Open main menu Close main menu

Immigration Service inconsistent applying test for employers supporting residence applications

Immigration
Legislation:
Ombudsmen Act 1975
Legislation display text:
Ombudsmen Act 1975
Ombudsman:
Sir John Robertson
Case number(s):
W25491
Issue date:
Format:
HTML,
PDF,
Word
Language:
English

Application for permanent residence on occupational ground—declined on grounds that nationwide advertising for position had not been undertaken by employer—different approaches taken by Regional and Head Offices

A recruitment consultant had employed a secretary with good shorthand and typing skills, who obtained a work permit, then applied for permanent residence on occupational grounds. Her application was declined because her employer had apparently not established to the satisfaction of the department that he had undertaken nationwide advertising to fill the position. The employer maintained that as a recruitment consultant he was aware of the difficulty in recruiting staff with the requisite skills, that he was unwilling to meet the costs of nationwide advertising and possible removal expenses for a position of this nature and that a member of the department’s staff had agreed to ask New Zealand Employment Service to conduct a nationwide search, which ought to have been sufficient.

The Ombudsman’s enquiries established that according to New Zealand Immigration Instructions Regional Offices were required to apply a more stringent test to residence applications on non-occupational priority list grounds than the more general instruction applied by the General Manager’s Office. The Immigration Service was aware of the discrepancy and had arranged for the instructions to be redrafted so that evidence of nationwide advertising was likely to be required only in professional or senior managerial appointments or where national companies were seeking to recruit numbers of staff for positions throughout the country. New Zealand Immigration Service acknowledged that the complainant’s employer had made a good case for recruitment on occupational grounds and decided to proceed with the complainant’s application. The Ombudsman therefore decided to discontinue the investigation.

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: