Immigration Decision Overturned for Procedural Flaws

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207490 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 27 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a [NAME] whose application for residence under the Skilled Residence ([APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because it assessed her skilled employment as not substantially consistent with any occupation in the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO). [3] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether Immigration New Zealand properly and fairly assessed the application. [4] For the reasons outlined below, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand did not consider all relevant information and in doing so prejudiced the appellant’s application. As such, the Tribunal cannot be confident that Immigration New Zealand determined the application correctly. The Tribunal

2 therefore cancels the decision and refers the application back to Immigration New Zealand for a correct assessment.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is a Chinese citizen. She holds bachelor’s and master’s degrees in early childhood [NAME] from two Chinese universities. She additionally attained a Master of Arts degree in [NAME] policy from a university in the United States. [6] The appellant commenced a [COMPANY]’s doctorate programme in August 2020 from offshore due to COVID-19 travel restrictions. She arrived in New Zealand in May 2022, and completed her studies in November 2024. She was awarded a Doctor of Philosophy degree in [NAME] in May 2025. [7] When she had completed her studies, the appellant commenced employment as an ethics adviser at the University. Residence Application [8] On 16 January 2025, the appellant made an online application under the Skilled Residence ([APPELLANT]) category of residence instructions based on her role as ethics adviser. To be granted residence under this category, a principal applicant must have skilled employment in an occupation with a specified renumeration and listed at a particular ANZSCO skill level. Immigration New Zealand’s Concerns and Appellant’s Responses [9] By letter dated 14 February 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant noting that her police clearance certificate had expired, and her skilled employment was not substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation she had claimed (code 249111 – [NAME]). [10] The appellant responded on 19 February 2025 noting that her police clearance certificate from China was valid (it had been issued on 30 July 2024 and the application was made on 16 January 2025, therefore within the required six months). Regardless, she provided an additional clear police certificate from China (17 February 2025). She also now considered the ANZSCO occupation

3 [NAME] Administrator (code 511112) more aligned with her role as ethics adviser. A comparison table was provided aligning the ANZSCO occupation [NAME] Administrator with the appellant’s role. [11] Immigration New Zealand wrote again on 7 March 2025 finding that the appellant’s role was not substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation [NAME] Administrator. This was primarily because her role required her to advise applicants to the University’s Ethics Committee to improve the quality of their submissions. In contrast, a [NAME] or Project Administrator plans and undertakes administration of organisational programmes, special projects and support services. It therefore assessed the appellant’s role as not meeting any ANZSCO occupation. [12] The [NAME] responded on 20 March providing the comparison table again and including a support letter from the University’s associate director stating that the position was highly skilled. [13] Immigration New Zealand responded on 1 May 2025, recording that it had not undertaken a substantial match assessment however retained concerns that the role was not substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] (code 249111). It also noted that the ANZSCO occupation [NAME] or Project Administrator (code 511112) had been claimed as substantially consistent. [14] The immigration officer noted that they had attempted to consider the appellant’s role under the eight major unit groups but could not find it substantially consistent with any of them. It summarised the appellant’s role as “providing ethical advice to the university students in multiple situations” and applied the summarised definition in its assessment, as follows: (a) Managers ([COMPANY]). This unit group organises and controls various organisations which differs from the appellant’s role in providing ethical advice to students in multiple situations. (b) [NAME] ([COMPANY]). This unit group performs various tasks through the application of theoretical knowledge as specialists in the specified fields of arts, business, engineering, [NAME], health, ICT and legal. It was accepted that the appellant did provide advice through the application of her knowledge in ethics, however she did so not in any of the specified fields. Whilst it was accepted

4 that the appellant was employed within the university which was related to [NAME], it found the field of ethics did not match the field of [NAME] itself. (c) [NAME] ([COMPANY]). This unit group assist [NAME] through clerical duties. In contrast the appellant did not assist [NAME], rather the whole organisation being the University, and she did not carry out clerical duties as a substantive part of her employment was rather to provide advice to university students. [15] Immigration New Zealand also considered the appellant’s role in respect of the remaining Major Groups (Technicians and Trade Workers, Community and Personal Service Workers, Sales Workers, Machinery Operators and Drivers and Labourers) and found that the appellant’s occupation did not meet the description of any of those groups. [16] As Immigration New Zealand assessed the appellant’s role as having no ANZSCO occupation equivalent, her salary was required to be at least 1.5 times the median wage being $47.41 per hour (SR3.10.b.ii). The appellant however was earning only $36.92 per hour and therefore did not meet instruction for skilled employment. [17] The representative responded on 14 May 2025 providing an updated position description and further information regarding the appellant’s role. Letters of support were included from chairs of the relevant committees. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [18] By letter of 26 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application on the basis that her skilled employment was not substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation claimed. It assessed her role as not being substantially consistent with any ANZSCO occupation and her remuneration as less than the required amount (SR3.10.b.ii, SR3.20.1.a and SR3.20.a.ii). Therefore, she did not meet instruction for the grant of a resident visa under the Skilled Residence ([APPELLANT]) category of instructions.

5 STATUTORY GROUNDS [19] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 187(4) of the Act provides: (4) The grounds for an appeal under this section are that— (a) the relevant decision was not correct in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the relevant application for the visa was made; or (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [20] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [21] On 26 June 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on both grounds in section 187(4). The representative submits that Immigration New Zealand was wrong as it made factual errors, undertook a holistic assessment rather than a specific assessment, and did not consider all the information available to it. In the alternative, the appellant’s circumstances are special. [22] In support of her appeal, the appellant provided the following documents that had not already been provided to Immigration New Zealand: (a) Evidence of the appellant’s involvement in fundraising as a student association member in 2023. (b) A statement (4 August 2025) confirming the appellant’s volunteering work in 2023 at a kindergarten. (c) Evidence of the appellant volunteering for a choir competition in 2024. (d) Evidence of the appellant volunteer fundraising for [NAME].

6 [23] The Tribunal cannot consider further information provided by an appellant that was not before Immigration New Zealand at the time that it made its decision to decline the application (section 189(1) of the Act). As such, the appellant’s evidence regarding her volunteering is not considered by the Tribunal in its assessment of the correctness of Immigration New Zealand’s decision. ASSESSMENT [24] The Tribunal has considered the submissions provided on appeal and the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [25] An assessment as to whether the Immigration New Zealand decision to decline the appellant’s application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions is set out below. Whether the Decision is Correct [26] The application was made on 16 January 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant’s occupation had not been assessed as substantially consistent with an ANZSCO occupation with a skill level 1 to 3, nor was it assessed as meeting the required remuneration threshold. [27] The relevant instructions in this case are: SR3.10 Summary of requirements … b. In addition, the principal applicant must: … ii. meet the skilled employment requirements (see SR3.20), including holding current employment or an offer of employment in New Zealand with an [NAME] (see WA2) which pays at least the equivalent of: ○ the median wage (currently $31.61 per hour) if their occupation is listed at ANZSCO skill level 1-3; or ○ 1.5 times the median wage (currently $47.41 per hour) if their occupation is listed at ANZSCO skill level 4-5, or not included in ANZSCO; and

7 iii. qualify for the 6 points, from: ○ one skill category (income, qualification, or New Zealand registration, see SR3.25); or ○ a combination of one skill category and their skilled work experience in New Zealand (see SR3.35). c. Despite R5.7, where the [APPELLANT] instructions under SR2 refer to ANZSCO, any assessment must be based on the immigration view of version 1.3 of the ANZSCO. … Effective 28/02/2024 [28] In determining whether an applicant’s employment met the skilled employment requirements (SR3.20) referred to at SR3.10.b.ii, instruction SR3.20.1 states as follows: SR3.20.1 Determining skilled employment In determining the ANZSCO skill level of an applicant’s employment or offer of employment, an immigration officer: a. will determine whether the applicant’s employment is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation (6-digit) level job title and description for that occupation; and b. may undertake a substantial match assessment (see SR2.1.1) and/or a suitably qualified assessment (see SR3.20.5). Effective 28/02/2024 [29] A substantial match assessment is described in SR2.1.1 as follows: SR2.1 Assessment of employment SR2.1.1 Substantial match a. An immigration officer may undertake a substantial match assessment to determine whether the applicant’s employment or offer of employment is listed at a specific ANZSCO level or in a specific occupation listed in the ANZSCO. b. The assessment of a substantial match involves a determination of whether the applicant’s employment is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO Occupation (6-digit) level description for that occupation and with the tasks listed at the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) level description for that occupational group, excluding any tasks which are not relevant to the Occupation description. c. To be considered a substantial match to an occupation, the tasks relevant to the ANZSCO occupation description must comprise most of the applicant’s role. Notes: Where no description is stated at the ANZSCO occupation (6-digit) level, an immigration officer should refer to the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) description or the higher ANZSCO group (3-digit or 2-digit) level as necessary to determine a substantial match with the stated occupation. Similarly, where no ANZSCO core

8 tasks are listed at the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) level, an immigration officer should refer to a higher ANZSCO group (3-digit or 2-digit) level as necessary to locate the core tasks that ANZSCO associates with the stated occupation. Determining whether an applicant’s employment substantially matches an ANZSCO occupation description may require consideration of the scope and scale of the employer’s organisation and operation (the size of the operation, the number of staff and managers, and whether management functions are centralised at a head office or undertaken by other managers). Effective 09/10/2023 [30] Immigration instructions also provide that when determining an application, Immigration New Zealand is required to act in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice (A1.5, effective 29 November 2010). This includes considering all known relevant information, giving the application proper consideration and providing a reasonable opportunity to respond to prejudicial information, as well as providing appropriate reasons for declining an application. [31] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was incorrect for the following reasons. ANZSCO occupation: [NAME] Administrator [32] It is submitted that the appellant’s role is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] Administrator (code 511112). This is a skill level 2 occupation and is defined as: Plans and undertakes administration of organisational programs, special projects and support services. [33] The tasks outlined in the overarching unit group Contract, [NAME] Administrators are as follows: • developing, reviewing and negotiating variations to contracts, programs, projects and services; • responding to inquiries and resolving problems concerning contracts, programs, projects, services provided, and persons affected; • managing paperwork associated with contracts, programs, projects and services provided; • working with Project Managers, Architects, [NAME], [NAME] and others to ensure that goals are met; • advising senior management on matters requiring attention and implementing their decisions; • overseeing work by contractors and reporting on variations to work orders;

9 • preparing and reviewing submissions and reports concerning the organisation's activities; collecting and analysing data associated with projects undertaken, and reporting on project outcomes; and • reviewing and arranging new office accommodation. [34] The representative submits that the appellant’s role is substantially consistent with the overarching definition as she is required to review research projects to ensure ethics requirements are met, people are protected and the benefits of participating in research projects are obtained. [35] It is further submitted that the tasks of a [NAME] Administrator, with the exception of the core task of overseeing work by contractors and reporting on variations to work orders, comprise most of the appellant’s role. Specifically, she is required to review variations to services; respond to inquiries and resolve problems concerning programs, services provided, and persons affected; manage paperwork; work with [NAME] and others to ensure that goals are met; advise senior management; prepare and review submissions and reports concerning the organisation’s activities; and collect and analyse data. [36] Furthermore, the representative submits that Immigration New Zealand did not acknowledge the extensive administrative duties the appellant undertakes, nor that her advice was not limited to students as she also advised a range of [NAME]. Immigration New Zealand’s assessment [37] Immigration New Zealand did not undertake a substantial match assessment itself (SR3.20.1.b), instead determining the employment was not substantially consistent with any ANZSCO occupation. It considered the overarching definition (plans and undertakes administration of organisational programs, special projects and support services) was not met in the appellant’s role as she was not involved in the university’s programs, special projects or support services. [38] The [NAME] is concerned that Immigration New Zealand did not properly assess the appellant’s updated position description which was provided to it on 14 May 2025. Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records note that the assessment that followed the receipt of the updated position description, being the final assessment, was undertaken on 24 June 2025. Within this assessment, Immigration New Zealand recorded that the position description

10 provided with the original application had been provided again on 15 May 2025. This was incorrect. [39] The updated position description provided considerably more detail and explanation of the appellant’s role. As such, it supplied more information which required assessment against the tasks and definition of a [NAME] Administrator. Given Immigration New Zealand makes no reference to the updated position description in its records, nor does it reference an assessment of the updated position description, the Tribunal is not satisfied that it considered the relevant document. [40] Failing to consider a pertinent document such as the updated position description is, the Tribunal finds, a breach of Immigration New Zealand’s fairness requirements, specifically, the requirement to consider all relevant information (A1.5.a). The Tribunal notes however that a breach of A1.5 by Immigration New Zealand will only render a decision incorrect if it has caused prejudice to the applicant (AB (Victims of People Trafficking) [2018] NZIPT 204216 at [60]). [41] In this instance, the Tribunal is satisfied that Immigration New Zealand’s actions have caused the appellant prejudice. The updated position description elaborates upon whom the appellant provides advice to and includes detail on the governance and compliance aspects of the role in both internal and external regulatory contexts. It details more responsibility than the first position description and clarifies the breadth and complexity of the role. It also records that the appellant provides advice across a range of disciplines in the areas of arts, business, engineering, [NAME]. [42] The tasks of a Contract, [NAME] Administrator (unit group 5111) revolve around the ongoing work required for organisational programs, special projects and support services. The tasks included in the appellant’s position description are with regard to the administration of the university’s ethics programme being an organisational programme or service. [43] Both roles involve coordinating organisational processes, engaging with stakeholders, and ensuring that programmes or policies are implemented in accordance with organisational requirements. They also both involve the management of information, coordination of activities, preparation of reports, and the provision of organisational support within structured operational frameworks. As such, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are sufficient similarities that

11 Immigration New Zealand should reassess, with this updated information, whether the roles are substantially consistent. [44] The Tribunal notes that whilst an immigration officer is not required to undertake a substantial match assessment (SR3.20.1.b), where the representative specifically provides the detail required to undertake such an assessment, and where material inconsistency between the occupations is not immediately obvious, the need for such an assessment may become apparent, as it has here. [45] In summary, Immigration New Zealand does not appear to have considered the fundamental document that outlines the tasks and responsibilities of the appellant’s role. That it did not consider this document indicates that it was not in a position to clearly assess whether or not the appellant’s role was substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] Administrator (511112). This was prejudicial to the appellant’s application, as had Immigration New Zealand done so, it may have been in a position to assess the roles as substantially consistent. [46] For completeness, the Tribunal observes that Immigration New Zealand’s summary of the appellant’s role as “providing ethical advice to the university students in multiple situations” does not appear to accurately capture the depth and breadth of her role. [47] For these reasons, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s procedural error in failing to consider all the relevant documents prejudiced the determination of the appellant’s application. Conclusion on correctness [48] For the reasons discussed above, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand was incorrect to decline the appellant’s application. It failed to consider the appellant’s updated position description (A1.5.a). This prejudiced the appellant’s application as Immigration New Zealand was then not in a position to properly assess whether or not her role as ethics adviser was substantially consistent with an ANZSCO occupation, (SR3.20.1.a) with a requisite skill level (SR3.10.b.ii). As such, the Tribunal is not confident that the application was determined correctly.

For these reasons, the application is returned to Immigration New Zealand for a new assessment.

12 DETERMINATION [49] This appeal is determined pursuant to section 188(1)(e) of the Immigration Act 2009. The Tribunal considers the decision to refuse the visa was made on the basis of an incorrect assessment in terms of the applicable residence instructions. However, the Tribunal is not satisfied the appellant would, but for that incorrect assessment, have been entitled in terms of those instructions to the immediate grant of a visa. [50] The Tribunal therefore cancels the decision of Immigration New Zealand. The appellant’s application is referred back to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for a correct assessment by Immigration New Zealand in terms of the applicable residence instructions, in accordance with the directions set out below. Directions [51] It should be noted that while these directions must be followed by Immigration New Zealand, they are not intended to be exhaustive and there may be other aspects of the application which require further investigation, remain to be completed or require updating.

1. The application is to be reassessed by an Immigration New Zealand officer not previously associated with the application in accordance with the instructions in existence at the date the residence application was made. No further lodgement fee is payable.

2. Immigration New Zealand should invite the appellant to provide any new evidence in respect of her application and then proceed to assess her eligibility for skilled employment with particular reference to paragraphs [38]–[48] of the decision, specifically paragraphs [41] to [43].

3. If, at any stage, Immigration New Zealand holds any prejudicial concerns, it should disclose such concerns in clear and concise terms with reasons to the appellant, and provide a reasonable opportunity for the appellant to comment.

4. Immigration New Zealand should then proceed to consider whether the appellant meets the remaining requirements of the Skilled Residence ([APPELLANT]) category.

13 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] [52] The appellant is to understand that the success of this appeal does not guarantee that her application will be successful, only that it will be subject to reassessment by Immigration New Zealand. [53] The appeal is successful in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [54] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the research copy of this decision is to be depersonalised by removal of the appellant’s name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. “[NAME]” [NAME]