And on…

27.1.09
Meeting with John Hayes MP
John hadn’t read our information, or his staff’s file with briefing notes.
John’s attitude was basically that MPs are supposed to “make laws – not act as a social worker of last resort”.
Spent some time going on about what would happen if Dad needs dialysis and not really understanding that Nephrologist has said that is highly unlikely.
Says that he can’t do anything while Dad is out of the country.(Wrong – I am a consituent and I need help from my elected MP).
Says that he would let the NZIS process run through until there was a ‘No’ decision from NZIS, at which point he would get actively involved. (Wrong -  they are refusing to do this – which means we can’t access any of the means open to applicants to challenge a decision).
Says that Parents should come back to NZ in April (allowing them to stay for 12 months) and then he can help.

He tells us that the Residence Review Board will only hear from applicants who are in New Zealand at the time NZIS turn down an application. (Utterly wrong – they  review applications from all over the world.)
Was at great pains to tell us there are no guarantees.
Re-iterated that we should not rock the boat – but is unable to explain why NZIS should get away with treating people even worse if we feel we need to complain.
Mr Hayes also said that asking for the MA letters was “rocking the boat” (Wrong – it is part of the process that applicants are entitled to see the file, under the official information act. No MP (or licenced agent) should ever tell an applicant not to do this)
Mr Hayes says that the application was none of my business. (Wrong – I am the sponsor so of course it’s my bloody business!)

27.1.09
Phone call to the Residence Review board to confirm that in fact Appeals on residence decisions can be made from any country. Mr Hayes has many of his facts incorrect. It is true that you cannot (or could not) appeal a no decision on a LTBV for example if you are outside New Zealand, but this is not the case, and never has been,  with normal residence applications.

I make a note on my facebook page that Mr Hayes believes the job of an MP is “to make new laws, not act as a social worker of last resort.” As a result of this, I am given the contact details for the office of the opposition list MP for the Wairarapa, Charles Chauvel.

28.1.09
Email to office of Charles Chauvel MP regarding the case and asking for help. This refers to John Hayes refusal to act for us, and his attitude towards us.

30.1.09
Email to CO th Ultrasound results and blood tests
We say that we cannot get any further info at this time
Ask that this be sent to the MA as is and that the MA be requested to make a decision on the basis of the info he now has.

30.1.09
Email from CO asking us to confirm that all the info we want referred was in the email.

30.1.09
Email to CO confirming what we just said and listing all the tests that were included, plus a list of all the tests that were already sent.

5.2.09
Email from CO saying that the info we sent has been referred to the MA, but that the MA is away.
Says that it is best to keep the referral with this MA as he knows the history
Says in their experience it is the best way to proceed

5.2.09
Email to CO asking how long the MA is away for.

5.2.09
Email from CO saying we can expect a response from the MA by the end of April!

10.2.09
Complaint made to the Ombudsman. Includes printouts of everything: every letter, email, summary, and medical results.

10.2.09
Email to CO
Pointing out that the end of April takes this application to a minimum 16 months.
We do not find this acceptable, and ask that the file be sent to a different MA and put at the front of the queue.
We feel that this is the only way “Fairness and Natural Justice” can be restored as per immigration policy.
We tell CO that we will have some extra info for him and the MA by the end of the week, due to a letter from the Diabetologist arriving that we were not expecting, and that I have asked the NZ GP to review the file.
We tell JH that we will also send him the XL spreadsheet of the tests results so he can see what we mean.
We re-iterate that health is not a danger to NZ, that dad does not have an appendix 10 condition (which would be CKD stage 5 or progressive kidney disease whereas dad has stable stage 3).
We point out that the policy states that there has to be a relatively high probability that he will cost the health service $25k
We point out that we are not asking for special treatment – we are asking for fairness and natural justice (Re Section 1a of the Policy Manual)
We point out again that the case has been badly handled from the start, and that we have been treated appallingly and unfairly.

12.2.09
Email from CO saying if they change assessor it will take longer.
Says they have considered our request to fastrack the application but won’t do it.
Says it cannot be prioritised  “in this instance“.
Tells us there is to be no further debate on this.

13.2.09
Letter from New Zealand GP fao Immigration New Zealand. I asked or local GP to sift through all the results and paperwork and give his opinion on what was in there.

This states that Dad has been very thorough in obtaining medical tests over the past year, and that his diabetic control is extremely good, and shows an excellent improvement from the last test he himself did almost 12 months ago.

He says that the consultant nephrologist has given a very good overview of the past history, family history, medications, tests results and prognosis.

He goes on to say (more than once for emphasis) that dad’s kidney function has been stable for over 6 years and that the prognosis is excellent. There is no sign of worsening kidney function, and no sign whatsoever that the diabetes will cause it to worsen. He states that the Ultrasound shows that there is no evidence at all of chronic kidney disease.

He says that he fails to understand what more information we could possibly be expected to provide and asks on our behalf what other information they require.

18.2.08
Email to CO pointing out they have still not answered a very simple question (when is the MA back).
Send final letter from the Diabetologist in support of our application, where he confirms he IS qualified to report. The letter also confirms again the favourable prognosis.
Also enclosed: letter from NZ GP and a spreadsheet of test results.
Ask that they read the letters from the Doctors before sending them on.
Ask for confirmation of actions taken in response to this letter.

19.2.09 (oops – did you mean to do this?)
Internal Email from CO to FRT comes to us in error saying, “ Do we just tell them their comments have been read and filed”. The CO tried to recall this email!

19.2.09
The actual email that we were sent.
Again says they are not medical professionals and will wait for the MA
[note: funny how once more they cannot read and understand a clear letter – except when they need to do so in order to prove to the MP’s office that information we have provided is “scant”]
Re-iterates that the information will not be referred urgently as we are not important enough.
Claims once more that we have asked “a few times” for extra time to provide medical info.
Notes rather snottily that it has taken over 2 months to provide information he asked for on the 16th December.
Asks us to confirm that this is the last info we will be sending, and that sending it in piecemeal is not helping.

20.2.09
Email to CO, FRT and Branch Manager
Confirming that we know of no further info outstanding.
Point out that the Requested info was sent back in the timescales provided – by 16th January.
Point out that CO Refused to forward this to the MA.
Point out that the extra tests were not requested by the MA.
Point out that we only found out about this on the 13th January, and that the CO had the results by the 30th January.
Point out that had the MA actually done his job properly and requested these on the 17th December – CO would have had them by the 16th January.
Point at that had CO used his experience as a CO to advise us in July August that we needed to supply these results – he would have had them months ago.
Point out that we had already told CO that we did not know we would have these 2 extra letters.
Point out that we organised them in case we needed a second opinion if the MA kept refusing to accept the results and do his job properly.
Point out that CO refused to help us clear this matter up in September and he should take responsibility for this.
Point out that as the MA is away – it hurts no one to add the extra information to the file – and if CO is unhappy about this – he should have done as we asked in September and clarified things with the MA.
Ask CO to refrain from continuing to make assumptions about our actions. We needed them to read the letter as FRT raised several concerns about the qualifications of the specialists (being a layperson and all), and also needed to made aware that despite her pointed comments – its is not My opinion – but an opinion backed up by qualified doctors and specialists.
Point out that CO keeps lying about the delays being caused by us asking for extensions, and asking him to pack it in.

20.2.09
Email from CO saying that the information has been forwarded to the MA. (who funnily enough shouldnt even be there according to the CO

20.2.09
Email from FRT: asking us to trust them, and talking about sending information in in bits.
Doesn’t answer any of our concerns, or comment on the fact that CO has once again lied.
We did not even bother to respond to such a ridiculous email.