News article about SMC processing

[SlyDigits]

My issue with it is that it isn't the skilled people new Zealand needs. If they were doing it based on absolute skills shortage that would be frustrating as I still wouldn't benefit but understandable. To prioritize high earners and and government employees is cherry picking the easy work to keep their average processing times down and not necessarily what NZ needs. If you earn $105000 you get a visa quickly even if your job isn't on the skills list, that isn't what is needed employment wise that's just doing a job that needs no evidence to prove the skill so can be signed off quickly.

I've said it a few times but if my company just did the easy jobs those customers that have trickier jobs for us would rightfully be angry that we just didn't sort their problems out and kept pushing out appointments, but our numbers look good because we did the easy work so that's what counts.

Well, its not the easy jobs they want - its the higher tax payers they want.

A person earning NZD 100K per year pays almost NZD 33K (approx.) in tax. Person earning NZD 50k pays NZD 15K (approx.) in tax. There's a huge difference and they naturally want the people who will pay more tax - besides those essential skills (doctors, nurses, construction jobs, etc.) - and help the economy more.

As I mentioned in another post, if you were renting out your home, the rent that you asked for is just the minimum qualifying criteria (160-points). It does not guarantee that the first person who applies will get to rent your home from you. You are free to choose what conditions or criteria you apply to choosing the right tenant (family size, pets, smokers, etc.) and you are not required to inform those applying about those criteria. The fact that you may inform them will only help reduce the number of applications as those who do not qualify may eliminate themselves from the process on their own.

However, if you choose not to inform them, they might spend that time and effort to create an application and apply. Their time gets wasted but nothing they can do may change your mind as your criteria for selection is yours to control.

[SlyDigits]

The only thing that is fair is what INZ decides to be fair. I understand that people here have put in money and time, and their lives and livelihoods depend on this immigration decision and process, but the truth is simple: INZ has to look out for what is best for New Zealand, and not for its applicants.

And what is best for New Zealand is decided by those who are in charge of those offices and ministries. If they feel that higher income-employees and doctors, nurses, teachers and other skills that are essential for the smooth functioning of society are more important than chefs or marketers or sales people or nuclear engineers - then that is what it is.

If, tomorrow, they decide that "left-handed, optometrists who speak Japanese" are the only occupation that they want to award SMC visas to, then they CAN!

You are, of course, free to feel that it is unfair and you are also free to try and contact INZ or contact lawyers but I hope you realise that the reality is - it does not matter what you or I feel!

The only thing that matters is the truth and the truth is, INZ are free to determine their criteria.

Also,

It is unfair because this is not communicated when you apply for residency - so people are currently making decisions not fully informed.

is not entirely true!

They have never said that "applicants not falling under special criteria, despite being over 160 points" are NEVER going to be given their due process or will NEVER be considered for the Visa.

You will get your chance in front of a Case Officer, but it will just take longer to get there. They have made it clear that there is a subset of applicants that they would want more than others - because they will benefit the country or economy more. The others will just have to wait a little bit longer - that's all!

A lot of countries/cities are doing this - Venice is banning day-tourists who come in by cruise/train, crowd the streets but go back to their cruise ship to eat/sleep - essentially not contributing to the local economy but crowding the streets for people who might want to come and stay there - thus driving them away with crowds. Amsterdam has stopped all its tourism ads and the US is actively handing out green cards only to those who are contributing positively to the economy.

Again, some people are already on-shore and for them, this is harder on them. However, because they are on-shore, they also have more means at their disposal in terms of contacting local MPs or lawyers and what not (I am assuming here - could be 100% wrong about it!).

People like me, who are offshore, have no choice but to wait in line for as long as INZ want me to - or step out of it and leave. From the looks of things, I will probably have to leave - my Canada application might just come through earlier and if it does, I am going to go there and forget about this application. And by the way, we got an invite to apply from a province looking for tech-employees so we jumped the queue over there because a new queue for a special category of people was formed next to it!

People generally have a hard time with "these are the rules - deal with it!" type of moments but these are the rules and you have to deal with it.

Truth is harsh and not what we want to hear because it makes us uncomfortable, but it nevertheless remains the truth. Every applicant is not equal and we just have to accept it!

[allune]

I think that for a lot of people imposing such rules is OK but the fact that it is not a publicly available policy that makes everything unfair. It’s not on the ops manual where they say is the only basis whether or not you can qualify for residency.

In the Health and Disability Services in NZ we have something that we call The Code. We have the right to be fully informed so that we can have an informed choice (rights 6&7). I believe this applies even in all aspects of life. I don’t know if we still would have gone through NZ residency process had we been fully informed but we really didn’t have all the information then so we didn’t have a chance on that... not even now since we’re still left in the dark.

Sure governments reserve the right to impose rules but the people still have to “know” right?

[Frankgo]

I think that for a lot of people imposing such rules is OK but the fact that it is not a publicly available policy that makes everything unfair. It’s not on the ops manual where they say is the only basis whether or not you can qualify for residency.

In the Health and Disability Services in NZ we have something that we call The Code. We have the right to be fully informed so that we can have an informed choice (rights 6&7). I believe this applies even in all aspects of life. I don’t know if we still would have gone through NZ residency process had we been fully informed but we really didn’t have all the information then so we didn’t have a chance on that... not even now since we’re still left in the dark.

Sure governments reserve the right to impose rules but the people still have to “know” right?

Exactly, is about transparency. They could choose to stop immigration altogether if they wanted, but in my opinion this is about the lack of legal certainty.

There’s a set of rules when you apply for a visa, you either take it or leave it. But if you take it, there’s a social contract between you and the government. You will comply with those rules and the government will not change them or at least will make sure that changes doesn’t have a negative impact on your the social contract already established.

This isn’t something I made up. Legal certainty is something you would expect in a western democracy as NEw Zealand is.

If they ruined the process by closing overseas branches that’s OK. But they should come up and say “hey, we did a mistake, it will take longer to process these visas but we will sort it out”. I think that would be the sensible thing to do, but you know, elections next year, they cant say that they screwed it...

[SlyDigits]

I think that for a lot of people imposing such rules is OK but the fact that it is not a publicly available policy that makes everything unfair. ItÂ’s not on the ops manual where they say is the only basis whether or not you can qualify for residency.

In the Health and Disability Services in NZ we have something that we call The Code. We have the right to be fully informed so that we can have an informed choice (rights 6&7). I believe this applies even in all aspects of life. I donÂ’t know if we still would have gone through NZ residency process had we been fully informed but we really didnÂ’t have all the information then so we didnÂ’t have a chance on that... not even now since weÂ’re still left in the dark.

Sure governments reserve the right to impose rules but the people still have to “know” right?

The more I read posts on this forum, the more I think that people are stressed about not getting their visa quickly enough, rather than not getting it at all. My application was filed on 7th January and if it hadn't been for this forum or for Erin providing regular updates on CO-allocation dates, none of us would know what is going on or which applications are being allocated to COs. As far as I am concerned, the only thing I know is my application is still valid and it has been pushed back - something I wouldn't know if Erin had not posted those updates.

Thing is, we were being pampered with information from a non-official, side-channel - something you cannot/should not/don't have access to in any country. And there is a reason why it is not made available. In school, when we got our test scores, there would always be these kids who would compare the answers where they got docked marks with kids who got full-marks for those questions, and show them to the teacher to justify either more marks for themselves or a deduction of marks for the other kid(s).

We've reached that point on this forum where we are no longer interested in finding out when our application will be picked - but about why someone else's application is being picked before mine! In no other Visa process or NZQA process or WES process do you have that kind of information available to you and that is specifically to avoid this kind of situation - where every single individual is questioning why someone else got picked and they didn't.

We are questioning the criteria of selection and I feel for JandM and EGoodhue who have to constantly provide the same explanation to each person in a different way - they have endless patience that I do not possess.

So here's what I feel : It's a question of what your rights are as an applicant are. Yes, you may have "The Code" in the Health and Disability Services, but in life, you only have laws and rights (not personal beliefs) that determine what applies where. If - legally - the government is not required to disclose their internal processing criteria, then I am sorry but we all do not have the right to know.

If there is a provision that the government HAS to make all internal criteria known and is choosing to withhold that information and prevent individuals from making decisions or payments without knowing all hidden processes or selection criteria, then you should consult a lawyer and see if there is a way for you to approach the courts and either, move the process along for you, or get a refund.

New Zealand has the "Official Information Act 1982" that allows any person who is either a New Zealand citizen or a permanent resident (amongst other categories) to make a request for information that may be available in any government department or with any minister. I would recommend reading through this to see if filing a request can help - they have to provide you with an answer in a speci-days.

As someone living outside of New Zealand, I am not sure this Act applies to me but it might be different for you or someone else who is already in the country. If you are on-shore, you might want to try it out - they are obligated to tell you what the deal is.

If the OIA 1982 does not apply to this case, then I am not sure what you can do to find out more.

[SlyDigits]

Exactly, is about transparency. They could choose to stop immigration altogether if they wanted, but in my opinion this is about the lack of legal certainty.

ThereÂ’s a set of rules when you apply for a visa, you either take it or leave it. But if you take it, thereÂ’s a social contract between you and the government. You will comply with those rules and the government will not change them or at least will make sure that changes doesnÂ’t have a negative impact on your the social contract already established.

This isnÂ’t something I made up. Legal certainty is something you would expect in a western democracy as NEw Zealand is.

If they ruined the process by closing overseas branches that’s OK. But they should come up and say “hey, we did a mistake, it will take longer to process these visas but we will sort it out”. I think that would be the sensible thing to do, but you know, elections next year, they cant say that they screwed it...

As far as legal certainty is concerned, you should look again at the "social contract" you signed.

The SMC Visa processing times are: 50% within 6-months | 75% within 8-months | 90% within 11-months | 95% within 13-months.

I do not see any place on their website which says all Visas will be processed on first-come, first-serve basis. I do not see any place where it states how many days the CO will be allocated within. Even the acceptance letter stated "tentative" or "expected" date for visa outcome - nothing was written in certainty and that is for your benefit!

If they had written that your Visa will be processed in 6-months from date of lodgement, a hard six months with no delays - and they didn't have all the information they needed within that period - they would have to decline your visa - which is why everything is kept tentative.

Like I mentioned in my previous post - you have had access to information that you shouldn't have had access to! The "date of lodgement to CO Allocation date" is not public information in any country's Visa allocation process unless they want you to have it. You only have it because of unofficial, (possibly illegal) back-channels - INZ clearly don't want you to have it and nothing on their website states that you are legally entitled to it.

Here's how I see it - the SMC Visa process is not stuck on December 7th 2018 lodgement date - it has moved beyond that but only those applicants who fit the "50% within 6-months" category (above) were probably picked. Maybe you and I aren't in that - again, feel what I may, this is the contract you and I signed and I cannot see anything on their entire website that says they are obligated to give us more information.

There is, of course, the information act that, if you wish, you can try and get more information through.

Nothing's stopping you there!

[JandM]

...and the government will not change them or at least will make sure that changes doesnÂ’t have a negative impact on your the social contract already established.

Although for MOST changes in the regulations that have been introduced in the years that I've been watching INZ's workings, so that applications already in processing were "grandfathered" (judged by the rules in force at the time of lodgement, instead of the new ones), it has not been so every time.

Many people wish for a clear agreement with INZ, and predictability, as if it were a business, but that doesn't make it happen. Foreigners (particularly, their feelings) are, unfortunately for applicants, not this (maybe, any) NZ government's priority.

[ysc5]

As far as legal certainty is concerned, you should look again at the "social contract" you signed.

The SMC Visa processing times are: 50% within 6-months | 75% within 8-months | 90% within 11-months | 95% within 13-months.

I do not see any place on their website which says all Visas will be processed on first-come, first-serve basis. I do not see any place where it states how many days the CO will be allocated within. Even the acceptance letter stated "tentative" or "expected" date for visa outcome - nothing was written in certainty and that is for your benefit!

If they had written that your Visa will be processed in 6-months from date of lodgement, a hard six months with no delays - and they didn't have all the information they needed within that period - they would have to decline your visa - which is why everything is kept tentative.

Like I mentioned in my previous post - you have had access to information that you shouldn't have had access to! The "date of lodgement to CO Allocation date" is not public information in any country's Visa allocation process unless they want you to have it. You only have it because of unofficial, (possibly illegal) back-channels - INZ clearly don't want you to have it and nothing on their website states that you are legally entitled to it.

Here's how I see it - the SMC Visa process is not stuck on December 7th 2018 lodgement date - it has moved beyond that but only those applicants who fit the "50% within 6-months" category (above) were probably picked. Maybe you and I aren't in that - again, feel what I may, this is the contract you and I signed and I cannot see anything on their entire website that says they are obligated to give us more information.

There is, of course, the information act that, if you wish, you can try and get more information through.

Nothing's stopping you there!

I don't agree with you.
You make it sound as though anything is okay if they do not state in the agreement or publicly make aware.

[AStoehr]

Hello,

I have followed your discussions for a long time now and always wonder why you complain so much. The bottom line is that you want to go to NZ, which means you have to submit to their rules. If the immigration changes the process now, that's the way it is. Nobody disputes that there are problems with immigration, but some discussions here often sound like immigration is expected to follow the Applicants, but we want something from the Immigration.

[desilva]

The only thing that is fair is what INZ decides to be fair. I understand that people here have put in money and time, and their lives and livelihoods depend on this immigration decision and process, but the truth is simple: INZ has to look out for what is best for New Zealand, and not for its applicants.

And what is best for New Zealand is decided by those who are in charge of those offices and ministries. If they feel that higher income-employees and doctors, nurses, teachers and other skills that are essential for the smooth functioning of society are more important than chefs or marketers or sales people or nuclear engineers - then that is what it is.

If, tomorrow, they decide that "left-handed, optometrists who speak Japanese" are the only occupation that they want to award SMC visas to, then they CAN!

You are, of course, free to feel that it is unfair and you are also free to try and contact INZ or contact lawyers but I hope you realise that the reality is - it does not matter what you or I feel!

The only thing that matters is the truth and the truth is, INZ are free to determine their criteria.

Also, is not entirely true!

They have never said that "applicants not falling under special criteria, despite being over 160 points" are NEVER going to be given their due process or will NEVER be considered for the Visa.

You will get your chance in front of a Case Officer, but it will just take longer to get there. They have made it clear that there is a subset of applicants that they would want more than others - because they will benefit the country or economy more. The others will just have to wait a little bit longer - that's all!

A lot of countries/cities are doing this - Venice is banning day-tourists who come in by cruise/train, crowd the streets but go back to their cruise ship to eat/sleep - essentially not contributing to the local economy but crowding the streets for people who might want to come and stay there - thus driving them away with crowds. Amsterdam has stopped all its tourism ads and the US is actively handing out green cards only to those who are contributing positively to the economy.

Again, some people are already on-shore and for them, this is harder on them. However, because they are on-shore, they also have more means at their disposal in terms of contacting local MPs or lawyers and what not (I am assuming here - could be 100% wrong about it!).

People like me, who are offshore, have no choice but to wait in line for as long as INZ want me to - or step out of it and leave. From the looks of things, I will probably have to leave - my Canada application might just come through earlier and if it does, I am going to go there and forget about this application. And by the way, we got an invite to apply from a province looking for tech-employees so we jumped the queue over there because a new queue for a special category of people was formed next to it!

People generally have a hard time with "these are the rules - deal with it!" type of moments but these are the rules and you have to deal with it.

Truth is harsh and not what we want to hear because it makes us uncomfortable, but it nevertheless remains the truth. Every applicant is not equal and we just have to accept it!

I respect for your time and commitment in advocating the practices of INZ. However, the "on-shore residency applicants" with valid job offers and currently working and settled here in NZ with their children going to local schools are attempting to argue on the points that when they applied for residency they were unaware that INZ will unofficially start following a 55k SMC quota. This has caused graved distressed when this limited quota is being fulfilled by INZ for some specially selected applicants and to us it seems bit unfair. If this information of limited quota and preferring certain applicants was publicly available, several of us would not have even applied SMC in the first place. This is called transparency of process. immigration can change its policies or processing systems but it should not affect those applicants who applied long ago based on old information. hope you got it.

have a good day.