Originally Posted by
VedSaumya
Hi,
After reading your long long arguments which more favors the not so transparent approach used by immigration in processing SMC application, I thought I would write my thoughts too.
The LOI that I received says that "The fees and immigration instructions effective at the time you lodge your application will apply". The requirement was to apply within four months which I have done, hence the application once lodged is expected to be evaluated (whenever that be) on the basis of immigration law effective on date of lodgement. There is no dispute on that.
In terms of priority processing, Article 16.1 provides for order and processing and states that immigration officers can evaluate according to the urgency to the processing of any particular residence class visa application when the individual circumstances so warrant that. This is the discretion they can use and they have provided opportunity to applicants to apply for priority processing. Else, they are not supposed to cherry pick.
Payment of tax is not a factor to determine who needs to be prioritized. And the internal criteria that INZ has set (salary 90K or registered profession etc.) are not covered by operation manual. That's why we are saying that this is arbitrary. Everyone who applied have met the criteria- 160 points and NZ median salary. Hence, immigration needs to make their selection criteria transparent through their operation manual. The law requires application to be processed on orderly and consistent manner and immigration officer are required to act with fairness and natural justice.
Thanks.
VedSaumya I think you expressed exactly what I feel is wrong with the situation. This is a government agency with an operations manual, so they can't just fly by the seat of their pants and set their own criteria. While they have some discretion to prioritize applications based on circumstances, because being completely inflexible would be inhumane in special situations - this queue-jumping seems to be a regular, systemic practice that has never been announced or added to the ops manual. We wouldn't know if Erin hadn't specifically tried to find out why INZ wasn't operating the way she remembered as an employee (and former editor of the ops manual, if I recall correctly).
There have been many metaphors posed, such as - if INZ operated like a business, or if INZ operated like somebody renting out a property. INZ is not a business, so we can't expect it to react as if customer service mattered - we can only expect them to react as though they are accountable to the relevant ministry, and we don't know exactly what the ministry is telling them to do.
We can't expect them to act like a landlord either - at least a landlord doesn't charge thousands of dollars to consider an application, or take many months to decide, lol!
It will be interesting to see if press coverage builds momentum for this question, or dies out. I am lucky enough to be able to wait onshore with plenty of time (irritating though it is to not be able to buy a house in the meantime), but if others are in more urgent situations, your stories might be of value to sway public opinion a bit. Perspectives from frustrated employers could be a more persuasive angle for many Kiwis - attracting and retaining talent is supposed to be a major point for this visa category, but long and possibly unfair processing times make it difficult for all involved.
Member
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote