urgent - residence visa travel condition

[major]

hi all, me and my partner both applied for permanent residency visa which is still in process and our residence visa travel conditions expired on the 12th of January but we had to travel overseas on the 6th of February as we r getting married in overseas. when we applied our permanent residency we also sent a cover letter with it ( which was a request for fast processing so we can travel on the 6th of February ).

After few days of applying we received our passports and email from the immigration officer saying that she is returning our passports to us . no letter or visa came with passports, so we decided to call INZ and asked them about why we have not got visa? immigration officer said your file is still in queue (not case officer allocated yet )and it can take up to 22 working days but we sent you your passports back so u guys can travel and we do e-visas now which u will get through an email and they will definitely be done by the time u coming back in April.

so now we have few questions in mind - r we still eligible for permanent residence if we go overseas after our travel condition expire?

are there any chances that immigration will not grant us permanent residence ?

will we be able to enter NZ without a permanent residence visa?

thanks for the response

[JandM]

r we still eligible for permanent residence if we go overseas after our travel condition expire?

Yes. "Travel conditions" is a (bad) name for what is actually permission to ENTER New Zealand. You are not at all restricted for any travel apart from that.

are there any chances that immigration will not grant us permanent residence ?

You have submitted evidence with your application, which I assume you are confident is in line with the requirements - is that correct? PR has a much less complicated set of requirements than your previous visas. Meet the requirements and you get the visa.

will we be able to enter NZ without a permanent residence visa?

Not without your PR, or else a Variation of Conditions, or Second or Subsequent Residence Visa. See here and the links off that page. https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-...anent-resident However, you've been told that your PR will be processed well before your planned return date. Also, any of these visas can be applied for and granted while you are overseas, in the unlikely event that it would be necessary.

[w&k]

Hi Major.
We are on the same boat. My travel condition will be expired on 15 Feb while I have to leave for my brother's wedding on 9 Mar. Our timeline is very similar as yours.
I have prepared the cover letter and I am preparing to submit this week but it would be 2 weeks earlier...
Did you submit your application before 12 Jan or after that day?
Finger-cross!

[LemonAndPaeroa]

Out of interest, could one of the LIAs share why the system is as it is?

As by not allowing people to apply before two full years of residency, but not allowing them to travel freely after that date before PR is granted (unless you pay the extra 200 dollars of course) they effectively leave people in a lurch for an unknown amount of time.

Of course if you absolutely need to travel you can pay the 200 dollars - but I would’ve liked to visit some friends in Aussie this weekend but not prepared to pay the extra money.

It seems to me it could be solved fairly easily - most people would have met the condition earlier, so they could let you file say two months in advance or after that when you’ve met the conditions, and then grant PR as per the two year date?

[JandM]

You're missing the fact that one of the conditions explicitly is to have held a residence visa for two years.

If you were the principal applicant of the original residence application, you can obtain a Permanent Resident Visa if you:

have held your resident visa for at least two years, and
have met any conditions of your Resident Visa, and
have shown a commitment to New Zealand in one of the five ways that meet our requirements.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/new-...anent-resident Okay, the person may have fulfilled sooner whichever 'commitment to NZ' criterion they are going to use (such as, most commonly, time spent in NZ), but they CANNOT, before the due date comes round, meet the requirement for two years to have passed since the residence visa was granted/activated. And any application to INZ is a legal document, by submitting which you warrant that everything in it IS the truth, now, so nobody can claim for even the most honest expectations before they happen - e.g. can't claim for a degree till you've passed the finals (as even a brilliant student can get sick or have an accident and not make it to take the exam), can't claim for x years' skilled work experience ahead of doing so (as the company might unexpectedly go bust and make everyone redundant before the anniversary of starting comes round).

The point of holding out for the two years is probably making sure that the migrant turns out to live in a responsible way over that time-span, which will be verified by the character requirements (the same ones as for residence). https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#35052.htm If they turn out to have broken the law in the course of that two years (and some people have found, to their surprise, that "even" multiple infringements of the traffic rules can make them inadmissible), this will block the award of PR.

[LemonAndPaeroa]

I know, but they could grant it as per the two year date but if you file it earlier they could have it done quicker.

I mean it seems to me there should be a fairly easy way to avoid the travel gap. Even if it’s by granting you two years and two months travel conditions from the start.

[newarrival]

I know, but they could grant it as per the two year date but if you file it earlier they could have it done quicker.

I mean it seems to me there should be a fairly easy way to avoid the travel gap. Even if it’s by granting you two years and two months travel conditions from the start.

Or maybe people just need to respect that with their visa there are conditions, and plan accordingly.

[LemonAndPaeroa]

Yes, clearly that is what we need to do now. It just seems unnecessary to me, but maybe there's a reason that I'm not seeing. That's why I asked.

[JandM]

There are numerous posts on these threads saying what people would *like* there to be in the rules, or what they think *ought* to be in the rules, because the existing rules are a bit inconvenient for them in whatever way. I don't speak for INZ - I'm a member of the public, nothing official. It's not my place to try to excuse what is in the rules. But I always try to state plainly what the rules *are*, because that is what people have to work with.