Thanks for that DownSouth and JandM. The Tribunal's rationale would've been understandable before the Amendment Circular 20/04 came into effect, but not now. Besides, this particular case was about someone who had been denied a subsequent talent visa for not satisfying the bona fide requirements, which adds up.
The representative’s construction, that it would not matter how far in the past a person had held such a work visa because, having held it for at least 24 months, they were perpetually eligible to apply under the residence instructions at RW2, makes no sense. It leaves a potential employee, who has been identified as working in an area where their talents are required by New Zealand employers, in effect, to have a right in perpetuity to rely on RW2 to make a residence application. That would mean, of course, that having once been a person whose talents were needed by a New Zealand employer, an applicant might relinquish their particular skill-set, lose currency in it, become incompetent in it or unemployable in it for some other reason, yet still be eligible to undertake an application for residence.
Considering that accredited employer residency applications are currently taking around 2 years to be processed, basically they are forcing applicants to stay in their jobs until a decision is made, even if that decision takes 6 times longer than what was expected at the time that the applicant was granted an accredited employer work visa and committed in good faith to the prescribed process toward residency. For those of us who were just a few months away from applying to residency when the ammendment was announced, this, in practice, is pretty much the same as INZ retrospectively changing the accredited employment requirement to 48 months instead of 24. The Tribunal talks about a "right in perpetuity", well what about an "obligation in perpetuity"?
Talent (Accredited Employer) Resident Visa - Situation while waiting
Reply With Quote
Originally Posted by DownSouth
)
