Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 31

Thread: Possibly illegal actions by INZ

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    37

    Default Possibly illegal actions by INZ

    Hello everyone,

    I am a SMC residency applicant without a job offer, under the old (pre-Aug 2017) rules. I was offered a JSV. I disagree with the basis for that decision, hired a great immigration advisor, and together we have been trying to get INZ to address my concerns for over two months. I now have a large amount of information directly from several managers at INZ, as well as from a number of Open Information Act (OIA) requests. I would like to share some of what I have so far, starting with the facts and following up with a possible interpretation that appears to fit the facts.

    Facts:

    1) I obtained a transcript of my second-tier assessment interview from INZ. This transcript contains a large number of errors, omissions, and misrepresentations, all of which make me and my partner appear less prepared and employable than we actually are. Two conversations highly relevant to our employment possibilities were entirely omitted from the transcript. INZ stated that they do not make audio recordings of interviews, and I (unfortunately) did not make one myself.

    2) My partner and I were not allowed an opportunity to review the second tier interview transcript prior to the JSV decision.

    3) I also obtained my second tier assessment summary from INZ, and found that it listed several weak, speculative reasons for deferring the application, such as "the salary expectation may be too high", when I directly quoted www.careers.govt.nz and informed the CO of my source.

    4) The second tier assessment summary also contained scores of 3 (out of 5) in the categories of "Employment Prospects", "Familiarity and Preparedness", and "Linkages and Support". I found from INZ that these scores were determined using the "Matrix for the overall assessment of potential to settle and contribute" as part of the second-tier assessment process. I obtained this document through an OIA request, and found that and my partner and I fully satisfy all criteria for scores of 4 or 5 in all categories, and have provided sufficient information to the INZ to make that determination, even with an incomplete and inaccurate interview transcript.

    5) The CO, the CO's manager, the CO's manager's manager, and two other managers at INZ all refused to answer substantive questions about why my application was deferred, and why I was awarded the matrix scores that I did, given the evidence provided to INZ.

    6) One manager made a statement that INZ followed a "narrow interpretation of these [SM21.10] instructions" following signalling from the New Zealand government.

    7) I obtained an official reply from the government under an OIA request, which stated that "there has been no change to the interpretation of SM21.10".

    8) There were numerous delay tactics by the CO and a number of INZ managers, including delayed replies, evasive answers, refusals to answer because of other "outstanding correspondence", referrals to other managers, and referrals to the Feedback and Complaints Team (which takes 5 weeks and does not address substantive issues).

    9) During a consultation with a different immigration advisor, he indicated that, from his experience as LIA, INZ has, for some time, operated under "unwritten rules" for second-tier assessments, which essentially boiled down to "find any excuse to avoid granting residency".

    10) A manager at INZ indicated that there was "an unexpected transfer of a large number of offshore SMC applications, from a number of different offshore INZ branches into [onshore INZ branches]" in approximately Feb 2017.

    11) I obtained SMC selection statistics through an OIA, which indicate a 50% drop in approvals for applications without a job offer processed at onshore branches beginning in Feb 2017, roughly coincident with the transfer of applications referenced above. It is important to note that these approvals include those applicants who were initially offered JSVs and later obtained residency -- INZ stated that they do not keep statistics of offers of residency vs JSV following second-tier assessment.

    12) Self-reporting on this forum shows nothing but JSVs for applicants without a job offer starting in Feb 2017, including for applicants who described thorough research on second-tier requirements and preparation for the interview.

    13) 2017 was an election year and immigration was a hot-button issue.

    Possible interpretation:

    While the evidence above is largely circumstantial, it does consistently suggest a deliberate and systematic effort to reduce immigration numbers by mis-applying second-tier assessment rules. Weighing and balancing may have became "find any excuse not to grant residency". I would further speculate that "without job offer" applications were an easy target, due to the vast majority of applicants being offshore, second tier instructions being somewhat open to interpretation, and public opinion and government policies being perceived to be on the INZ side.

    If this interpretation is correct, it would be a violation of Immigration Act 2009, which states that residency decisions "must be made in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the application was made and any discretion exercised must be in terms of those instructions." A systematic change in the interpretation of instructions applicable at the time the application was made would appear to violate this law.

    Supporting documents:

    SMC selection statistics -- https://file.io/b1xpK0
    "Matrix for the overall assessment of potential to settle and contribute" -- https://file.io/MIi3On

    These are the most relevant documents, but I have a lot more documents mostly pertaining to the internal procedures for second tier assessment, which I'm happy to share as well if there's interest.

    Closing remarks:

    Any feedback and advice is appreciated. I'm also happy to answer any questions. I have already been through the Complaints & Feedback process and requested an evaluation from the Quality Unit. Unfortunately, INZ appears intent on stalling until the JSV application deadline, when I would either accept the JSV or become IPT's problem.

    Also, I'm absolutely not insisting on my interpretation, so please let me know if I got something wrong. For example, please let me know or post here if you are an applicant without a job or job offer who was offered residency rather than JSV after Feb 2017.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    200

    Default

    have you gone to the Tribunal ?

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ysc5 View Post
    have you gone to the Tribunal ?
    Thank you for your question. The Immigration & Protection Tribunal (IPT) is not an option at this time because the application is deferred, not declined. Only declined applications can be appealed to IPT.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Feb 2018
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    77

    Default

    When were you offered the JSV?

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    247

    Default

    I came to New Zealand on a job search visa (although Silver Fern) and secured a job within a month. I appreciate that residency gives you more security, however rather than fighting the government of the country you are attempting to move to, I would put that energy into finding a job. If your skills are desirable here and you present yourself in the right way, I am sure you can find a suitable job in those nine months. And the earlier you do that, the earlier you do get residency and you can move on with your life.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Hi Darren,
    If I understood your situation properly your only option is a job search visa because one of the requirements to get a residence visa is to get a high skilled job offer or a Master Degree or higher qualification gained in New Zealand after 2 years of full time study.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    New zealand
    Posts
    157

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Darien-l View Post
    Hello everyone,

    I am a SMC residency applicant without a job offer, under the old (pre-Aug 2017) rules. I was offered a JSV. I disagree with the basis for that decision, hired a great immigration advisor, and together we have been trying to get INZ to address my concerns for over two months. I now have a large amount of information directly from several managers at INZ, as well as from a number of Open Information Act (OIA) requests. I would like to share some of what I have so far, starting with the facts and following up with a possible interpretation that appears to fit the facts.

    Facts:

    1) I obtained a transcript of my second-tier assessment interview from INZ. This transcript contains a large number of errors, omissions, and misrepresentations, all of which make me and my partner appear less prepared and employable than we actually are. Two conversations highly relevant to our employment possibilities were entirely omitted from the transcript. INZ stated that they do not make audio recordings of interviews, and I (unfortunately) did not make one myself.

    2) My partner and I were not allowed an opportunity to review the second tier interview transcript prior to the JSV decision.

    3) I also obtained my second tier assessment summary from INZ, and found that it listed several weak, speculative reasons for deferring the application, such as "the salary expectation may be too high", when I directly quoted www.careers.govt.nz and informed the CO of my source.

    4) The second tier assessment summary also contained scores of 3 (out of 5) in the categories of "Employment Prospects", "Familiarity and Preparedness", and "Linkages and Support". I found from INZ that these scores were determined using the "Matrix for the overall assessment of potential to settle and contribute" as part of the second-tier assessment process. I obtained this document through an OIA request, and found that and my partner and I fully satisfy all criteria for scores of 4 or 5 in all categories, and have provided sufficient information to the INZ to make that determination, even with an incomplete and inaccurate interview transcript.

    5) The CO, the CO's manager, the CO's manager's manager, and two other managers at INZ all refused to answer substantive questions about why my application was deferred, and why I was awarded the matrix scores that I did, given the evidence provided to INZ.

    6) One manager made a statement that INZ followed a "narrow interpretation of these [SM21.10] instructions" following signalling from the New Zealand government.

    7) I obtained an official reply from the government under an OIA request, which stated that "there has been no change to the interpretation of SM21.10".

    8) There were numerous delay tactics by the CO and a number of INZ managers, including delayed replies, evasive answers, refusals to answer because of other "outstanding correspondence", referrals to other managers, and referrals to the Feedback and Complaints Team (which takes 5 weeks and does not address substantive issues).

    9) During a consultation with a different immigration advisor, he indicated that, from his experience as LIA, INZ has, for some time, operated under "unwritten rules" for second-tier assessments, which essentially boiled down to "find any excuse to avoid granting residency".

    10) A manager at INZ indicated that there was "an unexpected transfer of a large number of offshore SMC applications, from a number of different offshore INZ branches into [onshore INZ branches]" in approximately Feb 2017.

    11) I obtained SMC selection statistics through an OIA, which indicate a 50% drop in approvals for applications without a job offer processed at onshore branches beginning in Feb 2017, roughly coincident with the transfer of applications referenced above. It is important to note that these approvals include those applicants who were initially offered JSVs and later obtained residency -- INZ stated that they do not keep statistics of offers of residency vs JSV following second-tier assessment.

    12) Self-reporting on this forum shows nothing but JSVs for applicants without a job offer starting in Feb 2017, including for applicants who described thorough research on second-tier requirements and preparation for the interview.

    13) 2017 was an election year and immigration was a hot-button issue.

    Possible interpretation:

    While the evidence above is largely circumstantial, it does consistently suggest a deliberate and systematic effort to reduce immigration numbers by mis-applying second-tier assessment rules. Weighing and balancing may have became "find any excuse not to grant residency". I would further speculate that "without job offer" applications were an easy target, due to the vast majority of applicants being offshore, second tier instructions being somewhat open to interpretation, and public opinion and government policies being perceived to be on the INZ side.

    If this interpretation is correct, it would be a violation of Immigration Act 2009, which states that residency decisions "must be made in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the application was made and any discretion exercised must be in terms of those instructions." A systematic change in the interpretation of instructions applicable at the time the application was made would appear to violate this law.

    Supporting documents:

    SMC selection statistics -- https://file.io/b1xpK0
    "Matrix for the overall assessment of potential to settle and contribute" -- https://file.io/MIi3On

    These are the most relevant documents, but I have a lot more documents mostly pertaining to the internal procedures for second tier assessment, which I'm happy to share as well if there's interest.

    Closing remarks:

    Any feedback and advice is appreciated. I'm also happy to answer any questions. I have already been through the Complaints & Feedback process and requested an evaluation from the Quality Unit. Unfortunately, INZ appears intent on stalling until the JSV application deadline, when I would either accept the JSV or become IPT's problem.

    Also, I'm absolutely not insisting on my interpretation, so please let me know if I got something wrong. For example, please let me know or post here if you are an applicant without a job or job offer who was offered residency rather than JSV after Feb 2017.
    I sympathise with your situation. I can say that it is not true that INZ do not grant Residence to those without job offers post Feb 2017. I myself witnessed at least 2 cases of application granted Residence without job offer. They were highly skilled professionals in their own fields. They were granted Residence visa early this year.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    48

    Default

    Hi Darren,
    if it can help I think you are at the step SM 4.20.e of the operational manual.
    https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#41988.htm

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nzs View Post
    When were you offered the JSV?
    April 12, 2018. I have until July 12 (this Thursday) to apply for the JSV.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Oct 2016
    Location
    New Zealand
    Posts
    37

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Nether111 View Post
    I came to New Zealand on a job search visa (although Silver Fern) and secured a job within a month. I appreciate that residency gives you more security, however rather than fighting the government of the country you are attempting to move to, I would put that energy into finding a job. If your skills are desirable here and you present yourself in the right way, I am sure you can find a suitable job in those nine months. And the earlier you do that, the earlier you do get residency and you can move on with your life.
    Thank you for your advice. New Zealand's reputation as an open and transparent democracy is perhaps the most important reason why I want to settle here. But in my first interaction major with the government, they did not follow their own rules, and refused to be held accountable. We filed a complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman and they started an investigation into this matter.

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •