Immigration—work permit—delay in reconsidering application-reconsideration process—staffing and training analysis—complaints resolved
The complainant had applied in November 1988 for a reconsideration of the decision by the Department of Labour to decline his application for a work permit. At that time he was on a temporary visitor’s permit valid until 7 April 1989. Since no response had been received from the department the complainant’s-solicitor sent a second letter on 23 January 1989 and followed up with six telephone calls in February, March and April to check on the status of his application and in an attempt to arrange an appointment with the officer(s) responsible, to no avail. The complaint related first to unreasonable delay and lack of accessibility by New Zealand Immigration Service staff and secondly, to the process of reconsideration of applications for work permits. In view of the apparent expiry of the complainant’s permit on 7 April, immediately informal enquiries with departmental staff were made and revealed that a permit had been issued on 13 April, valid to 7 August. After this issue of immediate concern to the complainant had been attended to, the Ombudsman was able to pursue my investigation into the two grounds of complaint notified to the department.
The department acknowledged in respect of the first ground of complaint that the Regional Office concerned should have been able to deliver a decision on the application for reconsideration much earlier and advised that the current performance standard for work permit applications was a seven-day turnaround. A number of shortcomings had been identified in the handling of the complainant’s application, which the department considered would be remedied by the following changes: a new position of supervising immigration officer had been created to ensure continuity of service during the work-related absences of the Regional Manager; a documentation officer who had not carried out his duties satisfactorily had tendered his resignation; the Regional Manager signalled his intention of making the complaint into a case history to be used as part of a training package. On this basis the Ombudsman considered that the first ground of complaint had been resolved and steps taken to reduce the chances of such a situation recurring.
With regard to the second complaint, which concerned the criteria that are applied to work permit applications the department had provided a general statement of the points at issue and the Ombudsman received advice from the complainant’s solicitor that a further work permit had been granted to their client. Therefore the complaint had been resolved and the investigation was discontinued.
This case note is published under the authority of the Ombudsmen Rules 1989. It sets out an Ombudsman’s view on the facts of a particular case. It should not be taken as establishing any legal precedent that would bind an Ombudsman in future.
Last updated: