Applying for partnership visas


Are you a New Zealand citizen or resident who has spent time overseas? You may have found yourself with a partner who is a citizen of another country.

You will discover that your overseas partner is not able to live with you in New Zealand unless they hold a Visa which allows them to do so.

Or, you might be a New Zealand citizen or resident who while in New Zealand have found yourself with a partner who is a citizen of another country. This partner might hold a Student or Essential Skills Work Visa, but not a Residence Visa and so cannot stay in New Zealand permanently.

People usually do not choose a partner based on whether they can get a Visa to be in New Zealand, but can confront this difficulty once a relationship is in place, when a couple determine they want to live together in New Zealand. The process of securing a Visa for a partner to live in New Zealand permanently is often not easy.

A New Zealand citizen or resident can support an overseas partner for the following types of Visa;

  1. Partnership-based Work Visa, where the couple are living together in a genuine and stable relationship. This is a Temporary Visa which allows an overseas partner to live and work in New Zealand in any job. A Partnership-based Work Visa is granted for 12 months. The Visa holder can apply for a further 12 months after the first 12 months.
  2. Partnership-based Residence Visa, where the couple has been living together in a genuine and stable relationship for at least 12 months. This is a Residence Visa which allows an overseas partner to live, work and study in New Zealand permanently, with 2 years of travel conditions. A further application for Permanent Residence is required if the overseas partner is to be able to live, work and study in New Zealand without travel conditions.

Immigration New Zealand will determine whether a couple is living together in a genuine and stable relationship, based on documents presented in paper form. It is uncommon that Immigration will interview a couple in person. Immigration instructions define “living together” as “sharing the same home as partners”, and “genuine and stable partnership” as “genuine, because it has been entered into with the intention being maintained on a long–term and exclusive basis” and “stable, because it is likely to endure”.

In many cases, a partner wanting to apply for Residence in New Zealand, will first need to apply for and be granted a Partnership-based Work Visa, because the processing time for this type of Temporary Visa is much faster than a Partnership-based Residence application. They also need to be on a valid visa the whole time they are in New Zealand, even if a Residence application is already underway.

Sometimes a Partnership-based Visitor Visa must also be applied for too, to give a couple time to live together in New Zealand before applying for a Partnership-based Work Visa and then a Partnership-based Residence Visa in due course.

In some situations there might be a culturally arranged marriage involved, which requires a special type of Visitor Visa be applied for and granted first.

There can be multiple steps involved in a partnership application and the process is often not straightforward. People often don’t realise just how much evidence of the relationship is needed in order to satisfy Immigration that they are really living together, and that they will continue living together for the long haul.

Laurent Law has much experience in handling a range of different situations relating to partnership Visas. If you require assistance with this type of application, phone our office for an appointment so we can discuss further.

Posted in Citizenship, Immigration Appeals, Immigration Industry, Immigration Problems, Immigration Visas | 4 Comments

Migrant Exploitation – a Clear and Present Danger for Employees


In the last couple of years – and especially since the Labour Government took office last year – both Immigration New Zealand and the MBIE Labour Inspectorate have upscaled their efforts to find and punish employers who misuse the power imbalance between them and their foreign workers.  Usually the migrants are on Work Visas.

My colleague Peter Moses and I recently prepared and delivered a seminar to the Law Society Employment Law Conference, in which Peter spoke about the ways in which bosses could be prosecuted for various wrongdoing, from employing overstayers to firing staff in an improper way.

Types of Abuse

The worker usually needs the job to keep their visa, and some of them hope to use their employment to get Residence.  This means that they will put up with things that local people would not stand for, including:

  • Working well over the hours they signed up for – 60 or 90 hours a week instead of the 40 hours in their employment agreement;
  • Not being paid the wage they agreed to at the outset;
  • Being required to work weekends and holidays, for fear that they’ll lose the job if they refuse;
  • Getting their agreed wage, but having to pay a large sum back to the employer under the table – this is called “paying a premium”;
  • Providing personal services to the employer without pay, such as cleaning their house after hours.

Some of these stories make it to the media, like the conduct of subcontractors to Chorus; most do not.  In some of the worst cases, staff must give up their passport and their Eftpos card to the employer, and are effectively kept prisoner by being forced to live on the work site.  They submit to this because the employer threatens to go to Immigration and get them deported if they don’t agree.

Lack of Protection

INZ has in the past been criticised for failing to provide real safety for workers who come forward to report the abuse.  As the Government has more recently promised to battle workplace exploitation, you might expect that they would incentivise people to come forward – especially when officials know full well that migrants feel frightened to do this because they believe that it will expose them to being deported.  This becomes a real risk if they had to leave the job recorded on their visa, which means that they have breached their visa conditions.

Immigration Instructions do say that someone who reports exploitation can be considered for a replacement temporary visa.  Unfortunately, the rules are vague about what visa that person could get – will it be a Work Visa allowing them to find a new job, or a Visitor’s Visa which does not permit them to work?  INZ’s own fact page about this topic is imprecise.  This is understandable because the situations that come up will be many and varied, but it still gives little real comfort.

Furthermore, the migrant needs to tie their claim to quite specific acts or omissions for it to be treated as “exploitation” under the law.  These include:

  • failure to pay holiday wages required under the Holidays Act;
  • paying below the minimum wage, which is now $17.25 per hour;
  • paying a premium (see above);
  • actions to prevent the employee from leaving the job or travelling out of New Zealand; or
  • obstructing the employee from finding out about his or her legal rights in NZ.

A non-specific allegation of being badly treated by an employer will not suffice, even if it is genuinely felt by the victim.

In my view, if Immigration and the Labour Inspectorate are committed to stamping out abuse of foreign employees, some iron-cast guarantees of protection, and of outcomes, need to be set out.  For example, INZ’s statement reads:

We’ll let you apply for another visa to stay in New Zealand, even if you have been working on the wrong visa.

Allowing someone to apply does not mean that a visa will actually be given.  Often employees are complicit in the exploitation, out of fear of losing the status which they acquired legitimately.  They face a real risk of being declined their replacement visa and then facing deportation for breach of their last visa.  Even the promise of a new Work Visa, say for 6 months, to allow them to search for another job, would be a significant improvement.

If you, or someone you know, believes that they are being treated badly by an employer in the ways described above, then it may be safest to get professional help to avoid the possible pitfalls to be faced in setting the situation right.

A Warning to Employers

Having said all this, it is apparent that the Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment has been throwing more resources at exposing employers behaving badly.  The sharp end of this is prosecutions, which can attract fines of tens of thousands of dollars and (in the worst cases) imprisonment for years at a time.  These convictions have started coming through the Courts more regularly in recent years.

More likely, though, is that a company which keeps poor records, employs staff on the wrong visa, or has paid them in breach of their employment agreement or the legislation, could find it very difficult to hire migrant staff in the future.  If they have been penalised by the Employment Relations Authority or Employment Court, then they will be labelled a “non-compliant employer”.  They end up on a list of employers facing stand-down periods from 6 to 24 months, during which they cannot support anyone for a Work Visa.  Businesses on the list range from construction companies to medical centres.

We are called upon to advise employers who have legitimate concerns that they may have fallen foul of the rules.  It is possible to rectify matters proactively, but it must be handled carefully.

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

Changes to arriving and departing New Zealand


A recent announcement by Immigration New Zealand indicates that Government has determined to introduce an “Electronic Travel Authority” (ETA), for travellers to New Zealand. It is expected this will come into effect for air passengers and crew in the second half of 2019.

At the moment, there are countries whose citizens are able to travel to New Zealand and be granted a three month Visitor Visa on arrival. This is called a “visa waiver”. There are also certain other cases where a visa waiver applies and travellers to New Zealand are not required to first apply for a Visa, including citizens of Australia and those who hold a current Permanent Residence or Residence Visa issued by Australia.

The ETA means that before coming to New Zealand, travellers will need to fill out a form online and pay a fee. This will be similar to the ESTA process that the United States of America has for travellers there.

Immigration New Zealand says that when people don’t have to apply for Visas to travel to New Zealand, they only learn about them when they are on their way to New Zealand. This means INZ is unable to screen travellers in advance for border and immigration risks and have a reduced ability to make entering New Zealand smoother and faster as technology allows. The ETA is therefore considered to be an improvement in process. Australian citizens will be exempt from needing to hold an ETA, but Australian Permanent Residents will need to hold one.

At the same time the fee for the ETA is paid, from the second half of 2019 some travellers will need to pay an International Visitor Conservation and Tourism Levy. This too is a new measure announced by Government, for the purpose of ensuring international visitors contribute to the infrastructure they use while in New Zealand and also to help protect the natural environment they enjoy while in New Zealand. Most international visitors entering New Zealand for 12 months or less will need to pay a levy of $35. There will be some exceptions, for Australian citizens and permanent Residents and for people from many Pacific Island countries including Tonga and Samoa.

Furthermore, from November 2018 the Government has determined to do away with departure cards. Travellers leaving New Zealand will no longer need to fill in the cards before flying overseas. No longer having departure cards is indicated to save travellers time, and it is something of an anachronism because few other countries still use them. Relevant details about the travellers will still be able to be collected through other methods.

However there are no plans at the moment to do away with arrival cards, which still capture relevant immigration and biosecurity information.  The arrival card is treated as a de facto visa application.  Thus, for example, the answers which people give to questions on the card can be used against them if they are inconsistent with other information gathered about the person – such as their activities in New Zealand after their arrival.  The classic case is the difficulties encountered by South Africans coming in on “look, see and decide” (LSD) trips

The introduction of the ETA and International Tourist levy may represent a more protective approach being taken by Government in relation to the arrival process in New Zealand. The decision to do away with departure cards may on the other hand be seen as imposing less restriction, however this seems to be on the basis that information collected by these cards can be collected through other methods.


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

An apple a day…

Depending on the type and duration of the visa you apply for, you may be required to submit information about your health to Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”). Most applicants have no problem meeting INZ’s health criteria. That said, we are often asked to intervene in applications (and appeals) where health is an issue.

Set out below are two case studies which attempt to shed some light on the complex inner workings of INZ’s health requirements as they relate to residence visa applications (only). As will be demonstrated, no two cases are the same when it comes to health issues.

Case Study 1

Applicant A is the adopted child of a New Zealand Resident Visa holder. She is six years old and would like to apply for a Resident Visa under the Dependent Child Category. She was born with cerebral palsy but she lives a relatively independent life and does not require full time care to manage her diagnosis.

Instruction A4.10.1 of the INZ Operational Manual lists conditions deemed to impose significant costs and / or demands on New Zealand’s health and / or education services for Resident Visa applicants. Unfortunately, cerebral palsy is a listed condition. Applicant A does not therefore meet INZ’s health requirements.

The question then becomes, does Applicant A qualify for a Medical Waiver?

Without traversing in detail the complex instructions attached to Medical Waivers, suffice it to say that surprisingly the answer is yes: Applicant A qualifies for a Medical Waiver. Essentially, even though Applicant A’s diagnosed medical condition is technically captured by Instruction A4.10.1, she nevertheless qualifies for a Medical Waiver because:

a) she was born and adopted after her father secured his own Resident Visa;

b) she meets all of the other requirements of the Dependent Child Resident Visa Category;

c) her diagnosis does not require full time care in the community to manage; and

d) she is not caught by the other Medical Waiver exclusion clauses.

As such, Applicant A was granted a Resident Visa – without any restrictive conditions –  and she can live in New Zealand with her father.

Case Study 2

Applicant B is a fully qualified Architect with 6 years of work experience in Belgium. He is 35 years old, single and does not have any dependent children. He applied for a Resident Visa under the Skilled Migrant Category from outside New Zealand; he has never been to this country. He was diagnosed with clinical depression when he was 15 years old. He was hospitalised once for this condition when he was 17 years old. Since that time, Applicant B has managed his mental health diagnosis well, including prescription medication and regular psychotherapy sessions.

“Major psychiatric illness and / or addiction including any psychiatric condition that has required hospitalisation and / or where significant support is required” is listed at Instruction A4.10.1.

Two questions come to mind regarding Applicant B’s ability to meet INZ’s health requirements:

a) Is he captured by Instruction A4.10.1, given that his condition appears to be on the lower end of the scale and well managed?

b) If he is captured by Instruction A4.10.1, does Applicant B qualify for a Medical Waiver?

The answer to first question will arguably depend on the specialist medical reports he provides INZ from his treating Psychotherapist, and, INZ’s Medical Assessor’s opinion. Factors that could be relevant include the duration of time that has passed since he was hospitalised for clinical depression, the triggering event requiring hospitalisation, and his current management plan. Unfortunately for Applicant B, INZ determined that his condition was captured by Instruction A4.10.1 because he had previously been hospitalised for clinical depression, and as such that he did not have an acceptable standard of health.

Applicant B was provided with the opportunity to seek a Medical Waiver pursuant to Instruction A4.70. He submitted documents and a cover letter outlining the reasons why he believed he should be granted a Medical Waiver, including:

a) the current skilled nature of his job offer as an Architect (Skill Level 1, ANZSCO Unit Group 232111);

b) the skilled nature of his work experience in a comparable labour market to New Zealand;

c) his condition being well-managed (including a positive medical report from his Psychotherapist); and

d) he has the resources to pay for his ongoing medical needs himself, given his high-paying job offer from a well-respected Architecture firm in Wellington.

Weighing and balancing all of these factors, INZ ultimately declined to grant a Medical Waiver to Applicant B, its reasons including a finding that he had a mental health condition which would require long-term medical care to manage. This concern was not outweighed by the potential benefits he could bring to New Zealand through his skills and expertise as an Architect. That he could pay for his health needs himself was in fact irrelevant to the Medical Waiver assessment. It probably also didn’t help his case that Applicant B had no ties to New Zealand, having never stepped foot in the country.

As a result, his application for a Resident Visa was declined.

Final thoughts

As has been demonstrated above, each case really does turn on its own facts. This can sometimes make it difficult to predict the decision INZ will ultimately make in an application where there are serious health issues. We find that sometimes we win the cases we expect to lose, and lose the cases we are sure will succeed. Alas, this area of Immigration Law is not an exact science. Therefore, it is wise to seek legal advice from an experienced lawyer or adviser if you or your family have a medical issue that could be potentially problematic. Ideally you should do so before you even make a visa application so that you can better understand the risks involved and the potential outcome.

Disclaimer: The case studies are abstract examples only and do not relate to real persons. They are based on policy interpretation (in terms of potential visa outcomes) as well as prior experience working in this field.

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

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