Glad my family is through this nightmare already.
Wealthy parents jump the queue
Ally Wang wants to work fulltime but says she can’t do so until her parents Zhi and Ying Xu are given residency and can help look after her son Kevin and daughter Cathy. New immigration schemes aimed at wealthy retirees have attracted 27 applicants who are prepared to invest a total of nearly $26 million. The parent retirement policy, launched last year, has drawn 22 applications from nine countries, with the highest numbers coming from China and the United Kingdom. Each applicant has to have a settled child here and invest at least $1 million over four years to gain permanent residency. They need to have good health but will not need to have health insurance, and as permanent residents they will be entitled to the normal health and welfare assistance. However, the scheme has been criticised as being unfair, as applicants jump the queue of the regular parent immigration schemes.
I beleive I said that a while back.
MP Raymond Huo, Labour’s Chinese community affairs spokesman, said the scheme gave New Zealand a bad look overseas. “It is one thing for a country to be selling off its assets, but this policy shows the world that even our immigration visas can be bought,” he said. Mr Huo said letting rich parents jump the queue over legitimate applicants who are less wealthy would just create resentment within migrant communities.
I could not agree more. While I understand the need to bring foreign money into the country up to a point – the miniute you make immigration more about money than skills and settlement facorts you change the entire ethos of the system. Its not about how good you are for the country – its about how much money you will pay to get in.
Immigrant single-mother Ally Wang says she desperately needs her parents here to help her look after her children so she can find fulltime employment. The 36-year-old, who works part-time in a GP clinic as an administrator, feels it’s “extremely unfair” for the Government to overlook her needs “just because mum and dad do not have $1 million to spare”.
Ms Wang, who has a 12-year-old son and an 8-year-old daughter, has been waiting since 2009 for Immigration to give the nod for her father, Zhi Wang, 67 and mother Ying Xu, 61, from Guangzhou, to come and live with her. Instead, what she received last week was a request from the department to “update her income details” because it said her current income wasn’t enough to support her parents.
“The the only way I can earn more money is to find fulltime employment, and I can only work fulltime if my parents are here to help me take care for my children,” Ms Wang said.
Now – this is a bit odd to be honest. You have to have the required income BEFORE you can sponsor your parents. Not “if you let my parents in I will be able to work more and thus afford to sponsor them because they will provide childcare”.
When you sponsor family – you have to prove an income of just under $30,000 a year – which is not a whole lot. But that’s the deal we all have to work with. Unless your parents have a stack of cash they can bribe NZ with of course.
The main issue here is that 22 parents did not have to wait till thier children proved thier worth to New Zealand, and are willing to pay $1,000,000 each to jump the queue ahead of the rest of the people who are sat there waiting for INZ to do its job. I personally think this is shameful. NZ has said quite clearly it can be bought, and that the wealth of our parents is vastly more important than the skills we bring. I guess that why our MP John Hayes asked if my dad was “a man of means”. Thats all he cared about when we needed his help. He must be so proud of this new system.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Access to healthcare in New Zealand
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
The UK Telegraph has just run a really useful guide to healthcare in New Zealand. Im afraid being a UK paper it really does relate the situation best for people emigrating from the UK, but that aside, it’s a very well written article and covers all the most important bits you need to know.
New Zealand’s healthy image is reflected in its remote countryside. But access to its health care system is tightly controlled for new expats, and it performs only marginally better than the UK
This relatively efficient performance is partly due to a mix of public and private health care. There is strong uptake of private health insurance (as in Australia), partially triggered by long waits for state hospital treatment.
The main issue here is that in New Zealand the policy for many serious illnesses seems to rely on waiting long enough to treat you that you die and it’s no longer their problem to deal with. Recently one of the District Health Boards stipulated 14 types of cancer that they would not even send patients to an oncologist for. This is where the chance for survival is slim, and if affected you would be sent back to your GP for “management” rather than be treated.
Also New Zealand justifiably operates a severely restrictive immigration policy. Like most developed nations, it does not want its care system even more overloaded. Waits for surgery can exceed a year.
Public hospitals are of good standard and well spread across the country. They treat citizens, or permanent residents, free of charge, and are managed at district level.
Not all treatments at hospitals are free. You may have to pay for some investigations depending on what it is for and who has referred you. Also, in some areas access to a hospital may not be available 24/7 in the more remote areas, so be aware of that.
This has not stopped waits for treatments, encouraging a big market in private medical insurance. Southern Cross Health Insurance, a non-profit-scheme, is the biggest operator. It claims half the market, which covers almost a quarter of all New Zealanders. Southern Cross also has its own hospital chain.
Private health insurance is expensive, and you should definaltly shop around and get some expert advice on what is best for you. Particularly look at what insurance covers in the way of cancer treatments. Many policy do mot cover it – because the public service does – but then you are back to waiting so ling they don’t need to treat you at all.
ARE YOU AN ACCIDENT VICTIM?
New Zealand has taken a novel approach to financing part of its public health system.
Any treatment deemed to result from an accident is not centrally financed, but funded by a tax on employers, employees and sources such as car registration. Treatment is open to all people legally in New Zealand, including tourists. One advantage is that it limits the spread of the compensation culture. It is not easy to bring an action for injury under New Zealand law. However, the system is often abused. “Once people know the ropes, they call everything an accident,” says one administrator with first-hand knowledge. “You have a neck problem and say you got it when you tripped, so you’re covered.”
Yep – its easy to get ACC cover for almost anything – which then makes it difficult for the more extreme cases to get cover at all. Like a lot of “benefits” a huge amount of money is wasted by bad management and policy. But the bottom line – even as a tourist – accidents are covered. Bottom line is that you also pay for it in ACC levies – especially on Car Tax – almost all of which is made up of the ACC Levy.
FAMILY DOCTORING
Patients pay to see a GP, and also for medication. But these payments are subsidised, especially for people with community health services cards or high-user health cards. Emergency services are primarily provided by the charity St John New Zealand, supported with a mix of private donations and public funds.
Expect to pay $30 – $60 to see a GP. Sounds expensive but generally it means you get to see a doctor, rather than the waiting room being full of people with spare time on their hands going because its free. People tend to make sure they NEED a doctor. You also get a decent consultation (usually half an hour with our GP), and the doctor actually talks to you rather than having a prescription half written by the time you sit down.
Note (thanks Sophie): Under 5′s get free GP visits depending on the surgery – so it’s well worth asking around. In some areas you will get charged for out-of-hours visits to a GP for them though.
TIGHT ENTRY CONTROL
Those seeking permanent residence in New Zealand must be in good health before they are accepted into the system. Simply buying medical insurance (although it is widely taken up there) is not enough. The reason given by the authorities is that they would not be able to prevent someone newly arrived with a pre-existing medical condition from using the public system, even if they had good private cover. Immigration New Zealand states that it “is not able to limit any New Zealand resident’s access to the health system, and therefore if you do not meet health policy, we are unable to accept offers to pay for private health insurance”.
I actually agree with that in priciple they just need to get rid of the imcompeteant twats making these decisions – cos it looks like the have some “corpses with certificates” determining who meets these criteria.
HOW DO NEW EXPATS JOIN THE HEALTH SYSTEM?
The short answer is that they don’t join at all, unless they have a work permit in excess of two years. Any less, and new arrivals are told to get private health insurance. Official advice is: “Government funding of health and disability services means that eligible people may receive free inpatient and outpatient public hospital services, subsidies on prescription items and a range of support services for people with disabilities in the community. “If you are not eligible for publicly funded health and disability services, you can still get the services, but you will have to pay for them, and should get health insurance.”
UK-NZ RECIPROCAL HEALTH COVER
Just as a New Zealander in Britain is entitled to free NHS treatment in an emergency, so the same applies to Britons in New Zealand. However, the health ministry stresses that this provision is likely to be insufficient. It says that those ineligible for full state care, and those relying on UK-NZ reciprocal arrangements, should buy private insurance “because the reciprocal agreements only cover immediate and necessary treatments”. It adds: “Visits to a general practitioner, non-urgent or discretionary services, rehabilitation, and repatriation are not funded within the reciprocal agreement.”
I really hate this. Kiwis visiting Britain get free GP visits and would get free prescriptions if they came under the same policy as a brit, as well as free hospital treatments. Going the other way – we have the same entitlement as a kiwi to pay for our healthcare. This is not what I personally call reciprocal!
HEALTH TEST
As well as the two-year work permit requirement, the authorities assess applicants to determine whether they are likely to be a burden on the public system. As ever, the test basically boils down to money. Are you likely to cost the system more than NZ$25,000 over four years? That’s under £3,000 sterling a year.
See post on Acceptable standard of health.
The immigration service employs medical assessors to resolve borderline cases. They weigh up any health condition or combination of factors, whether chronic or acute.
(or not if you happen to get the idiot who looked at my Dad’s case who didn’t know his arse from his elbow and end-stage kidney failure from normal ageing kidneys – a bit worrying.)
HEALTH INSURANCE FOR QUALIFYING EXPATS
People who meet the eligibility criteria decide for themselves how much coverage they personally want, above and beyond publicly funded services. A 55-year-old man could buy a comprehensive plan with reduced out-patient cover from Aviva for £2,144 a year (budget £1,501). Bupa International’s comprehensive cover is £2,938 (budget £1,704) for the same man. Axa PPP would charge £1,967 (budget £1,709).
Be very careful buying an insurance package from your home country for use in NZ. Most policies have exclusions based on the length of time you are outside they country. You must check your policy wording before relying on it.
Ive quoted most of teh article, but I really think it’s worth a full read-through.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Visas vs Permits and all that malarkey.
In November 2010, the Immigration Act 2009 became law.
The new Act modernises New Zealand’s immigration laws. However, it does not make major changes to the criteria under which people apply to travel to and stay in New Zealand.
So basically, it’s designed to make it easier to understand and follow. What could possibly go wrong??? As I’m not allowed to use my own words to explain the difference, most of this is copied from the link above (with a few notes – because we all know I just cant keep my mouth entirely shut!)
Terminology changes
The new Act uses the single term ‘visa’ for authority to travel to and stay in New Zealand. The terms ‘permit’ and ‘exemption’ are no longer used.
Immigration ‘policy’ is now known as immigration ‘instructions’. This more clearly distinguishes the difference between high-level government policy and the criteria for determining immigration applications (‘instructions’).
I think this is a bit pointless to be honest. Government policy is what determines the criteria for immigration approval – as anyone who has been fobbed off by INZ officials will be able to attest to.
The terms ‘residence permits’, ‘residence visas’ and ‘returning resident’s visas are replaced by ‘resident visas’ and ‘permanent resident visas’ – but there is no change to existing categories or criteria for people wishing to settle in New Zealand.
Ah – thankfully – no more RRV’s and IRRV’s – just a visa and a permanent visa.
For more information see the New terminology and concepts factsheet.
A new sponsorship system
Sponsors of people coming to New Zealand are responsible for all aspects of maintenance, accommodation and repatriation (or deportation) of the sponsored person. More specific criteria for sponsors are also introduced.
For temporary entry visas, this broader obligation is in place for the whole time the sponsored person is in New Zealand. For resident visas, this obligation is in place for a specific period.
Another change allows organisations (companies, charitable trusts and societies) and government agencies to sponsor individuals in some circumstances. These new categories of sponsors are eligible to support visitor visas and also work-to-residence and residence-from-work visas under the ‘talent’ category (arts, culture and sports).
For more information see the Sponsorship factsheet.
So basically they have tidied this up and tightened it a bit to try and make sure sponsors honour their obligations more. Fair enough I reckon (speaking as a sponsor of my parents and brother). It’s not really a new system though.
Returning residents’ visas
Successful residence applicants are generally granted a ‘resident visa’ with two years of ‘travel conditions’. This allows: travel to New Zealand (if the holder is offshore); indefinite stay in New Zealand; and multiple re-entry to New Zealand within the validity of the resident visa travel conditions. The term ‘returning resident’s visa’ (RRV) is no longer used, however, current RRV holders do not need to do anything other than follow the conditions of their current visa or permit.
‘Permanent resident visas’ replace indefinite RRVs and allow the holder indefinite right to enter New Zealand.
The requirements to progress from a ‘resident visa’ to a ‘permanent resident visa’ are similar to the current requirements to progress from a ‘non-indefinite RRV’ to an ‘indefinite RRV’.
People who hold ‘residence visas’, ‘residence permits’ and ‘non-indefinite RRVs’ on 29 November 2010 are automatically deemed to hold ‘resident visas’ with the appropriate travel conditions.
People who hold ‘indefinite RRVs’ on 29 November 2010 are automatically deemed to hold ‘permanent resident visas’ with indefinite rights to enter New Zealand.
Um – haven’t they already covered this above? However – in the residence factsheet, it now specifies that certain people will be able to get the Permanent Residency Visa straight away, rather than having to meet the usual criteria:
However, new policy settings enable a small number of residence applicants to progress directly to a permanent resident visa. These are:
foreign national partners of New Zealand citizens (and the partner’s dependent children) where:
- the New Zealand citizen has been living overseas for at least five years, or has been in New Zealand for three months or less after living overseas for at least five years, and
- the partnership has been ongoing for at least five years.
- people who were granted a temporary work visa under the Talent (Accredited Employers) Work category who have a job with a salary of at least NZ$90,000 gross per annum at the time they apply for residence under the corresponding Residence from Work category, and
refugees and protected people.
Only people who apply for residence on or after 29 November 2010 are considered for the grant of a permanent resident visa as a result of their first residence application.
For more information see the Residence factsheet.
Streamlining appeals
The 2009 Act maintains existing appeal rights and sets up one independent body to hear appeals – the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT), which is administered by the Ministry of Justice. The IPT replaces the current Removal Review Authority, Residence Review Board, Refugee Status Appeals Authority and Deportation Review Tribunal.
Where there is more than one ground for appeal, for example, on facts and humanitarian grounds, both grounds must be lodged together.
Now, this is very important. The Residence Review Board is an absolute mine of information for people who get into difficulties with INZ. It’s absolutely fascinating to read, though a bit boring from time time, and its important to know that the system is changing. The IPT can be found here, and the first decision is already published on the website. I assume (dangerous I Know), that as more appeals are heard you will be able to search the files in the same way you can at the RRB. The RRB website is still active and you can still look up cases.
A new classified information system with special safeguards
Classified information relating to security or criminal conduct can now be used in decision making, if agreed by the Minister of Immigration. Special safeguards balance the right of the Government to use all available information in deciding who may travel to, enter and stay in New Zealand, and the rights of foreign nationals.
So basically it gives INZ more power to snoop around if they think you may have a dodgy past. I’m actually supportive of that, because while I personally detest giving government agencies more power to snoop on people, I do feel that asking a country to allow you to live there is a bit different. With the proviso obviously that if the answer comes back clean, then INZ actually accept that and don’t ask the same sodding question 1000 times hoping to get a different answer.
Streamlining the deportation process
The deportation process has been simplified to better balance efficiency with fairness. The terms ‘removal’ and ‘revocation’ are no longer used, and instead, the single term ‘deportation’ is used.
People who are deported are prohibited from re-entering New Zealand for two years, five years or permanently, depending on the seriousness of the situation.
There’s an interesting little tidbit in the factsheet on this:
Who is liable for deportation?
In summary, deportation liability is triggered by:
Staying in New Zealand on a visa granted in error
So basically, if INZ screw up and give you a Visa by mistake – you can be deported (with the ongoing issue of then having to state on any further applications to any country that yes, you have been deported). I would hope that the person giving out the visa by mistake would also get sacked – but there is no mention of that oddly enough.
For more information see the Deportation factsheet.
Compliance, detention and monitoring
The 2009 Act establishes a flexible approach to monitoring and detaining foreign nationals who are considered to be a threat to the integrity of the immigration system or the security and safety of New Zealand. This includes arrest and detention by police for up to 96 hours and detention under a court-issued ‘warrant of commitment’ for up to 28 days.
The new Act provides immigration officers with powers that could previously only be carried out by Police or Customs officers on behalf of Immigration, for example, to enter and search planes or ships.
Where the powers are new for immigration officers, they are brought into force only when Cabinet is satisfied that the appropriate training and operating instructions have been developed, and that appropriate safeguards are in place.
This does not instill me with confidence. After all, INZ staff are supposed to be trained to do the jobs they have now, and yet often don’t seem to have a clue what they are doing way too often. Given them more powers actually does scare me. Again, I hope the consequences for staff when they screw up are a damn site more harsh than is currently the case.
For more information see the Powers of immigration officers factsheet.
Biometrics and information sharing
The 2009 Act enables specific biometric information to be collected, stored and used – for example, photographs, fingerprints and iris scans – to verify a foreign national’s identity.
The Act also allows foreign nationals’ (not New Zealand citizens’) personal information, including biometric information, to be shared with some other agencies nationally and internationally to address immigration and identity fraud; and manage the safety and security of New Zealand. In addition, foreign national’s personal information can be shared with other New Zealand agencies to check eligibility for publicly-funded services (such as health services).
The relevant provisions will only come into force once Cabinet is satisfied that robust procedures and processes are in place and that there is appropriate protection for individuals, consistent with the Privacy Act 1993.
Big Brother is watching – even in cozy New Zealand, and no amount of garbage about “robust procedures and processes” is going to change that. The spreading of FUD (fear, uncertainty and doubt) is still the best way to control people, and NZ have wised up to that. Despite all that – if you lose your mobile phone – Vodafone can’t find it for you by tracking the signal of where it was last used -but I bet they could tell Immgration where you were hiding!
Employer obligations
The 2009 Act narrows the ‘reasonable excuse’ defence for employing a foreign national not entitled to work in New Zealand. Employers therefore need to check an individual’s work entitlement more carefully than previously.
To help speed up the employment process, the Department of Labour has set up an online system – called VisaView – to allow employers to check a job applicant’s entitlement to work and any conditions. The system is designed to be quick and easy to use, and to protect individual privacy.
However – we can’t access VisaView to check our own details and make sure they are correct. Figures!
Education
The 2009 Act increases penalties against education providers who fail to comply with their immigration obligations. However, providers of compulsory education will not be prosecuted for enrolling a child who is unlawfully in New Zealand.
Interim visas
The 2009 Act introduces a new ‘interim visa’. These may be granted if a foreign national who holds a current temporary visa has applied for a further temporary visa. This maintains the individual’s lawful status in New Zealand while his or her application is being considered. This provision is due to come into effect on 7 February 2011.
This is a REAL bonus. No longer will you be an Illegal Overstayer becuase INZ dithers around with your application. Yay!
For more information see the Interim visas factsheet.
NOTE: Comments in Blue are my opinion only, and are not to be deemed as Immgration Advise in any way.
I am not a licenced Immgration adviser, and do not give immigration advise.
I am a New Zealand citizen voicing my opinion on Immigration Matters. 
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Seems the ombudsman gives a crap about some immigrants.
Filed under: Getting to New Zealand, NZIS & Immigration issues
While they may have done absolutely sod-all about how INZ treated our case, and basically let INZ walk all over them, they have just beaten INZ up over their treatment of a load of Pacific Islanders who were also let down. These were people who were “advised” by the now defunct “Pacific Division” set up my Mary Anne Thompson, and disbanded after issues of corruption were highlighted by the Attorney General.
13 people – who have been in New Zealand illegally -have now been granted residence subject to police and medical checks.
Now, it’s all very well doing this – its the right thing: INZ let people down and behaved appallingly. The division was badly run, and applicants were badly advised.
The Ombudsman ruled that the information the families were given during the 2005 meetings was confusing and misleading.
Um – but so are hundreds of other people applying to immigrate to New Zealand. INZ still continue to give misleading information , still treat some applicants like crap, and they still get away with it (as do licensed advisors). While I am glad the Ombudsman has at least done something for these people, I fail to see why they can’t be bothered to do it for the other applicants like us, who have suffered mistreatment at the hands of INZ. This is at the end of the day grossly unfair, and still does nothing to force INZ to ensure that the information they give to all applicants is correct, and hold them to account when it isn’t.
Especially when many of us, when faced with INZ misinformation – still do not overstay illegally.
Somedays I do get really fed up with staying on the right side of the law, and really can’t always see the bloody point.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
One rule for some, another rule for everyone else.
As part of some applications to immigrate to New Zealand, you have to prove a certain level of income and/or settlement funds, basically to show that you wont be a drain on the country. Some people can get into trouble if it is discovered that those funds are not actually the applicants. Some, not all.
An international school in Auckland lent an Indian student $10,200 to trick immigration officials into thinking he had enough money to study in New Zealand, a court has heard. The Kingsland Institute lent 21-year-old Nitin Kumar the cash to put in his bank account “for the sole purpose of misleading Immigration New Zealand”, the Immigration Service told the Auckland District Court.
A definatle no-no in anyone’s book I would imagine, and I cant fault INZ for taking them to court.
A licensed immigration adviser at the school, Chheogyal Lepcha, this week admitted supplying false information to enrol Mr Kumar in October last year. After Mr Kumar had partly filled out an application for a student visa, Lepcha added extra information and changed one answer to say Mr Kumar had received professional immigration advice, which was not true.
I assume the IAA will immediately be suspending this guys license and refusing to renew it? After all – great job they did there of protecting the poor immigrant – and INZ. Says it all really as to why the IAA should be kicked up the backside. Theres so few licensed advisors now that there is no excuse for any of them being allowed a license and able to carry on behaving like this.
The prosecution summary of facts said Mr Kumar told the school he was worried that he could not afford the $17,700 course or show he had $10,000 to support himself, as required by immigration rules. The Kingsland Institute supplied Immigration with a receipt showing he had paid the full $17,700 and a school representative lent him $10,200 to trick officials. Lepcha was remanded on bail until March. The institute’s director, Donald Han, has pleaded not guilty to charges of providing false and misleading information under the Immigration Act.
Well, at least the law took care of the Advisor. Interesting though – I can’t find Mr Lepcha listed at the IAA at all, not under the currently licensed advisors, or under the canceled or un-renewed licenses. So it’s possible that he actually was never licensed. Now that should mean that the IAA need to investigate to see if he was acting as an unlicensed advisor – but its worth bearing in mind that one of the exemptions if for people giving advice to international students.
However the really interesting thing about all this is that a few years ago, before licensing came in, one Tuariki John Edward Delamere (and ex-Immigration minister in the NZ government) was prosecuted by the Serious Fraud Office for doing much the same thing. He “recycled” $1,000,000 in supposed investment funds through 7 applications for 7 different Chinese applicants applying under the investor category – the money apparently supplied ny his Chinese business partner.
He claimed he wasn’t guilty, because in law, there was actually nothing to stop him doing so, and the jury agreed and he was acquitted. But where this gets really curious is in the fact that this was highlighted, both in readings of the IALA before parliament, and in some of the submissions on the IALA as to why immigration agents needed to be licensed: to stop people like this giving the industry a bad name.
And yet Tuariki Delamere is a licensed immigration advisor, and the one most likely to be in the news fighting to stop overstayers being deported.
I believe he has been working for the Ram family, he also tried to embarrass the PM at Waitangi Day to stop the deportation of Rhonda Aylward. So the question is: how is it that an Ex Immigration minister can exploit a loophole, recycle funds not belonging to the applicant, set a precedent in court that this is not illegal, create one of the main reasons why we have the IALA and IAA shoved down our throats – and he gets a license. But I don’t have the freedom to blog about immigration issues, or help people going through the same crap we did, and this Mr Lepcha is facing jail over $10,000 that also didn’t belong to the applicant. Call me thick – but isn’t it the same thing?
And why did he lose his job as the Immigration Minister:
In late 1999, however, he lost his role as Minister of Immigration after a scandal regarding the application of immigration rules. Specifically, it emerged that Delamere had approved permanent residency for a group of Chinese businessmen provided they invested generously in various Māori development schemes. Delamere was widely criticised for using his authority to ensure that money was given to certain groups. Delamere himself claimed that his actions were a perfectly reasonable method of addressing Māori development needs. Although he lost the immigration portfolio, he retained his other roles
Hmmm.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Since when is being pregnant an illness?
Once again, Immigration New Zealand are making the lives of an immigrant couple a living nightmare becuase the woman has got pregnant.
How dare she!
A Brazilian couple who moved to New Zealand to start afresh have been caught in bureaucratic limbo because of an unplanned pregnancy.Marcio Tulio de Moura, 35, and his wife, Barbara Ohana de Sena Vieira, 26, applied for new temporary work visas this year but their applications were held up when a medical exam showed Barbara was pregnant.
She is five months’ pregnant and Immigration New Zealand says she does not meet the health requirements for a permit.
Mr Moura is eligible to apply for residency as a skilled migrant and can include his partner and their daughter, Ana, 4, but only if new work permits are granted.
It just makes me want to scream with frustration! Why are they still doing this? Why on earth is Pregnancy deemed to be such a danger to New Zealand? We have 2 people, working – one skilled as a stonemason, and becuase one of them is going to have take time off to give birth, they are deemed “unacceptable”?? Does New Zealand really want to be known as a country that behaves like this? Its clear they are not trying to rip the system off – they already been here contributing for 2 years.
Ms Vieira said she briefly considered an abortion – which is illegal in Brazil – but the couple want another child and decided against termination.
Right now, I am ashamed to live in a country that has put any family in that position. 
Immigration NZ manager of operations Simon Smith said a decision on the couple’s applications was pending.
I hope he has a fit of common sense! The information provided by the couple is being “assessed” so lets hope for their sake and their sanity that Immigration get that assessment done really fast, becuase to me – this is unacceptable. These people should be able to enjoy this pregnancy, not look on it with any amount of dread and uncertainty.
Yes, New Zealand needs to ensure that people don’t “rip the country off” and become pregnancy tourists – something that should have been negated anyway by closing access to automatic citizenship for anyone born in New Zealand. But surely this is just going too far.
Pregnancy is not an Appendix 10 Condition, so when applying for a residency permit, it actually doesn’t automatically disqualify you.However, Ms Vieira and Mr Moura are applying for Work Permits, and the rules are different, and as far as Immigration is concerned – you do not have an acceptable standard of health if you are pregnant, Which is quite frankly – nuts! Ok – look closely if this is a first time application – do you investigations – but not when people have given 2 years of their lives to your country already and proved themselves!
I wish them all the luck in the world!
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Richard O’Brien is to be allowed into New Zealand :)
Really chuffed to be able to blog some good immigration news for a change: The associate immigration minister – Kate Wilkinson has apparently agreed to let the great Richard O’Brien have residence in New Zealand despite not fitting any of the current criteria.
O’Brien, 68, would still have to pass police and health checks, but Ms Wilkinson had said she would make exceptions on requirements for him to be 55 or under and have a job offer in New Zealand.
So basically – what they are saying is that he can apply under the Sibling Sponsorship rules, but not have to match teh age and job offer requirements – so its not quite as Rubber Stamped from the sounds of it as it might at first look. Still – its a step in the right direction.
They are expected the application to take about a month – so all I can say is I hope they don’t get my dad’s waste-of-space case officer (because it will go through the London Office) and I hope the even bigger waste-of-space Medical officer has retired by now on the grounds of gross imbecility. Otherwise Mr O’Brien could be in for a long haul.
But good news! It’s about time.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Worries over the New Silver Fern Visa
Well, I said it probably wasn’t as good as it sounded, and seems I’m not the only one concerned. Migrant Action Trust says:
“It’s too late when these people come here and realise there are no jobs. They get stuck here and the Government doesn’t care. It is left to people like us to pick them up
Because of course this visa doesn’t give you a job, nor is it likely to make it easier to get a job. You have 9 months, and if at the end of that you haven’t found work – you need to leave.
Besides all 300 spaces for this year were taken within 30 minutes of the new visa being opened for business. I have to say I think this was a monumental waste of government resources setting this up and placing such a tiny number of spaces. Unless the government is actually going to clamp down on people who come here with a tourist visa and look for work – I just don’t see the point of it myself.
With this visa you have to go through all the rigmarole (and cost) of getting through the Medical and Police checks – and yet you are not actually applying for a permanent visa – just the chance to see if you could get a permanent visa. And even then – it only gets you a WRT visa from the looks of things.
The worst thing is that INZ say as part of the requirements that you must:
- have a minimum of NZ$4,200 available funds to meet your living costs while you are here
Now I have no idea what planet they live on – but I think it is outrageous that they are still claiming you can survive in New Zealand with that level of funding. This is for 9 months remember.
Say you rent a flat. In Carterton where it’s cheap. A 3 bed house will set you back about $240 a week. That’s a smidge less than a Studio apartment is Wellington the size of a hotel room. If there’s 4 weeks a month, that’s $960 a month. For 9 months.
That’s $8640.
That’s just to put a cheap roof over your head. No food, bills, phone costs, travel costs. And certainly no money to find out everything that this country has to offer.
I think people will be very disillusioned at the end of this, and I think they are being right royally ripped off. I guess we have to wait and see what happens with the first batch to come through the system.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
A ritual cleansing of Immigration Paperwork.
The amount of paperwork generated by having to fight INZ was truly scary, and was taking up space in my filing cabinet that was better used for other things. Like Toilet Paper.
So, to say goodbye to the past 18 months, we have just had a ritual burning of all the crap. We have kept any original letters, but everything is scanned onto the computers anyway.
Blimey – it felt good!
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
How to get your case against INZ heard.
Don’t bother going through all the rigmarole of an official complaint the way we did. You will get treated like crap and ignored anyway. Instead – try what Rhonda Aylward did, and confront the Prime Minister at the Waitangi Day celebrations with your ex-immigration-minister -“Licenced Advisor” who somehow managed to get a license despite running a scam of his own in the past involving $1,000,000,000, a Chinese “business partner” and 10 investor residency applications using the same $1,000,000,000.
Hmmmm.
So – the details we do know about what is going on (sourced from various newspaper articles, videos and a forum post on MovetoNZ by Rhonda herself. Unfortunately, the early newspaper articles are no longer available online):
§ 11.9.07 Press Release from the National Party
o Immigration spokesman Lockwood Smith says the system should show more common sense.
o Points out that Rhonda had a skilled job and was contributing
o Points out that the aged care sector was crying out for caregivers while government took the job off the skilled list.
o The Daily news had publicized Rhonda’s case when her job as a rest home caregiver was no longer accepted as suitable for PR
o Her File ended up with the then Immigration Minister Clayton Cosgrove
o He overturned a decision by NZIS and granted a 12 month work permit to work as a caregiver
o Willow was granted a 12 month student permit to allow her to go to school.
o The permits were fast racked and the fees waived.
o The NZIS decision would have meant that Rhonda had to leave her Kiwi son Cail behind because his Kiwi father would not let her take him out of the country.
o Rhonda believed that media coverage of the case forced the ministers hand
o Rhonda’s sister Roxanne Nolte was sponsoring her for residency.
o Roxanne had only been resident at this point for 2 ½ years so had another 6 months to go before able to legally sponsor Rhonda.
o In 2004 Rhonda successfully stopped Willow’s father forcing his daughter to be returned to South Africa. Willows father now lives in the UK.
· 14.9.07 Rhonda writes on MovetoNZ
o Rhonda and Willow given 12 month permits
· 8.6.09 Letter from minster says “” I have carefully considered your submissions and I am not prepared to intervene. The previous associate minister advised you to provide certain information to Immigration New Zealand by 24 February 2009, yet you have not done so. I do not believe that an extension is warranted.”
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ Rhonda says the extra info was the medical certificate.
o Medical was booked for 15th Feb
o 12th Feb. her mother in Invercargill has heart attack
o Rhonda uses the money saved for the medical to visit her mother
· 16.6.09 on MovetoNZ NZ Rhonda also says:
o NZIS have said she does not meet PR criteria because she split with her husband
o She has to leave on 23
o .10.09 with her SA daughter (7 years)and leave her NZ son (5yrs) behind
o Herself and Willow are the only members of her family who do not have NZ residency
o She would have to sign over custody of her children to her mother to allow Willow to stay
o She was granted a 12 month work permit with a view to getting PR, and has since has a 6 month permit which expires on 2.5.09
o Her grandmother, mother, sister, brother, uncle, aunt cousins and other family all have NZ residency.
o She was currently working as a cleaner at Taranaki hospital, after a work accident left her unable to work as a caregiver.
o NZIS gave her an open work permit for 6 months to allow for the change in occupation while she was applying for PR.
o On the 20th April she contacted her local MP Chester Burrows
o He passed her on to Viv Chapman who said it was highly unlikely she would get pr because:
§ The economic climate meant Kiwis should do the job
§ She couldn’t support herself as evidence by not being able to afford the medical
§ Her work/ financial situation had not improved
o She is in Paid employment and that just because she cannot pay a lump sum of hundreds of dollars this does not mean she cannot support her family.
o It is highly unlikely that she will get an extension past 2.5.09 (this was written on 16.6.09)
o Her sons father (A kiwi citizen) is still adamant that Cail must stay in New Zealand.
o She believes that NZIS have bought her silence for 18 months with the extensions.
· 22.10.09 Video Clip from Taranaki Daily News
o Fight for residency began in June 2007
o Visa was extended 3 months later (9/07) after minister intervened
o In February 2008 she was told she did not meet criteria for residency as she didn’t earn enough
o Appeal to the minister ended with a another reprieve till 23.10.09 which is when her work permit expired
o On 23.10.09 Rhonda had 42 days to leave or appeal – but she intended to do neither of those things.
o Rhonda says that she has now being diagnosed with Bi-Polar Disorder which her psychiatric doctor says is brought on by immigration constantly giving hope and then declines.
o Says that every time she is declined a different reason is given
§ She doesn’t earn enough money
§ Her sponsor (sister) doesn’t earn enough money
§ No proof that Willow can live with her
· Apparently she now has a letter of support from Willows father.
· 8.2.2010 Taranaki Daily News says
o Rhonda at Waitangi on Friday to confront PM
o Organized by licensed advisor (ex minister) Tuariki Delamere
o He is told that case with be looked at by PM
o By Sunday, Rhonda still waiting for confirmation of this.
o Rhonda has been fighting for residency since 2006
o Temporary work permit issued in October will run out on 10.2.10
o She then has 42 days to leave the country or become an overstayer.
o Rhonda says she is not leaving.
So, for me, there’s an awful lot about this case that does not make sense. In fairness, there’s actually a huge amount of information missing, and it would be highly unlikely to be reported unless it gets to the Residence Review Board, where you can get what amounts to a blow by blow account of the processing of an application.
So – here’s what we don’t get:
§ Why did Rhonda not ask for an extension to do the medicals?
§ Did she ask for an extension and it wasn’t granted?
o You simply cannot put in an application for residency without one, so at the moment she doesn’t actually appear to have applied for residency.
§ Why did her family not help out with the medical costs?
o If you are sponsoring someone you have to agree to support the applicant for 2 years.
o So why can’t the sponsor support her in this?
o And with so many family here, why are they not helping to fund the $300-$400 it costs to get a medical in New Zealand?
§ Why wasn’t an appeal made in October 09 when she was given 42 days to do so.
o Her refusal to do this makes no sense to me. I get that it is highly frustrating to have to go through these processes, but refusing point blank to work through the process does not really get much sympathy.
§ How can New Zealand force a mother to leave one of her children behind, and force a 5 year old kiwi child to live without his mother?
§ Have NIZ actually done as much as they can to help Rhonda, and has Rhonda done everything she can to help herself?
o I know exactly how hard it is to jump through the hoops, but you just have to do it.
o You cannot decide not to put in applications or medicals and then hope that someone takes pity on you.
o That is brutally unfair to the rest of us who also have to fight for years to get our families into the country.
§ Has this even gone to the residence review board?
o The RRB has the authority to overturn NZIS decisions f there are special circumstances.
o As far as I am aware, they can instruct INZ to take into account these circumstances (such as having a child that you would be forced to leave behind) if you do not meet the normal criteria.
§ What does the boy’s father think of all this?
o Does he support Rhonda in staying here?
o I can’t help but wonder why no one is focusing on the fact that if she left and took his son – he would lose all access to his son too and Cail would never see his father.
I’m mixed on this. On the one hand – I cannot see how any civilized country can force a mother to leave her child behind. In New Zealand child pornographers can have their identities hidden forever to “protect the child” and yet – this mother is not allowed to stay in New Zealand, even if she doesn’t fit the bill as a suitable migrant – to protect her child. There is something very wrong with that.
On the other hand, if the reports are correct (and I stress IF – because there’s a lot missing here), Rhonda doesn’t actually seem to have done that much to help her own situation, other than play on the fact that she would lose her son. I do not understand why applications and medicals are not getting done, and appeals are not being lodged through the RRB when you have the right to do so.
I can’t help but feel a little out of sorts with this – and I feel awful for feeling that way. But we too have had to fight our way through the nightmare processes, and we have had to do so by jumping through every hoop NZIS have forced us to jump. Every step of the way we have worked with the process, and I sometimes wonder if we would have been better off just going to the papers too and embarrassing the country into letting my family in, without all the expense of dozens of unnecessary medical tests (at UK Prices), repeat Applications fees, and being treated like garbage by the establishment.
It’s certainly something to think about.
I wish Rhonda and her children the best of luck. This is a horrid situation to be in, and I hope she manages to get it resolved, and I do hope she gets to stay with her Children, in New Zealand, so that Cail will be able to know his father as well.
Like what Avalon has to say?
Click Here to buy Avalon's Guide or Click Here to buy the E-Book
Avalon’s Guide On Facebook
-
