Skilled Migrant Resident Visa - total compensation or salary only

[artificalqueen]

The skilled migrant category resident visa lists the fastest path as "your job or job offer in NZ pays 3x the median wage". Does that include salary only or does it also include stock + bonus? With salary only, I wouldn't be able to meet the requirement, but with stock and bonus I easily would which would make the whole process simpler

[JandM]

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#66790.htm
This is the INZ operational manual about remuneration.

[Kelerei]

A potential correction here: SM6.20 (the immigration instruction that JandM linked to above) is for the legacy Skilled Migrant Category (i.e. the 180 point system that closed in August 2023). It may still apply to your application, but only if you submitted an EOI at or before 23:59 on 15 August 2023, were selected from the EOI Pool, and have consequently applied for the Skilled Migrant Category under the legacy immigration instructions.

Otherwise, if you have applied or are planning to apply under the new 6-point system, SR2.5 will instead apply. I don't see any obvious differences between SR2.5 and SM6.20, but the distinction must nevertheless be made as differences may develop over time.

[artificalqueen]

Thank you! There is a noticeable difference between the two:

> Remuneration will be calculated on the basis of guaranteed payment per hour.

My shares of stock at a large company are guaranteed and unless the price falls 75% or more, stock would push me above the 185k/year threshold and if the stock does fall that much, it's likely a huge portion of employees will be laid off. There's an argument to be made that some percentage of the current value of stock could be included in "guaranteed" income.

There's another key difference: SR2.5 explicitly excludes bonuses from calculating guaranteed income, but chooses not to exclude stock.

I have no idea whether this argument would work, but the language of SR2.5 leaving it open is intriguing.

EDIT: fixed a grammar error

[JandM]

Not wanting to be pessimistic, and yes, there's an argument for you to make, but I notice it says "guaranteed payment *per hour*". INZ might perhaps push back because the stock holding isn't (probably) tied to hours worked. I foresee this having to get a TA called in, as a CO wouldn't have the seniority to call it. Anyway, the very best of luck.

[artificalqueen]

Luckily for me, my stock actually is tied to hours worked. If I go down to working 60% time, my stocks will vest at 60% of the rate they previously did.

I'm still not expecting the argument to work, but it's intriguing me more and more.

[JandM]

Do keep us updated.