Understanding EOI - qualifications and employment (future growth/ skills shortage)

[Alistair]

I'm still wading through the EOI discussion on this (great) forum and the INZ website, so bear with me if these questions are answered (more generically) elsewhere.

---

How far back can one claim employment in a relevant future growth area?
I was a Biomedical Equipment Technician some ~16 years ago (about 2 years worth of training/work). Could this be claimed on EOI under employment in FGA (for Biotechnology)?
In the same vein, can I claim the course work as a FGA qualification? I have graduation certificate which lists hours of training plus a separate letter showing that I was an honor (yes, the American spelling) grad from the course. I think I have a Community College of the Air Force transcript which shows the same course work.

Secondly, I have a Masters of Engineering. Could I list this as a 'qualification in an area of absolute skills shortage', since it appears to qualify under Appendix 4 - LTSSL? SM16.20 states, "...they will be assessed as being qualified in an area of absolute skills shortage if they meet the specifications in Column 4 of the LTSSL"
Reason I ask is that my Masters of Engineering is technically in Space Operations (~hybrid aerospace w/ hint of mechanical engineering - my description). However column 4 only lists "Master of Engineering", not a specific field.

I suppose I can "claim" whatever I want; whether or not it gets approved by NZQA is the relevant issue.

I'm just looking for opinions. I won't hold it against anyone if you venture an opinion.

Thanks

Alistair

[Alistair]

I probably should have read this link first. Good overview of the whole SMC process.

If only one of the three above questions is valid, I should be at 140 sans job offer; 130 without the above passing NZQA scrutiny.

How often do people below 140 (post EOI) get an ITA? And then how often do those pass the Full Assessment? I suppose it is also possible that validated (step 4 in above link) 140+ EOIs don't make it past all the hurdles. Based on some forum discussions, it seems like qualification levels is where most people might come up short.

Sorry, so many questions, and I've only been on the site for about 2 weeks.

[JandM]

I don't think anyone will be surprised at the questions - it's a natural reaction to try to know in advance what is going to happen to your own case. (Notice, though, that this doesn't stop the anxiety once you launch the process! )

This chart http://www.enz.org/forum/showthread....127#post469127 is another way of looking at the info. (Notice, since it was done, the heading 'SMC Work to Residence path' has been superseded by an INZ change of name - this is now the SMC Job Search Visa (SMC JSV) possibility.)

And I know you've seen this. http://www.enz.org/forum/showthread....690#post450690

How often do people below 140 (post EOI) get an ITA?

In the long term, this varies with the migration quota that INZ is handed by the government each year. The number of EOIs to be picked at each draw is worked out based on how far through the year we are, and how many of the year's quota is already accounted for. In past years, it's sometimes been the case that the points dipped for the last few selections at the end of the year, which we suppose was when INZ realized they hadn't filled the whole quota.

At the moment, the quota must be quite small, because the selections, even of those with bonus points, are hardly ever going below 140 for those without a job offer. You can check at the INZ Latest News page http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migra...ormation/news/ what has happened each time.

Here are some general INZ statistics under various headings. http://www.immigration.govt.nz/migra...on/statistics/

And then how often do those pass the Full Assessment?

This is an entirely individual thing, particular to each case. Each applicant has to prove what they have said about themself on their EOI, and the CO's job is to make sure that the evidence sent in does in fact prove all the necessary facts. So even if you could say, 'X% of cases pass,' this actually has NO bearing on the outcome for your case, since it's not causally related. If you submit an EOI based correctly on the INZ requirements, and if your evidence proves each fact, your case will pass.

I suppose it is also possible that validated (step 4 in above link) 140+ EOIs don't make it past all the hurdles. Based on some forum discussions, it seems like qualification levels is where most people might come up short.

You're talking here about the EOIs which are selected. The initial selection is done by machine, on the basis of what points each applicant has claimed for themself. After that, to issue ITAs, officials look over the selected EOIs, to see if, on the basis of what each applicant SAYS they have got, it LOOKS as if they're entitled to the points claimed.

As you see, if someone has claimed mistakenly, this is the first pinch-point when matters will be found out. Yes, in some cases it will be due to over-valuing their qualification (but I think this is probably over-represented on the forum because people often try to argue here for their hoped-for outcome), but it can also be for other reasons, such as claiming for more work experience than they have yet got, or which can't be counted, or claiming for a partner's qualification though the partner doesn't speak English.

Such matters can also be discovered at the next stage, when the case has been allocated to a CO, and the CO begins to check the evidence.

Whenever a wrong claim comes to light, the EOI can be put back in the pool for the remainder of the six months it's entitled to (if any time remains), as long as the actual point-count is 100+, or rejected altogether if the point-count is below 100.

About the questions in your first post above. The whole point of the Skilled Migrant idea is that you put yourself forward as a worker who will be useful to the NZ job market immediately upon arrival. So you have to show that, for a listed skilled job, you have the qualifications and work experience that would mean you would realistically be likely to be offered work by a NZ employer, AND that would mean you could walk in and start pulling your weight now.

Unless your recent work experience has used the skills gained on your old qualification, so you're up to date with current practices, and you can prove this, it's not likely to impress. Whether or not your MEng would count would depend on what career you're putting yourself forward for, and the specific requirements for it. Job titles and degree titles don't have to match - it's the responsibilities that matter for the first, and the areas and depth of study for the other (which are NZQA assessed, either already done and on the 'exempt from assessment' list, or done as an IQA).

[Alistair]

Thanks for the detailed response.
I deal with a fair number of engineering tasks: engineering section actually works for me and I occassionally have to make some decisions that directly impact what they do. Real question is whether on not that is assessed as current responsibilities by NZQA. My read of the 'exempt from assessment' list, is that an IQA would need to be done for this university and degree. The university for my other degrees are on the exempt list, although I don't know if my specific degrees have been assessed.
I'm working on some other qualifications, which I think would qualify under the FGA and would obviously be current.

I think I've got enough to go on for now.

Real thing for me to do now is to gauge timing of when to submit EOI as I'm about 18 months out from ending my current job, at the earliest.

[JandM]

The university for my other degrees are on the exempt list, although I don't know if my specific degrees have been assessed.

To be exempt, you have to see the university, and your precise degree by name, and the dates given have to cover the year when you got your award.

I deal with a fair number of engineering tasks: engineering section actually works for me and I occassionally have to make some decisions that directly impact what they do. Real question is whether on not that is assessed as current responsibilities by NZQA.

...and/or INZ. I think an argument you could use is that you wouldn't be able to do your job without your knowledge of engineering.

[Alistair]

Ironically enough, I had a meeting with my Chief of Engineering 3 minutes after my previous post. It would have been a text book example of how understanding engineering does impact the decisions I make.

So does one provide a narrative to the effect of, "... I need to understand engineering to do my job"? What is the 'proof' one needs to show?

[JandM]

As you've said before, you claim whatever you want to - whatever you think sounds like the best match with your qualifications, skills and experience. You'll be comparing what you've got with the description of whichever job you decide to go for that is on the LTSSL or the list of skilled occupations. Looking at the LTSSL, I find this.

Chemical Engineer (233111), Materials Engineer (233112), Civil Engineer (233211), Geotechnical Engineer (233212), Structural Engineer (233214), Transport Engineer (233215), Electrical Engineer (233311), Electronics Engineer (233411), Industrial Engineer (233511), Mechanical Engineer (233512), Production or Plant Engineer (233513), Mining Engineer (excluding Petroleum) (233611), Petroleum Engineer (233612), Aeronautical Engineer (233911), Agricultural Engineer (233912), Biomedical Engineer (233913), Environmental Engineer (233915), Marine Designer (233916), Engineering Professionals nec (233999)

If you pick any one of these and look it up in the ANZSCO list, you'll find their description of what the job entails and what the required qualifications are, so you'll be able to see what best sounds like 'you'. (Don't be put off by mentions of the various Australian visas - ANZSCO is for NZ, too, and it's the description you're after.)

It's at the stage of the ITA being checked that any queries will come, probably - it'd be the CO asking you to account for, for instance, why you've said that is your career, given what you're doing now. The query would be in an email stating his/her doubts or lack of understanding, giving you the chance to respond by a certain date. So you would reply by email, setting out your position however seems most appropriate. If the query was what I said, you could pull in comparisons between the ANZSCO listing and the material you are required to know in your existing job.

[Alistair]

Thanks for the reply. I'll have to take a look at the ANZSCO and see where I fit in.

[Alistair]

To be exempt, you have to see the university, and your precise degree by name, and the dates given have to cover the year when you got your award.

I looked at this link and I only see degree levels (e.g. B.S, B.A, Bachealor's of Fine Arts, Masters..., etc.). I'm not sure what you mean by, "precise degree by name". I would think this means something akin to, B.S. Communications, B.S. Astronomy, etc. Am I missing something?

And if I'm interpreting this table correctly, Masters degrees in the U.S. come in at level 7/8, both of which are 50 points.

---

Regardless, I have one degree / school that doesn't appear on the list. If I'm remembering other discussions on this forum correctly, do your recommend foregoing the PAR and going with the IQA?
I also noticed that neither the PAR or IQA will assess a qualification without it being complete (might be an issue for another qualification I'm looking at in the near future). Thus, are they assessing actual course work (given that most qualifications have some electives), and not the program, generically?

---

And finally, by "relevant work experience" do they mean in my qualification (which I'm claiming points for and regardless of whether or not it's in a FGA or area of absolute skills shortage)?

---

I'm digging through the INZ website and hopefully beginning to understand what's needed. It's quite a daunting task to get everything lined up. My hats off to everyone who's completed or is in the midst of this process.

[JandM]

I looked at this link and I only see degree levels (e.g. B.S, B.A, Bachealor's of Fine Arts, Masters..., etc.). I'm not sure what you mean by, "precise degree by name". I would think this means something akin to, B.S. Communications, B.S. Astronomy, etc. Am I missing something?

I was meaning seeing e.g. B.S., rather than assuming (as some people have done) that because they saw a mention of ANY bachelor's degree alongside mention of their awarding institution, that theirs would also have been covered.

And if I'm interpreting this table correctly, Masters degrees in the U.S. come in at level 7/8, both of which are 50 points.

As the chart says, if you believe your qualification may be worth more, then you'll need to get it specifically assessed.

do your recommend foregoing the PAR and going with the IQA?

Yes. You'll have to have IQA in the end in any case.

Thus, are they assessing actual course work (given that most qualifications have some electives), and not the program, generically?

Yes, I think that's right, although elements of the latter probably come under consideration too. And they have a 'don't count your chickens before they're hatched' attitude - nobody can claim to INZ for work experience except for COMPLETED years, as people have discovered by having their EOI thrown back if they've anticipated by a couple of months, thinking that by the time the case was with a CO, they would have done the x number of years that would get them over a certain points boundary.

by "relevant work experience" do they mean in my qualification

Who is the 'they' in this question? - can you give a link to what you're looking at? (You could be talking about INZ or NZQA.)