Article Type: Media Articles

Poor advice from a licensed immigration adviser (LIA) or lawyer could lead to costly mistakes—jeopardising your future in New Zealand. Not all immigration professionals are equal. Some lack the expertise, diligence, or ethical commitment required to manage the intricacies of your case.

Are you at risk of being misled? Here’s how to safeguard yourself and ensure you’re getting value for your money.

What Immigration Professionals Can Do for You

Both LIAs and immigration lawyers can:

• Assess your eligibility for a visa
• Prepare and submit your visa application
• Handle communication with Immigration New Zealand
• Represent you for resident visa appeals before the Immigration and Protection Tribunal

However, only lawyers can represent you in the High Court—a step so rare that it applies to less than 0.1% of immigration cases.

So, how do you choose the right professional for your needs?

1. Experience Counts
Check the types of cases they have handled and ask for case studies to review.Also, check how long they’ve been practising. You can verify this through:

• The Immigration Advisers Authority’s website (for LIAs).
• The Law Society’s website (for lawyers).

2. Read Client Reviews and Complaints

A quick look at Google or Facebook reviews can provide a sense of a professional’s reputation. But don’t stop there—check if your adviser or lawyer has been subject to disciplinary action on:

• The Immigration Advisers Complaints and Disciplinary Tribunal (IACDT)
• The New Zealand Lawyers and Conveyancers Disciplinary Tribunal (NZLCDT)

While being listed on these sites doesn’t necessarily mean someone is a bad adviser or lawyer, reading the Tribunal’s decisions can provide valuable insights into how they have treated their clients.

Ask yourself: Do I want this adviser or lawyer who treated their clients this badly to work for me?

3. Transparency: Are They Upfront About Their Services and Fees?

• Do they provide written advice, including eligibility assessments?
• Do they give you the reasons for their advice?
• Are all services and fees clearly outlined in a written agreement?
• Does their written service agreement include service standards to clarify how long it will take them to respond to emails or phone calls?Beware of vague answers from professionals. Consider it a warning sign if their responses are unclear or if they fail to document their advice in writing. This may indicate that they lack confidence in the advice they are providing.

4. Know Your Rights, Protect Your FutureImmigration professionals are bound by standards to evaluate your eligibility comprehensively, identify barriers to your application and provide detailed, reasoned advice in writing.

For LIAs, these obligations are clearly laid out under Competency Standard 4.1, which requires them to assess a client’s immigration situation, including:

• establishing eligibility criteria
• gathering appropriate information
• conducting preliminary assessments
• identifying potential barriers to eligibility
• evaluating the possible range of visa options
• providing correct advice and information
• providing reasons for advice given.

LIAs and immigration lawyers are required to provide their advice in writing. If your adviser or lawyer hasn’t done this promptly after you have engaged them, ask them why not.

If these services are not delivered early in your engagement, ask for a refund. I strongly recommend that you don’t continue with an adviser or lawyer who provides subpar assistance—it could jeopardise your visa approval.

5. Professional Fees: What Should You Pay?

You get what you pay for.

Professional fees vary based on expertise, experience, reputation, results and the adviser’s or lawyer’s operating costs. While cost is a factor, quality immigration advice is an investment in your future.

Expert advisers can usually handle complex cases better. This can save you time and avoid costly mistakes in the long run.

A good professional doesn’t just provide generic advice; they understand your specific needs and tailor their approach accordingly.

As visa application fees rise, it’s tempting to cut corners to save money. However, this can lead to mistakes or incomplete applications that result in delays, rejections, or additional costs.

6. Take Charge of Your Immigration Journey

Don’t leave your future in the hands of subpar advisers or lawyers. Research thoroughly, ask tough questions, and insist on written advice.

Your life in New Zealand is too important to gamble on the wrong advice.

Immigration New Zealand is “assessing” the visit of YouTube star IShowSpeed after confirming he does not have the visa required to work in the country.

IShowSpeed or Speed, whose real name is Darren Jason Watkins Jr, has been touring New Zealand, filming a series of livestreams for a broadcast to YouTube and his audience of 33 million subscribers.

In a statement to 1News, Immigration New Zealand general manager risk and border Richard Owen confirmed Speed was on a visitor visa to New Zealand, after travelling to the country as a visa-waiver traveller.

“A person cannot work in New Zealand while holding a visitor visa.

“In general, individuals require a work visa (or hold a visa with conditions that allow for work) to engage in activities that result in gain or reward (such as payment) during their time in New Zealand,” Owen said.

“In assessing this case, we will follow our standard compliance procedures.”

On the Immigration NZ website, it stated: “When a report is made about a possible immigration breach or offence, an assessment is made to determine the veracity and severity of the allegation and how it is best addressed.”

Immigration adviser Ankur Sabharwal from Visa Matters told Breakfast this morning: “If he’s monetising the video’s he’s streaming during his travel in New Zealand — in other words, if he’s receiving a payment from YouTube for streaming these videos — then he’s working in New Zealand, and visitor visa conditions do not allow work.

“What he needs to do is apply for a work visa before he travels to New Zealand next time.”

Sabharwal said the easiest way to find out if Speed is being paid for the videos he’s filming in New Zealand would be to ask him.

“I don’t know whether INZ would do that, or they’ve done that, but INZ is actually not required to prove anything here,” he added. “If they feel that he’s breaching his visa conditions by working in this country while he holds a visitor visa which doesn’t allow work, then they could simply serve him a deportation liability notice.

“When someone’s breaching their visa conditions, INZ has the choice to decide whether they want to investigate it further or they just simply want to serve them a deportation liability notice.

“In this particular case, I think they are more than likely to have a word with him or his team,” Sabharwal said.

A deportation liability notice “doesn’t mean you can be deported straightaway — it simply begins the process”, Community Law explains on its website.

“You have various appeal rights (depending on what kind of visa you’ve got and why they’re deporting you) that you can use before you’re deported,” the organisation said.

“Only after you’ve had the chance to use your appeal rights can Immigration NZ then make a deportation order and force you to leave the country.

“After they’ve made a deportation order, you can still ask Immigration New Zealand to cancel the order. They have a broad power to do this.”

Speed has built a huge following on YouTube after gaining attention through his online content in 2021. He is known for his wild stunts, high energy, and collaborations with celebrities.

Recently, he has been visiting a variety of countries and livestreaming his travels to his YouTube audience.

Earlier this week, Speed was swarmed by hundreds of young fans at the base of the Sky Tower in Auckland.

The internet personality spent the day travelling across the city, visiting professional Kiwi boxer Dan Hooker and looking at the views from the top of the Sky Tower. Groups of fans could be seen chasing his van as it left the venue at the time.

Breakfast has contacted Speed and his representatives for comment but has not yet had a response.

SOURCE: 1news

Speed, also known as IShowSpeed, whose actual name is Darren Jason Watkins Jr., has been traveling across New Zealand to record a number of livestreams for a YouTube show that would be viewed by his 33 million fans. Richard Owen, general manager of risk and border for Immigration New Zealand, confirmed to 1News that Speed was in the nation on a visiting visa after entering as a visa-waiver traveler.

Darren Jason Watkins Jr., a well-known YouTuber who goes as IShowSpeed or Speed online, is being investigated in New Zealand for possible visa violations. With 33 million subscribers, Speed has been traveling the nation and documenting his experiences live for his fans across the world.

According to confirmation from Immigration New Zealand (INZ), Speed entered the nation on a visiting visa, which limits work-related activities. “A person cannot work in New Zealand while holding a visitor visa,” said INZ General Manager for Risk and Border Richard Owen.

• Monetized Streams Raise Questions

Ankur Sabharwal, an immigration adviser, said that Speed’s livestreams may be considered employment if they are paid for. He clarified, “Visitor visas do not allow work,” Visa requirements would be broken if YouTube videos shot in New Zealand were paid for. Sabharwal continued by saying that INZ could resolve the matter by only interrogating Speed or his group.

• Compliance Procedures in Place

INZ follows standard compliance procedures when investigating visa breaches. “When a report is made, an assessment determines the severity of the allegation,” Owen said. INZ has not confirmed whether Speed is under formal investigation.

Community Law, an advisory organization, clarified the deportation process for visa breaches. “A deportation liability notice begins the process, but it doesn’t mean immediate removal,” their website states. Speed would retain appeal rights before any deportation order is enforced.

• Fans Flock to YouTuber’s Appearances

Speed drew sizable audiences during his visit of New Zealand, including hundreds of youthful admirers at Auckland’s Sky Tower. The YouTuber, who became well-known in 2021 for his exuberant exploits and celebrity partnerships, has since taken a lot of trips and broadcast live from his travels.

• Possible Outcomes for Visa Breach

Sabharwal emphasized that INZ does not have to provide evidence of misconduct. “They can choose to investigate further or serve a deportation liability notice,” he stated. Speed would be able to contest the notice or ask for its cancellation if it were served.

Although INZ has not revealed its next course of action, analysts predict that talks with Speed’s team will probably take place. The result may establish a standard for other content producers who come to New Zealand.

SOURCE: Times Now News

OPINION: How can someone who is acquitted of a crime still be deported from New Zealand?

If the person holds a temporary visa in New Zealand, it can happen.

Even if the court wishes to protect a person’s right to remain in New Zealand by allowing a discharge without conviction, Immigration New Zealand can — and often will — serve a deportation liability notice (DLN), forcing them to leave New Zealand.

Let me explain

Since the Supreme Court’s Bolea judgement in May this year, judges in New Zealand have been considering a person’s immigration status when deciding whether to grant a discharge without conviction for a crime.

If receiving a conviction would mean that the person is liable for deportation, this is one of the factors the judge will consider when deciding whether to convict.

A discharge without conviction helps people who hold resident visas – INZ cannot deport them if they haven’t been convicted of a crime.

However, for people who hold temporary visas, such as work visas or student visas, simply pleading guilty to a crime – which is the first step towards being granted a discharge without conviction – is enough for INZ to issue a DLN.

This is because the Immigration Act gives unlimited powers to INZ to decide what constitutes a “character matter” or “criminal offending”.

Let me give you an example

One common reason people appear in court is for driving charges, such as careless driving, dangerous driving, or driving with excess breath alcohol.

For a minor offence to which someone pleads guilty, the judge might approve a discharge without conviction, while also ordering the payment of costs or reparations.

My client, who holds a work visa, was recently discharged without conviction for careless driving causing injury, and was required to pay $7500 in reparations to the victim.

However, because my client pleaded guilty in order to receive a discharge without conviction, INZ can issue him a DLN.

This would effectively force him to leave New Zealand within 28 days before he is served a deportation order.

“INZ can simply ignore the court’s determination and still proceed with the DLN, even when the judge finds that a conviction would have adverse consequences beyond the seriousness of the offence,” explains Alastair McClymont, an experienced immigration lawyer (who was commenting in general, not about this case in particular).

The law unfairly allows INZ to decide what is a character matter

McClymont told me about his Indian client who was required to leave New Zealand, even though he wasn’t required to go to court. This was the timeline of events:

• The client was charged by the Police
• INZ then issued him a deportation liability notice
• Police next withdrew charges before he went to court
• INZ refused to cancel the DLN as they felt that the Police even charging him in the first place was sufficient to meet the threshold of “other character matters”.

McClymont considers there is an unresolved legal conflict between the Sentencing Act – which allows judges to discharge people without conviction – and the Immigration Act, which permits INZ to issue deportation liability notices to temporary visa holders, even though they haven’t been convicted of any crime.

INZ’s discretion in serving deportation liability notices is “almost entirely unfettered”, which leads to travesties of justice, Mr McClymont says.

What is the solution?

I would like to see the Immigration Act amended so that INZ cannot override a judge’s wish not to have a person deported who has been discharged without conviction.

Ankur Sabharwal is a New Zealand licensed immigration adviser and the owner of Auckland-based immigration advisory Visa Matters.

OPINION: You have lived in New Zealand for a decade and now you’d like your mother to visit for the first time. Surely Immigration New Zealand will approve her a visitor visa?

My client Madhushani Munasinghe has lived in New Zealand for 10 years. Both she and her husband are New Zealand residents, and they have a one-year-old New Zealand citizen daughter, Elina.

Madhushani’s mother, Ashoka Pathirana, was refused a visitor visa this month because of her lack of ties to her home country, Sri Lanka.

It’s part of INZ’s crackdown on people at risk of overstaying visas or claiming refugee status.

The most effective way to prevent people overstaying or claiming asylum is not to approve them a visa to travel to New Zealand in the first place.

Why INZ is being tough

There has been a dramatic increase in refugee claimants since New Zealand’s borders re-opened after the Covid epidemic in 2022.

I wrote about this in my last column, Refugee claims have exploded since New Zealand’s border re-opened.

The number of people who are overstaying their visitor visas will also have increased significantly, though INZ is not saying by how much – it claims it last estimated the number of overstayers in 2017.

In response, INZ is cracking down on people who cannot prove strong ties to their home countries, including:

• Employment ties
• Family ties
• Financial ties
• Any other personal commitments in their home country.

Because Ashoka, who is aged 54, is not working in Sri Lanka, and has only one adult son living there, INZ won’t approve her a visitor visa to visit Madhu for six months.

This is despite my client Madhushani following her visa conditions for 10 years. She and her husband Sam Remigias, a baker, were approved residence more than two years ago.

Why this is unfair

I’ll let Madhushani explain why this is unfair:

“ Sam and I both work full time and with so much effort and hope we applied for my mother’s visitor visa so that she can get to know our daughter, her very first grandchild.

“ Me and my husband would have felt comfortable if our daughter had been looked after by a family member.

“Now that we have no choice but to put our daughter into day care we feel distressed as we didn’t wish her to be looked after by strangers until she is a bit older. Our daughter is a premature baby who doesn’t do well with strangers and around many people.”

Madhushani and Sam are now considering sending Elina to Sri Lanka where Ashoka can look after her.

INZ says it was following Government policy

INZ says it was following Government policy when deciding to decline Ashoka’s visitor visa application.

Visitors need to show they have ties to their home country, or INZ will decide that they do not meet the definition of a “bona fide temporary entrant”.

But this definition also requires INZ to consider the purpose of the applicant’s visit to New Zealand – clearly, Ashoka has genuine reasons to visit her daughter, her son-in-law and her granddaughter.

“ It was heartbreaking to know that the reason to decline the visa was because my mum was not employed,” Madhushani told me.

“It’s normal in our culture to support our parents therefore me and my husband, and my brother looks after my mum as we did not want her to work.

“However, with this decision we were denied a precious time and a memory for our baby and us.”

Cruelly, applicants who are refused visitor visas receive INZ’s generic decline letter, which reads: “ After considering the information available to me, I am not satisfied that your personal circumstances demonstrate sufficient ties to your home country.”

INZ’s response

After writing this column, I showed it to INZ and asked for their comment.

INZ responded by giving two new and contradictory reasons why Ashoka’s application was declined. Neither of these reasons was mentioned in INZ’s decision letter:

1. Immigration Manager Nikunj Vithalani said no information was provided about who would look after Ashoka’s sister, who requires 24-hour care, while Ashoka is in New Zealand.
2. Jeannie Melville, Director, Visa, said INZ was aware that Ashoka’s sister was looked after in a hospital in Sri Lanka, but there was insufficient evidence provided about how this would mean that Ashoka would return to her home country after her visit to New Zealand.

INZ now says it is keen to clarify this situation and has offered to consider a Limited Visa as a priority if Ashoka reapplies.

Ankur Sabharwal is a New Zealand licensed immigration adviser and the owner of Auckland-based immigration advisory Visa Matters.

OPINION: The number of people claiming refugee status in New Zealand has exploded in the past two years, statistics released by Immigration New Zealand show.

In the 11 months to 31 May 2024, a total of 2220 people claimed refugee status in New Zealand.

Half of these asylum seekers – 1108 people – were from a single country: India.

Before the Covid pandemic, the number of refugee claimants averaged only 400 people a year.

To cope with the huge increase in refugee claimants, Immigration New Zealand’s Refugee Status Branch has taken on 14 more staff.

However, there is still a one-year backlog before refugee claimants are interviewed by INZ’s refugee and protection officers.

What’s the reason for the increase?

It’s not because more genuine refugees are coming to New Zealand.

Pre-Covid, approval rates for refugee claims were around 35%, but that rate has dropped to 21% in the past three years.

This means that in 79% of cases, INZ decides that claimants do not meet the definition of a genuine refugee (someone who has “a well-founded fear of persecution because of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion”).

I have received several calls from Indian nationals in New Zealand on temporary visas who told me they plan to claim asylum.

They had a similar profile: Young men from the Punjab region of India who claimed to support the independence movement in that region.

I was curious whether they would likely meet the refugee definition: none of them described any previous persecution because of their religious beliefs or political activism.

I asked INZ why they thought more people were claiming refugee status in New Zealand, but received no answer.

Can INZ do anything to stop people coming to New Zealand to claim asylum?

Yes, they can. INZ approved visas to every single one of those 1108 people from India who claimed asylum in the past year.

As I have explained in previous columns, INZ normally doesn’t check documents submitted with visa applications.

Immigration officers are based in New Zealand; only in 1.7% of cases do they ask their colleagues based in India or China to check documents which have been submitted with visitor visa applications. (This is an improvement since I wrote my column in May 2023, when documents in less than 1% of applications were checked.)

So INZ has approved visas to many people who claimed that they were planning to stay only a few weeks on holiday in New Zealand, but who actually intended to look for work and stay permanently.

You can be fairly confident, though, that INZ will have profiled the 2200 people who claimed refugee status in the past year – if you are a young man from Punjab in India, you might find it difficult now to be approved a visa for New Zealand.

This is borne out in visitor visa approval rates, which have dropped from 90% to 86% in the past two years (based on 550,000 applications processed by INZ).

So what if some people claim refugee status? It’s still not a huge number

Here are some reasons why we should be concerned about the increase in the number of non-genuine refugee claimants:

1. They cost a lot of money. Refugee claimants qualify for Emergency Benefits from Work & Income, and free legal aid from lawyers specialising in refugee claims. In 2000, it was estimated by INZ that each refugee claim costs New Zealand $30,000 – that figure is likely to be a lot higher now.
2. They cheat and lie to get into New Zealand, and most of them tell more fibs when claiming refugee status. They may have character issues – criminal convictions – which they are hiding from INZ. Refugees don’t have to provide police certificates from their home countries.
3. Refugee claimants are currently being granted 12-month ‘open’ work visas while awaiting their claims to be heard. This encourages more people to try coming to New Zealand to gain asylum-seeker privileges.

I agree that INZ needs to tighten up who it approves visas to … but it is now turning down a lot more visa applicants because they lack evidence of strong reasons to return to their home country after visiting New Zealand.

Unlike last year, you will now likely be refused a New Zealand visitor visa unless you have a well-paid job, strong financial ties, and/or close family members in your home country.

OPINION: By stealth, on a Sunday afternoon, the Government erected a wall to keep low-skilled migrant workers out of New Zealand.

Changes to the Accredited Employer scheme took effect immediately they were announced on 7 April – an instant wall that low-skilled workers now need to climb.

Before and After

The easiest way to explain these changes is to compare the rules before 7 April 2024 with the new rules which Minister of Immigration Erica Stanford introduced that day.

The changes affect low-skilled positions – that is, positions which are categorised as Skill Level 4 or 5 on the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) database.

These are positions such as labourers, shop assistants and receptionists.

Before 7 April

• New Zealand employers had to advertise low-skilled positions for 14 days so New Zealanders could apply for the positions
• Employers decided if qualifications or work experience – or none at all – were required for the positions being advertised
• Employers declared to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) that no suitable New Zealanders were found to be available.

Before 7 April, employers could declare to INZ that no suitable New Zealanders were available to do the work on offer and then bring low-skilled workers with no qualifications or work experience to New Zealand on Accredited Employer work visas.

From 7 April onwards:

• Employers have to advertise low-skilled positions for 21 days
• They have to list low-skilled positions with Work & Income for 21 days
• They have to explain to INZ why no suitable New Zealanders were available
• INZ will now only accept specific reasons why New Zealanders were unavailable (for example, they didn’t pass health, drug or criminal checks)
• Migrant workers need to have three years’ relevant work experience or a New Zealand Qualifications Authority-recognised Level 4 relevant qualification, or a bachelor’s degree
• Most migrant workers need to pass an English test, for example, IELTS 4.0.

Before, low-skilled workers could be approved five-year work visas; now they can only be approved two-year visas, with a potential one-year extension later.

Why the sudden change on 7 April?

Three reasons.

Firstly, there has been fraud involving low-skilled jobs in particular.

Employers had been advertising fake jobs and were still being approved “job checks” by Immigration New Zealand, which accepted employers at their word that no New Zealanders were available to fill these positions.

Low-skilled workers from overseas have paid up to $35,000 for jobs in New Zealand, only to find that the jobs were fake. They borrowed money in their home countries to pay for those jobs.

My guess is that thousands of people are in similar circumstances. They will stay here to earn money to pay back what they owe.

Some will stay unlawfully and work for cash. Others will claim refugee status in order to be approved 12-month ‘open’ work visas, a recent trend that I have observed.

Fake ads

The second reason for the change? Many employers have only pretended to consider New Zealanders for the positions that they are offering – their real intention is to hire people from overseas.

Even when the jobs are real, New Zealand candidates are missing out.

The third reason is that there are just too many low-skilled migrant workers in New Zealand right now.

“Last year, 20,000 people went on the benefit – at the same time, we brought in 52,000 low-skilled workers,” Erica Stanford told Radio New Zealand’s Morning Report on 8 April, explaining the reasons for the changes.

Most of these 52,000 people are from countries like India and China where they can earn far less … how many of them will be willing to leave now that they are here?

Pity the genuine employers

In the meantime, genuine employers with real vacancies will suffer under the new regime.

Remember, while unemployment is sitting at 4%, there are still places in New Zealand where employers genuinely can’t find workers, skilled or otherwise.

While the Work & Income listing process is similar to the one used previously under the Essential Skills Work Visa regime, low-skilled visa approvals will now take about six months.

After advertising and listing positions with Work & Income for 21 days, employers will need to wait two months for INZ to approve their “job check” application, then wait a further three months for the migrant worker’s Accredited Employer work visa to be decided.

These INZ processing times also apply to higher-skilled positions such as carpenters, tilers and mechanics.

Ankur Sabharwal is the owner of immigration advisory Visa Matters. He is a licensed immigration adviser dealing with complex immigration matters.

OPINION: I’m calling it – Immigration New Zealand is our worst-managed Government department.

An 80-page official report details the massive blunders INZ made in approving work visas to thousands of people with fake jobs in New Zealand.

From mid-2022 to mid-2023, INZ simply waved migrants through our borders on empty promises that they were coming to work in genuine jobs for genuine employers.

So, what happened?

It is clear from the report that INZ was poorly prepared to implement the Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) scheme when it opened in May 2022.

Here is a list of the eight worst blunders that INZ made in implementing the AEWV scheme.

Blunder No 1: Tight time targets

Before the scheme opened, INZ committed to taking two weeks to decide employer accreditation applications, as well as applications for “job checks” (approvals for employers to hire workers from overseas).

It was only possible to meet these targets if INZ made almost no checks on the employers or the jobs they were offering.

That is what happened.

Blunder No 2: INZ underestimated the number of applications it would receive.

INZ always does this. Always.

Blunder No 3: INZ’s new computer system wasn’t able to process applications for 10 days

Within three days of opening, INZ had received 1151 online applications for employer accreditation through its new ADEPT computer system.

However, it took 10 days after the employer accreditation scheme opened until ADEPT was able to process the applications in its system.

Instant backlog.

Blunder No 4: Staff weren’t familiar with the new computer system, so it took longer to process applications

Well, you would expect that – wouldn’t you?

Blunder No 5: INZ panicked, and let its guard down

Because there were more applications than INZ had anticipated, and they were taking longer to process than INZ expected, its promised two-week processing times were not being met.

INZ was under pressure from employers and the Government to meet those targets, so it stopped checking applications. A General Instruction was sent to staff which limited:

• checking of the employer regarding the acceptability of the employment;
• the requirement to calculate remuneration;
• the requirement to determine the genuineness of job vacancies;
• the requirement to determine that employers had genuinely tried to find suitable New Zealanders to fill positions offered to workers from overseas.

The review report writers were flabbergasted that INZ gave these instructions without assessing the likely risk of not checking.

Blunder No 6: INZ suspected that it was being ripped off, but carried on regardless

By February 2023, INZ had sampled 1225 approved applications, and found that 83 of them (6.8%) showed signs of not being genuine.

This rate was considered to be “within risk tolerances” and comparable with historical levels.

Why is this dumb? Because the 6.8% of fraud that is occurring increases exponentially unless you do something about it. It just tells the fraudsters “You’re getting away with this, and you can carry on getting away with it.”

Blunder No 7: INZ’s staff told their managers that INZ was being ripped off, but they were ignored

INZ had two systems of staff feedback called “No Surprises Fact Sheets” and a question-and-answer forum known as “Ask Me Anything”.

Multiple staff raised issues with INZ managers, such as:

• employers receiving accreditation despite being ineligible;
• migrant workers arriving in New Zealand and not getting paid;
• migrant workers concealing the fact that significant fees had been paid to secure their jobs and their visas;
• businesses applying for incorrect accreditation categories; and
• employers using the AEWV scheme for horticulture and agriculture work, which was not allowed.

Staff told the review team that they did not know what happened to submitted No Surprises Fact Sheets. Where they did receive responses to issues raised, staff told the review team that they felt INZ managers’ responses were dismissive and that issues raised had been “swept under the carpet.”

Listen to your staff: it’s Management 101, isn’t it?

Blunder No 8: The new computer system kept changing

Regular readers of my columns may recall INZ’s $57 million IT disaster called ADEPT.

The report stated: “ADEPT was changing constantly as bugs were fixed and new functionality was added.

“Changes were poorly communicated, often ‘last-minute’ and without clear rationale, leaving staff with little or no time to prepare and a lack of understanding of the reason for the change or its impact ahead of working with the changes in the system.

“The constant change, coupled with constantly changing documentation, caused confusion and stress amongst staff.”

It got so bad, that, in order to process Accredited Employer applications using ADEPT, staff had to give wrong answers, pretending that checks had been completed when they hadn’t been.

By this stage, INZ managers had told staff that checks weren’t necessary – but ADEPT was still requiring them.

At the end of the day

So, at the end of the day, how many people entered New Zealand having paid for their job offers, for jobs which weren’t actually genuine?

And how many migrant workers are still being exploited in New Zealand?

Radio New Zealand has reported that, as of December 2023, 1552 complaints had been made against Accredited Employers where one or more migrants reported instances of exploitation.

The review report quotes New Zealand’s Migrant Survey, where 8 percent of respondents said they had not received minimum pay or holidays, or had been asked to pay for their jobs – this could equate to around 20,000 migrant workers being exploited.

Ankur Sabharwal is the owner of immigration advisory Visa Matters. He is a licensed immigration adviser dealing with complex immigration matters.

OPINION: It’s easy to tell when Immigration New Zealand staff are working under pressure – the mistakes pile up.

Look at what’s happening with student visa applications right now.

Firstly, many people who lodged student visa applications before Christmas heard nothing from INZ until last month.

INZ is only now picking up these applications for the first time – these are people who need to begin studying within the next two weeks.

What happens when INZ is in a hurry

If you are outside New Zealand and your case officer finds something they don’t like about your application, they will spend a few minutes looking at your application, then send you a decline letter.

The decline letter often won’t tell you the real reason that you have been refused a visa.

Here’s an example.

One of my clients received a decline letter last week which told him that INZ didn’t accept that he had enough money to pay for his studies in New Zealand.

The letter said that “either” the applicant’s father had not provided sufficient evidence of required funds “or” the father did not meet one of INZ’s other requirements for a sponsor.

This vague kind of explanation is known as a “template decline letter”, and it is becoming more and more common. You read it, but you still don’t know why INZ is refusing a visa – it could be one reason, or it could be another.

This doesn’t meet INZ’s own guidelines, which require decision-makers to give actual reasons for a decision.

INZ takes short-cuts

I have written previously about INZ’s practice of accepting documents at face value, without checking them.

Only 1% of visitor visa applications are checked by INZ verification officers, and 3% to 4% of Accredited Employer work visa applications are checked, INZ has told me previously.

Now that INZ is under pressure to decide applications, case officers take even more short-cuts.

One of my clients is applying for a work visa.

He received a letter last week saying that his overseas work experience evidence – pay slips, tax returns and an employment letter – were “not independently verifiable”, and so his case officer had decided they were unacceptable.

This means that the INZ case officer was not willing to check my client’s work experience documents with his employer or with the Indian tax department.

And INZ makes more mistakes

The other symptom of INZ working under pressure is that case officers make more mistakes.

Recently I received a letter from INZ incorrectly assessing my clients’ Parent Category resident visa application.

I explained repeatedly to the case officer the errors she was making in immigration law, but she ignored the points I was making and insisted she was right.

It was only after I took the matter to higher authorities that a technical adviser in the case officer’s own INZ branch intervened, accepting that I was correct and the case officer was wrong, which led to this Parent Category application being approved.

I haven’t received any apology from the case officer. Why didn’t she simply ask the technical adviser sitting nearby for his advice, rather than insisting that her incorrect opinion was the right one?

The officer advised that I could lodge a formal complaint if I was not happy with her response, so I have taken her up on her offer.

INZ approves applications without checking, too

You can be sure that, if INZ is refusing visas without properly checking, it will also be approving visas without checking.

Last year, INZ issued hundreds of “Recovery work visas” with fake New Zealand job offers, without checking whether the job offers were genuine.

INZ was in a hurry then as well, because these were people who were meant to be helping with the clean-up after Cyclone Gabrielle in February.

One of my clients told me last week that he paid 900,000 rupees (about NZ$17,600) to an agent in India for a job offer which he discovered was fake after he arrived in New Zealand.

Last month, INZ sent him a letter saying he does not meet the character requirements for a further temporary visa because of the fake job offer that was submitted with his work visa application last year.

INZ is a soft target for scammers when it doesn’t check clients’ first visa applications.

It is too late once the clients are already in New Zealand – many will disappear into the black economy once INZ refuses their second visa application.

Ankur Sabharwal is the owner of immigration advisory Visa Matters. He is a licensed immigration adviser dealing with complex immigration matters.

OPINION: This column is about my clients Raj and Manjit*, who married in 2022, and Sonia, Raj’s ex-wife.

Raj is a New Zealander. His first wife, Sonia, came to New Zealand from India two months after their marriage in 2015.

Soon after Raj and Sonia began living together in New Zealand, there was conflict. The couple separated in February 2016, but continued seeing each other.

Sonia applied for a protection order in 2018, claiming that Raj had abused her physically, psychologically and sexually.

For his part, Raj denies abusing Sonia and claims that her allegations are made up. Although the police were called to intervene between them, Raj was never charged with any crime. The temporary protection order against him was discharged, and Raj and Sonia divorced later in 2018.

Raj began a new relationship with Manjit in 2022. The couple married in October last year and Manjit came to New Zealand on a visitor visa in March 2023. On her application form, she declared Raj as her husband.

After arriving in New Zealand, Manjit applied for a work visa as Raj’s partner. During Immigration NZ’s processing of this application, INZ told Manjit she cannot be approved on any partnership-based visa, because Raj is not an eligible supporting partner.

Raj is banned for life from supporting Manjit’s visa applications, because – unknown to both of them – Raj’s ex-wife Sonia had been approved residence under the Victims of Family Violence (VFV) category.

How could this happen?

In approving a VFV application, INZ can accept a statutory declaration from a victim of family violence as evidence that violence has occurred. Two further statutory declarations are required from professionals such as social workers, doctors, nurses or staff members of women’s refugees.

But INZ never asks the so-called perpetrator of family violence his side of the story. It’s a safety issue, INZ told me.

So, it is quite possible – even likely – that a New Zealander such as Raj will only find out that he is banned from supporting a new partner once his new partner applies for a visa.

Is this fair?

It’s fair to prevent New Zealanders from bringing a new partner to New Zealand if they abused their last partner.

But Manjit is also a victim here.

Manjit’s relationship with Raj is genuine and stable. She came to New Zealand to live with Raj in this relationship, but suddenly, her life was thrown into turmoil.

She still holds a visitor visa but can only apply for a student visa to stay longer. She may not be able to stay permanently.

If Manjit has to return to India, it will bring shame on her and her family. This is her second marriage, and she believes her community will judge her if she returns to India on her own.

What can be done?

The Ombudsman looked into this issue after receiving six complaints from New Zealanders in 2018, whose former partners had been approved residence under the VFV category without their knowledge.

In March 2021, Chief Ombudsman Peter Boshier concluded that it was unreasonable for INZ not to allow former partners of VFV category applicants to comment on allegations of family violence against them.

He recommended that INZ review its policies so that New Zealanders are informed of allegations of family violence if it is safe to do so, and so that they are given the chance to rebut these allegations.

In 2021, INZ promised to review its Partnership Category – which bans New Zealanders whose former partners were approved under the VFV category from supporting further applications – but until now, the review is still “in progress”.

No options for changes have been put to any Minister of Immigration, I was told by INZ.

That needs to happen, in my opinion.

In the meantime, clients like Manjit and Raj need to ask the Minister for a “special direction” to approve an exception to the current policy.

And Manjit’s life is on hold until she knows whether she can stay living with her husband in New Zealand.

*All three names have been changed.