easy. Is this because of Immigration New Zealand’s narrow-minded assessment and lack of common sense, or are our partnership rules simply outdated and no longer applicable to modern day relationships? Or is it a combination of both?

Let’s take a look at the type of evidence Immigration New Zealand lists in the Immigration Instructions to demonstrate “living together”. This may include, but is not limited to, original or certified copies of documents showing a shared home, such as:

• joint tenancy agreement or rent book or rental receipts

• joint ownership of residential property

• correspondence (including postmarked envelopes) addressed to both principal applicant and partner at the same address.

The examples listed above are a sign that our Immigration policy is old fashioned and Immigration New Zealand’s request for evidence of living together is outdated. For a start, requesting original or certified copies of documents is out of step with the modern experience, what with online bills, social media, shared photos and travelling together.  Nor does the demand for such evidence take into consideration the way that people work, and live their lives, in other countries.

People no longer receive post marked envelopes. Mail is received by email. Invitations to special events are now done on social media or via a text message or Facebook. If it is an older or more mature couple who cannot demonstrate their relationship via social media, they probably live an even simpler life. To show that they live together will be even more difficult. Mature couples would already own or rent a property, they will already have their (separate) bank accounts, and utilities in their (separate) names. When they enter into a relationship, changing accounts to joint names is a hassle and makes no sense. Because this is not how they define their relationship. A genuine relationship is demonstrated by simply leaving a “good morning” or “I love you” note on a cereal box.

Immigration New Zealand’s interview questions are unreasonable. We have come across situations where fathers are being asked about the vaccination dates of their children. In a recent case I heard on the radio, a colleague in the Immigration industry described how a husband did not know the medication list for his wife.

While the interview questions are usually unreasonable, it is not necessarily the immigration officer’s fault. It is mainly because our partnership rules allow for such questions to be asked, and for a subjective decision to be made by the respective officers.

Our partnership instructions require immigration officers to consider four elements when determining the couple are living together in a genuine and stable relationship:

1.Credibility, where the principal applicant and the partner both separately and together, must be credible in any statements made and evidence presented by them,

2. ‘Living together’: the principal applicant and partner must be living together unless there are genuine and compelling reasons for any period(s) of separation.

3. ‘Genuine partnership’: the principal applicant and partner must both be found to be genuine as to their reasons for marrying, entering a civil union or entering into a de facto relationship; and intentions to maintain a long-term and exclusive partnership.

4. ‘Stable partnership’, the principal applicant and their partner must demonstrate that their partnership is likely to endure.

Our partnership rules are very subjective. The decision maker has to determine a couple’s future together on the basis of an individual interpretation of what is genuine, stable and credible. How can a couple demonstrate that their relationship is likely to endure. What is the test for this?

The couple must meet the living together requirements with a Western perspective of joint living arrangements and joint financial interdependence. It is usually migrants from non-Western countries who are travelling to New Zealand to reunite with their partners. How do our immigration rules reflect the living together arrangements for applicants from the Middle East and Asia? For example, where couples live with their parents and their relatives, they face real challenges in producing documents to prove their shared life.

New Zealanders to live offshore

Another issue that many New Zealanders as supporting partners encounter is having to live overseas to meet the living together requirements under partnership rules. The living conditions of the overseas country where their partners live is sometimes unsafe and unstable.

Many couples are not able to demonstrate that they are living together in the other country simply because the conditions there do not permit them to collect such documents. Many countries do not allow joint bank accounts. In the UAE, documents are issued in the husband’s name. Usually letters and statements are sent to a PO Box or the employer’s address.

It is not easy to secure employment and a house in New Zealand. For a New Zealander to resign from his/her job and leave everything behind to live with his/her partner offshore is usually not an easy choice. For many people this might not even be a choice. They might have debts, finances, children from previous partners, so their commitment to New Zealand is far too strong to put aside and live overseas just to meet INZ’s definition of living together.

As part of its Change Programme, INZ has assigned a dedicated team to assess partnership cases, with a view to producing more consistent decisions. From what we have seen, this clearly is not yet being achieved. We are still receiving inconsistent decisions, unrealistic interview questions, and as a result families cannot be reunited and their struggles continue.

What can be done?

Our partnership rules need to be updated to reflect current living arrangements. On the other hand, INZ need to start applying their common sense when it comes to partnership, and not mix the good with the bad. They need to take into consideration the living arrangements of overseas countries.

If you are a New Zealander who wants to bring their partner to this country, the process is not simple and you usually need professional help to get your partnership case across the line. You need to document and keep records of everything you can think of. It can be as simple as an invitation letter you received online or via email or even a text message. You need to detail every step of your relationship. A successful partnership case needs to be as clear cut as possible, with every document explained clearly in a manner that a person on the other side, who knows nothing about your life, can get a good grasp of and will understand why you are providing these documents.

We come across many partnership cases, and as a third party we may be best placed to help you put your case together with the right material that is relevant and persuasive. Critically, by working alongside you, we can tell your story in a way that is compelling and persuasive.

If you require assistance with partnership applications, then get in touch with Laurent Law to discuss your case.

Posted in Business, Citizenship, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas, Practice of Law | 1 Comment

Visa Reconsiderations – a Second Chance

Last year I highlighted a change to the rules around Interim Visas which gave people more opportunities to contest declined visa applications.  Since then, we have had increased demand for us to handle reconsideration of a refused visa.

Reconsiderations are available for most temporary visa applications made by people in New Zealand – Visitor, Work or Student Visas.  They do not apply to Residence.  If a Residence application is declined, there is usually a right to take an appeal to the Immigration & Protection Tribunal.  You also cannot normally ask for a reconsideration if you have applied from outside NZ, an issue which I will come back to.

How Do They Work?

A reconsideration means what it says – Immigration has to consider the application again.  It has to be looked at by a different visa officer who is at the same rank as, or higher than, the one who declined the application.  This can be an effective way to get someone else to take a fresh look at your case, especially when it seems that the first decision was not done properly.

It also gives a chance to bring in new information which was not provided the first time, or was not available until later.  For example, we have put cases forward where the applicant tried to do the application themselves, but failed.  This is often not their fault – visa applications can be technically challenging, and most applicants don’t have much experience of how to apply the rules around various types of visa.  Perhaps they simply didn’t gather enough evidence to show that they are in a strong partnership relationship.  Or, for a job-based Work Visa, the employer did not get any guidance about how to describe their job accurately in the Employment Agreement.  These things can be fixed, but they have to be done carefully.

Get in Quick

If your visa application is declined, you have 14 days to put in the reconsideration.  That is not very long, especially if you also need to find an immigration professional to help.  Because most visa decisions are sent by email nowadays, the 14 days starts from the date on the decline letter (assuming that the letter goes out on the same day).  If you put in the reconsideration late, Immigration is not allowed to look at it because the time limit is set by section 185 of the Immigration Act 2009.

Instead, a late reconsideration could be treated as a request for a visa under section 61 of the Act.  Immigration does do this sometimes, and if they don’t then you should ask them to.  Some years ago Immigration New Zealand set up a dedicated Section 61 Team, and this is now called the Section 61/Reconsiderations Team for this reason.

That option is far from ideal, because “section 61” requests are basically Yes/No calls by an Immigration officer.  They are not required to give reasons or use any particular policy to make the decision.  Reconsiderations, on the other hand, must be assessed using the policy which the migrant applied under.  Immigration must also turn its mind to whether an “Exception to Instructions” could be used if the person’s case doesn’t quite fit the rules.

The upshot is that, if you can ask for a reconsideration, make sure you do it in time.

Offshore Visas

I mentioned before that people who are overseas have no right to a reconsideration.  This is technically correct, but Immigration Instructions do allow visa officers to reassess a declined offshore application if the applicant puts forward “new and compelling information”.  The trouble is that anyone trying to use this avenue is at the mercy of a visa officer who gets to decide if the new material is new and compelling enough.

It may be time to revisit this restrictive approach to offshore visas.  The limitation on reconsiderations is a part of the law passed by Parliament, but it is not clear why it should be so.  The argument is often made that people who are already in NZ have a greater right to fair treatment, and a second chance, than someone who has never been here before.  However, overseas applicants often have a lot at stake.  If they are coming to visit family or to join a partner, the people in New Zealand are also deeply affected by a defective decision.  The only thing people can then do is to apply again, and take the risk that Immigration will simply follow the last decision and decline a second time.

The other problem is that, without any rights of appeal or reconsideration for offshore applications, cases can be declined – and are declined – with very little accountability on the part of INZ staff at offshore posts.  For instance, some years ago this forced the industry to involve the Office of the Ombudsman in a complaint about the wholesale decline of applications by partners of students and workers from India.

In the last year or more, the number of declined Partner applications has increased significantly.  While this is also happening to people already in New Zealand, the figures are more dramatic from INZ Mumbai, whose notoriety in the industry is reaching new heights.  My colleagues who are looking at this situation more closely have identified a systemic application of policy, in a manner which seems calculated to make it difficult or impossible for many people to qualify.  And visa staff at these overseas posts can do this with impunity.  INZ’s own complaints and feedback system is worthless, because it cannot be used to point out deficiencies in the logic behind decisions.  And the Immigration Act prevents anyone from taking their case to the Courts.

To restore accountability, any review of the Immigration Act should involve extending rights of reconsideration to offshore applications, and perhaps even making judicial review available to people outside New Zealand.  INZ has hidden behind the statutory protections that it currently enjoys, for too long.

Posted in Immigration Visas | Leave a comment

Relevant legislation, other rules in the immigration context

Legislation is important in the New Zealand immigration context. It is intended to provide a framework for the management of immigration in New Zealand in a way that balances New Zealand’s national interests with international obligations, while protecting New Zealanders and migrants.

Legislation can include Acts of Parliament, Bills which have been introduced to Parliament but not yet passed into law, legislative instruments which can include Orders in Council, Regulations, rules, and notices. Legislation can be found on the New Zealand Parliamentary Counsel website, at the following link here.

Acts of Parliament, once they are passed through Parliament and receive the royal assent by the Governor-General, have the full force of law in New Zealand. Acts of Parliament are the primary source of law in New Zealand and take precedence over other law, for example regulations and decisions by Judges in the Courts. 

Immigration law arises out of the fundamental principle of “state sovereignty”, the right of a state to control its borders. However, a country such as New Zealand also has international obligations which it takes seriously, and keeps in step with international law and associated developments, especially with regard to human rights.

In the immigration context, the following legislation is relevant:

  1. The Immigration Act 2009. The Act sets out the following.
  • Who needs a visa to travel to or stay in New Zealand.
  • How immigration instructions are produced, and the rules and criteria for the grant of visas. Immigration instructions are found in the INZ operational manual, which are here. This is a detailed manual which governs the way Visa applications are decided by Immigration New Zealand.
  • The responsibilities of people when they first arrive in New Zealand.
  • The legal basis for New Zealand to meet its international responsibilities under the Refugee Convention, the Convention against Torture, and the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights.
  • The requirements that visitors, migrants, students, employers and educators must meet, and the information they must give to Immigration New Zealand.
  • Rules around deportation.
  • Criminal offences relating to immigration, which include providing false and misleading information, obstruction or failing to provide information in certain situations; and employers can also face offences such as employing someone who does not have a valid visa.
  • The establishment of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, an independent body which hears residence appeals, refugee and protection appeals, and appeals against deportation

2. Immigration regulations. The following regulations support the Immigration Act 2009.

  • Regulations relating to residence, temporary entry and transit visas.
  • Forms and warrants used for deportation or the mass arrival of asylum seekers.
  • How refugee claims are managed.
  • The responsibilities of airlines and other transport providers to check and hold information about their passengers.
  • The penalties which airlines and other transport providers may be liable for if they don’t meet their obligations.
  • How the Immigration and Protection Tribunal operates and its powers

3. The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007.  This covers the licensing of Immigration Advisers. The Act also defines what immigration advice is, who can provide it and how complaints against advisers are handled.

4. Other legislation which is relevant in immigration matters includes the Privacy Act 1993 and the Official Information Act 1982

  • The Privacy Act 1993 describes how all government agencies, including INZ, manage personal information.
  • The Official Information Act 1982 aims to increase public access to official information, lets people see official information about themselves and protects the public interest and safeguards personal privacy.

A request for information under the Privacy Act 1993 or Official Information Act 1982 usually takes 20 working days.

This legislation forms a framework of rules which govern how immigration into New Zealand is managed, including how visa applications are decided. Immigration New Zealand has a function in applying New Zealand’s immigration rules and laws, to support New Zealand’s economic growth to strengthen our relationship with other parts of the world. Immigration New Zealand offers a range of visas for people who want to visit, work, study, live or invest in New Zealand.

The task of applying for a visa for many people is a daunting process, the rules can be complex and challenging to navigate. Things can go wrong during the course of an application, or an application might be declined, meaning assistance to resolve this is needed.

The consequences of getting something wrong, for example by missing an expiring medical or police certificate, can be very serious. A person may have to leave New Zealand, in the worst case scenario this may be forcible, by immigration officials or the police. Visa applications, more complex ones in particular or where the stakes for an applicant are higher, therefore need to be carefully prepared, which often requires time, so the best possible chance of success is secured.

If you have a visa application or a problem with a visa application that you need assistance with, contact us here at Laurent Law.

Posted in Business, Citizenship, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas, Politics, Practice of Law | Leave a comment

Introducing Sahar Shamia

Sahar Shamia joined Laurent Law on 17 June 2019. We looked far and wide to find someone with her skills and abilities. We are thrilled to have her on board.

Sahar is an enrolled Barrister and Solicitor of the High Court and she graduated with Law and History degrees from the University of Auckland.

Sahar was born in Kuwait and she migrated to New Zealand with her family in 1996. We think it is no coincidence that this was the year that Laurent Law was established. She is passionate about the field of immigration because of the contribution that it makes to the New Zealand society as a whole. She manages all temporary entry and residence applications, residence appeals, character waivers, section 61 requests, ministerial interventions and a whole lot more.

Sahar has a passion for travel and speaks fluent English and Arabic. She loves to spend time with friends and loved ones. She enjoys a game of tennis and you will often find her on the courts when she is not working.

Sahar is a valued member of our immigration team and we look forward to a long and prosperous working relationship with her. We are confident that our clients will enjoy her approach to life and work and that they will depend on her for valued advice and guidance.

Make an appointment to meet Sahar and entrust your immigration related matters to her.

Posted in Business, Immigration Visas, Office Update, Practice of Law | 2 Comments

Why is there a Visa Glacier?

We’ve seen a big slow-down across the board in the speed of processing applications for New Zealand Visas.  Employers claim that, when it takes several months to be able to hire migrants, this does significant harm to their businesses with lost opportunities and lost productivity.  Tertiary education providers estimate that the delays in approving Student Visas will cost them tens of millions of dollars.  Perhaps even more serious, the backlog is harming our international reputation, so that prospective students will simply look elsewhere – such as Australia or Canada.

Sources of the Problem

So why has this come about?  There are several factors at work here:

  • An increase in demand for visas since the end of last year.  Immigration New Zealand has pointed to this as the main source of its problems, but it is not the only one; 
  • Immigration’s “change programme” to bring almost all visa processing onshore, resulting in the closure of most of its overseas offices.  It has thus lost many experienced officers, and has to train a whole lot of new staff to fill positions back in New Zealand; and
  • High turnover of staff – possibly 40% every year – because of heavy workloads and unattractive employment conditions. 

Meanwhile, there are plans to transform the “employer assisted” Work Visa categories to require all employers to become accredited before they can hire migrant workers.  Many in the industry (and I am one) believe that Immigration does not have the resources to handle thousands of accreditation applications, which are more time-intensive than standard visa applications, when it is not even coping well with existing work.

High Touch/Low Touch

There is, however, a parallel development which can benefit some people.  INZ has introduced a filter system to identify what they call “low touch” and “high touch” applications in some categories, such as Work Visas.  The low touch cases can be fast-tracked for approval, while high touch applications go into a longer queue for more intensive assessment.  And, of course, they take a whole lot longer.

How do you get onto the low touch fast-track, then?  There are a couple of levers which people have no control over.  For instance, if they are from a low risk country (such as most parts of the EU and North America), and have a well-paying specialist or managerial career, then chances are that things will run fairly smoothly.  Now, Immigration denies that there are high-risk countries, but that is something that few people in the industry would swallow.  Try getting a tourist visa if you live in Kabul.

People also can’t help where they live.  So, for instance, those in India and those who have to file applications through INZ Mumbai or Delhi face massive hold-ups because of the inability of those offices to process the large volume of applications in good time.  India-based migration agents are even facing death threats from their frustrated clients because of the delays of 6 months or more.

Blowing Our Own Trumpet

There is another way to increase your chances of a quick(er) turnaround, which you can control.  INZ has also introduced the concept of the “decision ready” application.  Although it can be an ambiguous concept in practice, it means an application which contains all the information needed for a visa officer to assess the case.

Here is where getting professional help can add real value.  That is, by using competent and experienced lawyers and licensed immigration advisers.  While the published turnaround times for certain types of Work Visas are 60 – 70 days, we can get approvals in 2 weeks.  Not all the time, but enough to give confidence that a thorough and careful approach will pay off.

So yes, we’re blowing our own trumpet here.  We might as well.  Laurent Law has worked over the years to build a good relationship with Immigration New Zealand, and to give them what they need to make a favourable decision, when that is possible.  Contact us to find out more

Posted in Immigration Visas | Leave a comment