The 2PC ( Second Person Check)！！！！！

[kb8mo]

Hi guys:
I was just told that my application is now in backlogs at 2pc (Under SMC), and would be done approximately within 2 weeks
I did not receive any phone interviews, nor PPI letters.
Can I assume that it could be quite positive sign?
Given it is now the peak period for INZ as they are busy with meeting the residence program for financial year 2015 which is coming to the end in this July, I think the 2pc would not be as restrict as the initial assessment done by COs?

Experienced opinion needed please guys.
Cheers！

[evelina]

Hi kb8m! Would you mind sharing with us your timeline please. My case was transferred to auckland central and I was assigned to a CO on the 2nd of May, IRD and payslip requested and questionnaire was also sent out to my employer. Still waiting for a reply from my CO about the status of my application.

[Sun777]

Based on general information, 2nd person will probably review of the assessment conducted by your CO is not biased and all the steps have been followed without any ambiguity.

[kb8mo]

AR 12th Nov 2014
CO 26th March 2015.
Employers Questionnaires 16th Apr.
Today, 2PC

[jonydon18]

@kb8mo,
yes, you can assume that it could be quite positive sign

[JandM]

I think the 2pc would not be as restrict as the initial assessment done by COs

You'd be wrong to think this. The second-person check follows exactly the same instructions as those that every CO has to work by. The purpose is to make sure that those rules have been applied without any mistake (in either direction), and to guard against any possibility or accusation of corruption. This is not merely a formality.

[kb8mo]

You'd be wrong to think this. The second-person check follows exactly the same instructions as those that every CO has to work by. The purpose is to make sure that those rules have been applied without any mistake (in either direction), and to guard against any possibility or accusation of corruption. This is not merely a formality.

thanks for this info. i have never seen anyone was recommended by co but declined by 2pc tho. according to a report now 2pc is two and a half week behind the schedule n they are speeding up. since a senior is managing awhole teams 2pc . i think they would double check all files match the co report. in rare cases files would sent back to co especially given one had not received any ppi from the inital assessment and.verifications

[Karen Phillips]

JandM is quite right. For the majority of applications, the second person check confirms the recommendation of the Case Officer and usually, if the Case Officer has the intention of declining the visa, you would have received a PPI letter asking for your comments. However, I know of at least one application in the last few months where the more experienced Immigration Officer who does the second person checks spotted a problem that had not been picked up by the Case Officer. The odds are in your favour, but try to focus on something else and wait. They are taking 3 - 4 weeks on average onshore.

[JandM]

i have never seen anyone was recommended by co but declined by 2pc tho

You wouldn't do. There is no way anyone outside INZ would know about this.

A CO comes to their decision about what outcome they think should happen - approve, decline, or offer the SMC JSV - and then the file is passed over for second-person check. The applicant is not told what the CO is thinking, except in just a few very rare cases where the CO has not followed the proper procedure. The applicant in most cases at that stage does not even know the case has gone for second-person checking.

Now the second person checks the file through. If s/he finds no problem, the file is passed back and the applicant is notified whatever the decision is.

BUT, if s/he FINDS a problem (of the sort where the CO is recommending approval and the other officer sees that is wrong), the file gets passed back to the original CO, who then has to work further on whatever it is. This could include asking for extra evidence from the applicant, the NZ employer if any, the awarding body for qualifications, past employers, or private individuals, for instance about partnership issues. If the applicant hears that more evidence is required, they don't know why, or in particular that it was the second person check that has given rise to the enquiries.

Also, if the problem found by the second person check was that the CO had mistakenly overlooked something so serious that the applicant was obviously not qualified for a visa, there would be no need for more queries.

In either case, you would end up with an applicant who does not meet the requirements, and all that applicant would hear would be a message that their application was declined.

(Similarly, if the query raised by the second official was that the case had been recommended for refusal but that was wrong, the file would also be passed back to the original CO to sort out, and the applicant would just hear they had been Approved.)

[kb8mo]

You wouldn't do. There is no way anyone outside INZ would know about this.

A CO comes to their decision about what outcome they think should happen - approve, decline, or offer the SMC JSV - and then the file is passed over for second-person check. The applicant is not told what the CO is thinking, except in just a few very rare cases where the CO has not followed the proper procedure. The applicant in most cases at that stage does not even know the case has gone for second-person checking.

Now the second person checks the file through. If s/he finds no problem, the file is passed back and the applicant is notified whatever the decision is.

BUT, if s/he FINDS a problem (of the sort where the CO is recommending approval and the other officer sees that is wrong), the file gets passed back to the original CO, who then has to work further on whatever it is. This could include asking for extra evidence from the applicant, the NZ employer if any, the awarding body for qualifications, past employers, or private individuals, for instance about partnership issues. If the applicant hears that more evidence is required, they don't know why, or in particular that it was the second person check that has given rise to the enquiries.

Also, if the problem found by the second person check was that the CO had mistakenly overlooked something so serious that the applicant was obviously not qualified for a visa, there would be no need for more queries.

In either case, you would end up with an applicant who does not meet the requirements, and all that applicant would hear would be a message that their application was declined.

(Similarly, if the query raised by the second official was that the case had been recommended for refusal but that was wrong, the file would also be passed back to the original CO to sort out, and the applicant would just hear they had been Approved.)

I think the only thing you were missing is if the CO had the intention to reject a case, then a PPI letter would be made and the applicant would be given a chance to make a comment. There is no way, a CO or 2pc would reject a case without any PPI nowadays.