Can I vary the conditions of my work visa?

16aac63d7b1a99a9ada8d81676130f3a3b3a4b929a6170ddc96c46cec3709ff2Photo: DPA

If you hold a work visa that has conditions that only allow you to work for Company A (employer), in Location B (place of employment) and as Job C (occupation), then you may in certain instances have to vary the conditions of your work visa. Here are a few helpful pointers that you can consider before determining whether to seek a variation or apply for a new work visa.

Length of your visa

If you have 6 months or less left on your visa, you should submit a new work visa application.

According to the INZ website, current processing times for Variation of Conditions (“VOC”) application can vary from 32 to 56 calendar days and work visa applications can vary from 27 to 80 calendar days. This means, even if your VOC application is successful and your visa conditions are varied, before you know it, you will end up having to file a new work visa application to continue your employment. Hence filing a VOC application would be pointless.

Types of work visas and requirements

If you have more than 6 months left on your work visa, then you can consider applying for a VOC. You must however understand that different rules apply to different types of work visas so it may be best to check the requirements first to determine whether you can get a VOC.

  • Essential Skills Work Visa

    • If you wish to change your occupation or place of employment, your new occupation must be listed on the Essential Skills in Demand List (“List”) and you must meet the requirements for that occupation specified on that List.
    • If you wish to change your employer only, your new job with the new employer must meet the requirements that apply to the Essential Skills Work Visa category.
    • But, a VOC may not be granted if you seek to change employment to a skill-band lower than your current employment (e.g. from high-skilled to mid-skilled)
  • Post-Study Work Visa – Employer Assisted

    • Two different rules apply due to the recent changes to the post-study work visa category:
      • Pre-26 November 2018: a VOC may be granted if your new job meets the requirements of a Post-Study Work Visa – Employer Assisted policy
      • Post-26 November 2018: You can submit a VOC application and pay an application fee to INZ to get your visa conditions removed.
  • Specific Purpose or Event Visa (for players and sports coaches only)

    • If you wish to take up additional employment, a VOC may only be granted if:
      • the terms of the existing employment have and will continue to be met; and
      • either the additional employment is offered:
        • by a sports club or a company involved in the sport and the position is offered solely to you as the player or coach; or alternatively
        • by an employer other than the sports club or a company involved in the sport and INZ is satisfied that there are no New Zealanders available to be employed in the position.
  • Talent (Accredited Employers) Work Visa

    • VOC may be granted if you wish to:
      • take up another job offer to work for another accredited employer; or
      • take up another job offer to work for a non-accredited employer if your current employment with the accredited employer is no longer available due to reasons beyond your control (INZ will consider the circumstances which led to this situation)

Additionally, you must have been offered the base salary that was required at the time the initial Talent Work Visa was made, or above; and the new job offer and the new employer must meet the requirements that apply to Talent Work Visas.

If you ultimately discover that you cannot get your work visa conditions varied, you must apply for a new work visa before starting work in a new role.

We are often asked to help people who have started a new job which does not match the conditions printed on their present visa.  They run the real risk of being refused a new visa because they have breached the conditions of the visa that they currently have.  They also expose the employer to potential prosecution for letting someone work for them who does not have the right visa.

These can be delicate situations.  If you, or someone you know, might face this sort of problem, they should consider getting professional help to sort it out – and do so quickly.

Posted in Business, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas | Tagged | Leave a comment

Interim Visas -More Breathing Space

At the end of August, Immigration New Zealand made some simple but significant changes to the way that Interim Visas work.  This has injected some humanity and common sense into a process which was, until now, producing some poor outcomes for people applying for visas.

What Has Changed?

An Interim Visa is what you usually get when you apply for a new visa while you are in New Zealand.  It starts automatically the day after your last regular visa expires, and it runs until your main application is decided.  In this way, people who have applied for a further visa in the proper way don’t end up as overstayers while they are waiting to be approved.

However, there used to be a problem if the new application was declined.  Immigration would cancel the Interim Visa on the same day as the decline, so that people would suddenly find themselves stranded unlawfully in the country with no regular way to resolve that situation.  One solution was to request a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act, but Immigration has the power to reject these requests out of hand, and give no reasons for doing so.

In fact, by law the Interim Visa was deemed to expire on the day after the decision on the main application was made, a fact that was often overlooked by INZ.

From now on, however, Interim Visas are deemed to expire 21 days after the main visa application is declined.  This has 2 important effects:

  1. The primary advertised reason why INZ extended the validity of Interim Visas was to allow people to get their affairs in order before leaving New Zealand, instead of winding up as overstayers.  In itself, this is reasonable; but
  2. In my view, the more important result is that visa applicants can apply to have the decline decision reconsidered.  People are only entitled to ask for a reconsideration if they still have a visa to be in New Zealand.  Under the previous regime that was denied to them, because they would become overstayers as soon as the decision was made.


If your visa application is declined, you have 14 days to put in the reconsideration request, which includes paying a fee (currently $195).  Then you need to wait for the decision.  This means that it is critical to put in the reconsideration as soon as possible.  That is because it will take time for the reconsideration to be assessed, and the Interim Visa is only valid for that remaining 21 days.  It is likely that you will end up without a visa at some stage if they don’t decide it fairly quickly.

Someone filing a reconsideration should look at the original decline decision that they got, and think carefully about what evidence they can give to answer the problems which caused the application to be declined in the first place.  It is not just a matter of asking Immigration to look at the same case again.  If they have refused it once, then a new visa officer will simply follow that decision unless some new angle is presented to them.  It is also worth considering whether you can ask for an exception to be made in your case, because they are required to think about that by their own Instructions.

Under the old Interim Visa scheme, there were not many opportunities for people to ask for reconsiderations.  I predict that Immigration will see a whole lot more of them.  How they will respond to a sharp upswing in such requests will be interesting to see.  On the other hand, there should be a sharp decline in the number of people requesting “section 61” visas – that is, visas for those who end up unlawfully in New Zealand.

The problem with s 61 cases is that Immigration has complete freedom to decide them in whatever way it likes.  By contrast, visa officers must apply the existing policy to any reconsideration – as well as consider an exception to Instructions – and they must give a reasoned decision in writing as to why they have made their latest decision.

Overall, the change marks a significant improvement for migrants who have marginal cases, or who get poor decisions against them.  Anyone who has a temporary visa application declined should act right away to get that turned around at the reconsideration stage.  That includes getting professional help to work out the best way to answer the issues which caused the application to be declined.

Posted in Business, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas | Tagged , , , , | 1 Comment

Aged care workers and immigration policy



An article recently appeared in the New Zealand Herald titled ,“Immigration Minister declines to intervene in Kaitaia caregiver case”. The article features an aged-care worker located in Kaitaia, “Juliet”, originally from the Philippines, who had exhausted all remaining options for staying in New Zealand and has been told by Immigration New Zealand that she must leave New Zealand.

The article describes the following about Juliet;

  • She spent 11 years trying to secure Residence, which had been unsuccessful;
  • Juliet had made Kaitaia her home and contributes to the community;
  • Juliet was filling a role as an aged-care worker, providing rest home, hospital and dementia-level care in a poor rural town which had struggled to find staff locally to fill the role;
  • Juliet passed her English language test;
  • Juliet completed new Medicals as part of the Visa application process, every three years at a cost of $500 each time;
  • Visa applications over the past 11 years had cost Juliet $7150 and stress and anxiety;
  • Advertising to find someone suitable to fill the role locally had resulted in 362 viewings but only 1 application, which was not suitable, lacking required attitude, qualifications, skills, knowledge or experience;
  • Juliet held a relevant Level 3 qualification and with the support of the aged-care home she worked at, had obtained a Level 4 qualification;

The New Zealand Herald article reports that Juliet could not apply for a further Work Visa or a Residence Visa and so was needing to leave New Zealand. The article reports that Associate Immigration Minister, Kris Faafoi, declined to intervene to allow Juliet to stay in New Zealand.

The writer was at an NZAMI conference in Auckland last week, where the Minster of Immigration gave a speech. The Minister mentioned the aged-care sector. The challenges facing these workers in terms of current immigration instructions and ability to be granted Visas appears to relate to the unskilled classification of these roles. Where the salary paid is less than $36.44 per hour, an aged-care worker can only be granted Work Visas for 1 year at a time, for a maximum of 3 years, before a 1 year stand down period applies. A migrant aged-care worker will not be able to secure Residence under the Skilled Migrant category either due to the unskilled classification of the role, unless the salary paid is more than $36.44 per hour. It is unlikely an aged-care worker would be paid more than $36.44 per hour. The current policy settings are therefore quite restrictive and challenging, for a migrant aged-care worker to remain in New Zealand on a Work Visa for very long or achieve Residence.

Aged-care work is not glamorous, but requires a high level of tolerance and patience for vulnerable people. In declining to intervene in Juliet’s case, perhaps the Minister was thinking that a New Zealand citizen or resident should be able to fill the role. But this does not seem to take into account the difficulty the employer describes in the article of finding such New Zealand citizen or resident. One view might be that Juliet is the type of migrant that Ministerial intervention was intended to provide a solution for. It is not uncommon for this writer to come across situations where a migrant who represents a  benefit to New Zealand, or has a justified case for remaining in New Zealand, is unable to do so. Where they do not meet the requirements of policy, a request to the office of the Minister of Immigration can represent a safety net. The outcome where Juliet can no longer stay in New Zealand, in the circumstances identified, may seem odd.

The current unskilled classification of aged-care workers does not, remove the difficulty that the aged care sector faces in recruiting suitable workers. Perhaps a solution would be to reclassify it so that it is a skilled occupation. Assuming all other features of immigration instructions remained the same, this would reduce that salary that needs to be paid to between $20.65 and $36.44 for the grant of a 3 year Work Visa and at least $24.29 for the grant of Residence under the Skilled Migrant Category. The occupation could also be placed on the long term skill shortage list for example, which would remove the requirement for an employer to show that there are no New Zealand citizens or residents available when an applicant applies for an Essential Skills Work Visa. There are other occupations, for which their current unskilled classification also appears to be creating a problem, consider also for example the shortage of truck drivers, see for an article mentioning this, here.

However, it is true that there may be flow on consequences, of allowing a large number of migrants to fill roles previously classified as unskilled. Ultimately these workers need to be housed, fed and if Residence is granted, will have access to public healthcare and education services. We might want to be selective about the people these rights are granted to.

It is difficult for rules such as those found in immigration policy to get every situation right, but by way of Ministerial intervention maybe there could have been a way to better accommodate the specific circumstances presented by Juliet, which on the face of it as presented in the New Zealand Herald article, seems deserving.

See the article featuring Juliet on the New Zealand Herald website, here .

Posted in Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas | 2 Comments

Post Study Work Visas – the Change has Come

In a recent post I alerted readers to a significant rewrite of Work Visa policy for those who complete New Zealand qualifications.  Last Friday the Government rolled out the new scheme which will take effect in November.  While it was largely what we expected, there are a few interesting tweaks, too.

Focus on Degrees

To say that Immigration has “tightened the rules for foreign students”, according to the NZ Herald, is an oversimplification.  It is true that people planning to do a sub-degree course lose the ability to apply for a 2-year Employer Assisted Work Visa, and are reduced to a 1-year “Job Search” visa to allow them to look for work.  However, those who commit to a Bachelor’s degree or higher will in future be entitled to an open 3-year Work Visa upon completion.

That’s a distinct improvement on the current scheme which requires them to secure a specific offer of employment after the first year under the Employer Assisted visa policy.  This was leading to significant distress for people whose job offers were not deemed to be “relevant” to their qualification.  Immigration was declining these on a large scale, sometimes with absurd rationales for doing so.

Naturally enough, the Universities are pleased.  The sub-degree education sector will not be so thrilled.  They have already seen a significant drop-off in numbers of Chinese students coming in on visas.  Changes to the points-based Skilled Migrant Residence system last year have made it harder to score enough to apply.  While the Minister may deny that the Government’s policies have had much to do with the fall in demand, there is no doubt that a major driver for people coming to study in New Zealand is the promise of being able to get Residence someday.  Now, doing anything less than a 3-year degree, or a full-time post-grad course, is not going to be a very attractive option.

The Tweaks

An add-on which has now appeared since the policy proposals came out in May is an incentive for people to study outside Auckland.  They can get a 2-year open Work Visa if they do a 2-year Diploma (at Levels 4 – 6 on the NZ Qualifications Framework) – or 2 such progressively higher qualifications over a total of 2 years.  Those who can’t bear to leave Auckland will only get the 1 year.

This feeds into the Government’s stated agenda of encouraging migrants to work (and settle) outside New Zealand’s biggest city.  And it is at a time when employers in the regions are warning of serious problems in getting Kiwis to work for them.  If someone from India or the Philippines spends a couple of years studying in a given city, they’ll start to feel at home there.  Over time, friendships and networks develop.  They are more likely to look for work in the same locale, and ultimately to settle there.  So goes the theory, anyway.

There is also a nod to occupations where registration is required, which are usually professional or skilled trades jobs.  Someone working toward registration can get an additional year’s open Work Visa, even if they are based in Auckland.

There are sunset provisions built into the new policy.  For example, people who are already on Employer Assisted Work Visas can ask Immigration to remove the name of their job and employer from their visa.  This will allow them to change jobs without having to seek a Variation of Conditions, which up till now was becoming a real headache for many people in case their application for VoC was rejected.  Meanwhile, those who are currently on a 1-year Job Search visa can next get a 2-year open Work Visa.  That is truly a windfall for them.

The Acid Test

What remains to be seen is whether student migrants take full advantage of the freedom to work wherever they like.  For all its shortcomings, the present Employer Assisted policy forces people to look for jobs that are aligned with what they studied, and to demonstrate that their qualification encouraged the employer to take them on.  Without that, there is a risk that people will settle for whatever work they can find in a competitive labour market.

Almost every week we talk to those who have taken up employment in a dead-end job in order to secure the Work Visa.  They have stopped looking for better.  We have to tell them that this will not be skilled enough, or high-paying enough, to get them Residence.  And by the time we see them their Employer Assisted visa has nearly run out.  I fear that this scenario will play out in an even more extreme fashion under the new scheme.  I hope I am proven wrong.  If people can switch jobs without having to get a whole new visa, this may encourage much more upward mobility than we have seen so far.

The key is to get advice early about what is really needed to find a secure path to Residence, or face having to return home after spending years, and tens of thousands of dollars, following the dream that was sold by colleges and education agents at the start of the New Zealand experiment.

The other thing to look out for is continued exploitation at the lower end of the scale.  A migrant group has already warned that the new policy will not stop abuse by employers, as the Government hopes it will.  In my view, those most at risk are those doing a sub-degree course who only get the 1-year open Work Visa.  A year is not a long time.  The pressure will be on them to take a job which will pay their way, but must also set them up to be able to either apply for Residence straight away, or go for the Essential Skills Work Visa at the end of that year.  Getting the Essential Skills visa is harder than the present Employer Assisted visa, partly because the job must be advertised, and also because the salary being paid determines how long the visa will be (only 1 year if it pays less than $20.65 per hour).  It’s even tougher applying for Residence, where the pay must be at least $24.29 per hour, or over $50,000 per year.  There is arguably even more temptation for unethical employers to make the applicant “buy their job” – that is, pay back some of their wage under the table as the price of getting the job offer.

Again, the saving grace here is that someone caught in that situation can simply go to another job without having to change their visa to do so.  But how many will know that, or continue to fear the revenge of their employer if they leave?

Posted in Business, Citizenship, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas, Politics, Practice of Law | 6 Comments

Update on our success story: IT Call Centre Staff granted Residence Visas


You may recall our post late last year about a group of our clients whose declined Residence Visa applications were successfully overturned on appeal by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (“IPT”). The IPT then sent the applications back to Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”) – with a strict set of guidelines – for a correct reassessment.

During its verification process, INZ asked to see the Service Agreement which the employer had entered into with its corporate client – one of the largest multinational consumer electronics giants in the world – whose products the appellants service. Given the highly commercially sensitive and confidential nature of this contract, the employer was unable to release it to INZ.

Then we started getting INZ’s letters of concern which were, once again, all materially the same. At the same time, other Residence applicants working for the same employer started contacting us to help them too.

Needless to say, this was a gut-wrenching and frustrating further set-back for our clients who had been battling for months – and in some cases, years – to secure their Residence Visas. This development was not however entirely surprising to us. It was apparent even when the IPT first released its decisions that INZ might try to find other ways to defeat the applications on reassessment. Unfortunately for our clients, we were right. And so the fight continued.

This time around, the focus of INZ’s “concern” was on its own ability to verify whether the IT call centre jobs in question were a substantial match to ANZSCO Unit Group (313112) ICT Customer Support Technician. INZ took the position that it could not assess whether the jobs were “skilled” without seeing the confidential Service Agreement between the employer and its corporate client. The wording of INZ’s letters (and remember, they were all the same) left little doubt in our mind that it would decline all the applications if it did not get the Service Agreement: an agreement which, INZ knew, would never be released. Nasty stuff.

Therefore, when we responded we asked INZ to justify why it couldn’t verify the jobs without that document. After all, it already had in front of it a pile of other evidence. Specifically, we noted that INZ had:

  1. access to the job descriptions and employment agreements for these roles;
  2. conducted a site visit early in 2017 as part of the original application process;
  3. taken notes of interviews with dozens of applicants, and with members of the employer’s HR department;
  4. letters from management supplied to INZ prior to the IPT appeals; and
  5. detailed guidance from the IPT’s appeal decisions on how to assess these jobs and apply the ANZSCO description of the occupation.

We pointed out that the visa officers did not raise any concerns about the credibility or veracity of the employment documents and information noted above.  They were ignoring this evidence in favour of the Service Agreement, which it had not yet seen, and were speculating on its value for verification purposes. They also appeared to have ignored the directions of the IPT which provided authoratative guidance on how these jobs are to be assessed – and that did not include looking at some third-party Service Agreement.

We questioned the propriety of and motivation behind INZ’s request for the Service Agreement, and we put it back into INZ’s court to justify the legitimacy of its request. It seemed to us that INZ was acting in bad faith by requesting a document it knew could never be released, as a way to decline the applications again. We were therefore determined to hold INZ to account, noting in our written response that further decline decisions would result in further appeals back to the IPT.

We heard nothing from INZ for several more weeks  until, at last, the final decisions began trickling into our inbox a couple of weeks ago. After their lengthy and expensive struggle to have their work recognised as skilled, all of our clients’ applications were finally approved and they were granted Residence Visas. Needless to say, they were relieved and grateful that the fight was finally over. Putting INZ to the test had finally paid off.

It is a satisfying end to what has been a very long and hard-fought battle. The success which our clients have enjoyed will probably have a lasting impact on the way in which the ICT Customer Support Technician occupation within other, similar businesses in New Zealand, will be assessed by INZ moving forward.

If you or anyone you know is facing similar issues with their Residence (or Work Visa) application, be sure to get in touch with us.

Posted in Business, Citizenship, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas, Politics, Practice of Law | 3 Comments

Planning a trip to New Zealand?


Planning a vacation can be a joyful task. Reading travel blogs, searching for attractions, activities to plan your day to day itineraries, checking Airbnb and flight deals may be a starting point. What most How to Plan a Vacation Guides appear to miss is checking whether you’d be able to lawfully enter the travel destination to even begin your planned itinerary. If you chose New Zealand as your next travel destination, read this blog carefully.

New Zealand allows travellers with passports issued by certain countries to visit New Zealand without holding a Visa permitting travel to New Zealand. These countries are called Visa Waiver Countries. At current, there are 60 countries on the List of Visa Waiver Countries which can be found here.

If you are from one of the 60 countries, you may not need to apply for a Visitor Visa  in advance of your planned date of travel to New Zealand, which is usually done by completing an Application Form with payment of a fee to Immigration New Zealand. But you will still need to apply for both a Visa and entry permission on arrival to New Zealand. This is done by completing an Arrival Card which will be given on the plane before your arrival to New Zealand, and which looks like this. Depending on the information entered on the Arrival Card and the information you provide to the Border Officer at the New Zealand border, you may either be:

  • granted entry permission and Visa Waiver Visitor Visa allowing you to enter New Zealand or
  • denied entry permission where you would have to return home or to a country you have the right to enter (this is also called turnaround)

If you are granted entry permission, you will also be granted a Visa Waiver Visitor Visa at the same time. This is because the grant of entry permission has no effect unless the person also holds a Visa, unless you already hold a permanent resident visa or a resident visa granted in New Zealand.

Entry permission and Visa Waiver Visitor Visas are granted to those who:

  • are in good health; and
  • are of good character; and
  • genuinely intend to visit New Zealand for up to 3 months (or 6 months for UK citizens) from the date of arrival to New Zealand; and
  • have sufficient funds to stay; and
  • have a travel ticket out of New Zealand to a country where they have the right to enter.

Once granted, this Visa allows you to stay in New Zealand as a “genuine visitor” for a period of up to 3 months (6 months for visitors from UK) from the date of arrival to New Zealand. The Border Officer will stamp your passport as you enter New Zealand which will note the date you entered New Zealand and the expiry date of the Visa Waiver Visitor Visa you hold. The conditions of this Visa are similar to a standard Visitor Visa, which allows the holder to travel and/or study for up to 3 months in any 12 month period, but does not allow the holder to undertake employment in New Zealand.  The only difference is that this Visa has single entry travel conditions which means it will expire when you leave New Zealand.

Entry permission can be refused if:

  • you do not meet all of the above listed requirements; and
  • you refuse to let the Border Officer take your photo or to provide them with your fingerprints or an iris scan if and when requested; and
  • you provide (or have provided) false or misleading information in a visa application to an immigration officer or on any part of your Arrival Card

If you have been previously found to have breached your visa conditions; overstayed your Visa; were deported and/or served a deportation liability notice and/or a deportation order; or you have any other character issues in New Zealand or any other countries you’ve visited and/or lived in the past, you can be stopped from travelling to New Zealand from the departing country or be refused entry permission when you arrive at the New Zealand border.

If you are unsure whether you would be granted entry permission and a Visa Waiver Visitor Visa at the New Zealand border or whether you would need to apply for a Visitor Visa before you travel to New Zealand, contact us today for clarification.

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

It’s a trap!

So, you’ve managed to successfully secure a job offer from a New Zealand employer and you’ve lodged your work visa application. But your application is taking a long time to process and you’re feeling bored at home with nothing to do with your time. Being the hardworking person that you are, you decide to make yourself useful by visiting your prospective employer’s place of work to become familiar with their processes / systems and to meet your soon-to-be colleagues. You turn up to work and you see how busy everyone else is, so you decide to help out. You greet customers, make coffee and maybe even answer a phone call or two. You’re not getting paid to do any of this so it’s basically like volunteering, right? Wrong.


Recently, we have had to advise several clients to leave New Zealand voluntarily or else face deportation all because they did not clearly understand the conditions of their visa. This was in large part due to their ill-conceived decision to undertake work when their temporary visas did not explicitly allow for it. Their situation arose due to a genuine misunderstanding of the rules and was completely avoidable.

Work is defined under the Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”) Operational Manual as anything done for “gain or reward“. The term is defined so broadly that almost any activity could be captured by this definition thus making it a dangerous trap for unsuspecting migrants. The situation isn’t helped by the ambiguous information available on INZ’s own website. For example, in answer to the question, “Can I do unpaid work while visiting New Zealand”, INZ’s website states [emphasis added]:

“On a visitor visa you can do volunteer work while in New Zealand, provided you receive no gain or reward.

You must not expect or receive gain or reward for the volunteer work you do.

Gain or reward is any payment or benefit that can be valued in terms of money.

Examples include:

  • accommodation, such as board or lodging
  • goods, such as food or clothing
  • services, such as transport
  • training.

If your intention is to receive gain or reward, you are not considered to be a volunteer and should consider applying for a work visa.”

As you can see, “gain or reward” includes training. Learning the ropes or assisting the prospective employer with basic tasks such as photocopying or moving boxes, could be captured by this broad definition of work even if you voluntarily offer up your time and help, and are not paid for it.

The consequences of working in New Zealand without the legal right to do so are potentially catastrophic and frankly not worth the risk. Section 157(5)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009 makes it clear that a temporary visa holder can be deported for breaching visa conditions, which of course includes working illegally. Something as seemingly innocent as answering the phone can – and will – be construed as an activity being done for gain or reward. If that should happen, INZ will in most cases commence deportation proceedings, which unfortunately is very difficult to overcome. It is therefore not unusual for people who find themselves in this unenviable position to leave New Zealand (voluntarily or otherwise), never to return. All that sacrifice for naught.

The upside to all of this of course is that this situation is entirely preventable. It is therefore always a good idea to tread cautiously with all things visa-related, and to seek advice if you are ever in doubt.

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