Ankur Sabharwal is the owner of immigration advisory Visa Matters. He is a licensed immigration adviser dealing with complex immigration matters.
OPINION: Poor old Immigration New Zealand got all kinds of stick last week when it was revealed it had refused residence to a Malaysian woman with a New Zealand husband and four New Zealand citizen children.
It wasn’t INZ’s fault at all.
A Malaysian citizen, Sharon Choo, aged 40, was declined a residence visa under the Partnership Category because her husband, Barry Eade, aged 56, was not an eligible New Zealand supporting partner.
Turns out that Sharon was Barry’s third overseas partner … the previous two partners (a British woman and another Malaysian) had been approved residence in New Zealand in 1992 and 2003, respectively.
Barry moved on from those relationships, but, unfortunately, the New Zealand Government didn’t.
You see, two is the limit of foreign partners that the Government allows its citizens to support for residence.
Barry thinks this is unfair, pointing to the fact that his relationship with Sharon is totally genuine, which it undoubtedly is. They have been together since 2008.
Obviously, no one told him back in 2003 that the second partner who obtained New Zealand residence was the last one he could support. (Barry also may have been confused about whether he actually supported his first wife for residence – INZ says he did, but Barry thinks he didn’t).
The victims are Sharon and the couple’s four children, who don’t know whether she will be allowed to stay permanently in New Zealand. She holds a work visa valid until October 2024, with no guarantee that it will be extended.
Sharon might have known about Barry’s relationship history when they got together, but you can’t blame her for not being aware of New Zealand immigration law.
The couple lived together in Malaysia for many years, and it seems that they only thought about coming to New Zealand after their children had begun schooling in Malaysia.
I don’t know Sharon or Barry, but I am sympathetic to their plight.
These are the kind of people immigration advisers like to help.
Here’s what Sharon and Barry can do:
1: Sharon should apply again for residence under Partnership Category.
If, after some detective work, Barry finds out that he did, in fact, support his British wife for residence in 1992 and he is therefore not eligible to support Sharon for residence, ask INZ to decline Sharon’s next residence application as quickly as possible.
INZ has to decline a residence application which doesn’t meet 100% of Government requirements – so don’t blame INZ.
2: Next, appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) within 42 days of INZ’s decline decision, providing evidence of Sharon’s special circumstances.
She has four New Zealand children aged 5 to 12 who are all at school here and who would suffer if their mother had to leave the country. These are special circumstances!
3:Hope that the IPT accepts that there are special circumstances in Sharon’s case and recommends to the Minister of Immigration, Hon Michael Wood, that she is approved residence as an exception to the policy.
4: Hope that the Minister agrees and approves residence to Sharon as an exception. This is highly likely, but not guaranteed.
The Government has licensed the occupation of “immigration adviser” because it wants to encourage migrants to obtain sound, trustworthy advice from competent professionals.
Telling your story to a journalist can be useful when you have run out of alternatives, but … Sharon Choo still has options.
DISCLAIMER: This article does not constitute immigration advice. Individuals need to seek personal advice from a New Zealand licensed immigration adviser or lawyer to assess their unique situation. Ankur can be contacted at info@visamatters.co.nz.
+6499698472
info@visamatters.co.nz