Election promises are not actual changes in immigration policy

At election time the political parties all promise various things they would do if elected. As immigration is always a big issue in politics there are all kinds of promises about what each party will do for immigration if elected. IF a party is elected they SAY they will make some change. This is a big if, and we all know that pre-election promises are not usually trustworthy. Still almost 6 months after the election results we have no changes at all except for a pause on raising the median wage threshold for AEWV.

There are some people who took these promises too literally and actually made preparations for when these changes happen. With immigration policy in general, we never make decisions based on what may happen. All too often we have seen even actual policy announcements which changed significantly when the instructions were written into law.

In the end, these promises are only to get votes, so professionals don't take them as any indication of what future immigration policy will look like. In our experience when the Government changes, actual policy and practice at INZ changes very little.

Predictions for visa applications for the next 12 months or more

Things are definitely changing inside INZ recently as a direct result of all the bad press from migrant exploitation and poor work performance within Immigration New Zealand. This is a very topical news subject recently because we want to know that our public servants are doing their job properly. It often turns out that they are not doing their jobs properly (for example wanting to decline visas from their personal reasons rather than reasons set out in the legislation) and the media pick this up.

Migrant exploitation is an important issue and since the blame seems to have been placed on the AEWV visa itself, questions are raised at how INZ staff may not be doing their jobs properly. Then immigration officers come out swinging, blaming their managers for not managing them properly. This continues ad infinitum until everyone is pointing their fingers at everyone else.

What this results in though is pressure from above to check everything, then check it again. If in doubt, chuck it out and decline or PPI everything that even hints at not being straightforward. In the industry we are starting to see this happening already with meaningless PPIs and declines increasing. The same thing happened when Karel Sroubek was “mistakenly” granted residence by the then immigration Minister Iain Lees Galloway. After admitting this had been a mistake, residence applications were overly rigourously checked for quite some time after than and ridiculous PPIs raised for issues that should have just gone straight through.

This is what we are begining to see again, and it has three unfortunate results:

1. Applicants that are actually eligible for a visa are declined unfairly.
2. Applicants paying for hourly rate services end up paying a lot of money for professionals to battle INZ. (Hint - use set fees instead)
3. Applicants who make mistakes on the application are accused of providing false information and find every other visa application after that a huge battle, or impossible

We can expect this to continue for at least a year or two. This attitude is close to the default stance of INZ anyway so it is generally easier for them to drift towards being overly tough than overly easy anyway. Once they perceive that either public scrutiny is off them or that non-compliant behaviour is no longer a problem, then things may relax again, but until then we expect every application is going to be a battle.

Because we always prepare every visa application with this expectation and have always done so, it is less of an issue for us than it would be for an amateur trying to apply themselves for example. Where we see this biggest differences is in offshore applications, especially visitor and student, and generally in self-made applications. It may seem unfair, but unfortunately it is the nature of our immigration system.

Advice from the INZ website is not all reliable

You would be forgiven for thinking that the information on the INZ website and advice from INZ staff is pretty accurate, but this is not always the case. 

Overall, there are two parts to this that you need to think about. First, the factual information is almost always reliable, things like costs of applications, the type of visas that are available, phone numbers, fundamental supporting documents, etc. But the second part, which is the more subjective type of information is much less reliable. Information such as processing times, supporting documentation for your specific situation, and so on cannot be accurately relied on.

The first type of information is what INZ must publicly disclose and this should always be accurate. We generally only use the INZ website for things such as confrming costs anyway, so this is OK for us. This type of information is also the most reliable that you can get from callling the INZ call centre.

The second type of information is variable mainly because INZ staff don't really know themselves, so they cannot pass on accurate information all of the time, even if they wanted to. Processsing times are widely variable because each application is different. Necessary supporting documents are also widely variable because each applicant, their situation and their application are always different. The information on the website is like an average or a quickstart guide, that may suit some people to some extent. It is not supposed to be a guide on how to craft the perfect application with a promise on how long it will take to be approved (or even that it will be approved).

I think this is all reasonably logical, but recently I saw one page of the INZ website telling applicants not to send more information that INZ ask for, to speed up processing. This is highly unethical advice and advice that only benefits INZ and is hugely detrimental to applicants. By only providing the documents asked for on the application form you almost guarantee that: 1. your application will be very slow in being processed, 2. you will be asked for further information and given a short time frame to provide it, 3. incomplete applications can raise suspicions and be more likely to be declined, and 4. incomplete applications can raise the possibilty of not providing correct information, providing false information or omissions, which could make it impossible for you to get residence later on.

Only with experience can you know what infomation on the INZ website is trustworthy and what isn't, but if you have that much experience you wouldn't be interested much in the website anyway. We feel the main purpose of the INZ website is to meet requirements for public disclosure of information rather than assisting applicants with an application.

The call centre operators as well only go off the information that is on the website. This is because immigration officers are not immigration advisers and only give publicly avalable information, which means information that is on the website.

Is it true that INZ exist to decline visa applications?

It sounds overly cynical but this is more or less true. Any country's immigration department manages who can and cannot come into the country and for those who can enter, control for how long, if they can work, study, etc. So it is fair to say that INZ's actual role is to restrict entry rather than to facilitate entry.

Restricting entry doesn't necessarily mean declining every application, but it does mean that the purpose of the application is to prove that the applicant meets the criteria and so does not deserve to be declined. Some clients misunderstand that INZ is a service based organisation who want people to visit New Zealand. This is an easy mistake to make because the website sure looks like this is the case, but experience and logic shows that it is not.

Fee increases as well may make applicants think they are paying a lot, so they should expect a good service in return, this is not the case. The Government sees the immigration fees and levies as only paying for running the system, there is no promise of service or quality, as well as there is no perception that you are paying for the visa. The INZ fee is to pay for the assessment, not for the visa itself.

We do every application from the starting point that INZ will be assessing it to see how it can be declined, so we make it in such a way to clearly show why it should not be declined. Applications that fail usually do so because there is either a clear reason why the applicant does not meet the specific criteria of the visa, or there is no compelling evidence to convince the assessing officer that they do. 

I think everyone's experience with INZ would improve a lot if they thought of visa applications and INZ in this way. 

Why I volunteer at the CAB

Last week I posted up on the Facebook page about volunteering at the Citizen's Advice Bureau and I thought it might be good to talk about why. The CAB is an exempt group in terms of people legally able to provide immigration advice in NZ. The Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007 restricts the provision of immigration work to LIAs, lawyers and exempt people. Exempt people are the CAB, MPs and diplomatic staff. The reason why these people are exempt is because it is thought that they are responsible enough to know the limits of how useful they can be before referring applicants to professionals. In reality the work that exempt people are really able to do it generally quite basic.

Interestingly, immigration officers are not exempt people and so they are not able to provide immigration advice. This is why if you ask INZ for advice, they only give you generic information that is on their website, they do not give advice.

The system is good because having access to reliable and honest information from exempt people or groups provides protection against fraud and provides support when needed. I don't think it is a bad thing that exempt people will almost never do a visa application, it is the initial support that has value.

In my volunteering as well, the meetings are generally quite short, but provide excellent guidance on what to do next. Clients leave the meeting knowing how to approach their situation and feeling much more confident, The knowledge gained may guide the client to complete the application themselves or to use a professional or to do something competely different. The important thing is that now they have a clear understanding of things which is the goal of the clinic.

The CAB Immigration clinics are similar to the other clinics they run, the goal is to give good general advice but not to take over the whole thing. It empowers people who don't know where to start to make better decisions. In many cases the advice is just clarifying options or obligations so people don't get into trouble, sometimes it might involve advice to get out of trouble.

I think the most important thing for clients to understand though is that advice doesn't replace engaging a professional. Community law, CAB and so on provide great advice and help for a wide range of people, but they will not usually be able to take a case for you. When you need professional assitance you still need to engage a professional in the usual way.