Immigration Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Residence Application

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207448 [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] 22 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ [APPELLANT] ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 31-year-old citizen of India, whose application for [APPELLANT] under the [APPELLANT] ([NAME]: Straight to [APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s [APPELLANT] application because it was not satisfied that his employment was a substantial match to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) occupation of [NAME]. [3] The principal issues for the Tribunal are whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct and, if so, whether the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government [APPELLANT] instructions.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application and that the appellant does not have special circumstances.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is an Indian citizen, and his parents remain living in India. [6] In June 2019, the appellant arrived in New Zealand as the holder of a student visa. He was granted successive student visas and completed his Bachelor of [NAME] (Level 7) from a [NAME], which was awarded in June 2022. In April 2022, the appellant was granted a two-year post-study open work visa. [APPELLANT] [7] On 30 October 2024, the appellant made an online application under the [APPELLANT] ([NAME]: Straight to [APPELLANT]) category of [APPELLANT] instructions. The applicable instructions for the [APPELLANT] ([NAME]: Straight to [APPELLANT]) category specify that the appellant must meet a number of requirements for [APPELLANT], including having acceptable employment in a Tier 1 [NAME] occupation and meeting character requirements (SR4.5). [8] The appellant’s application was based on his employment as an “HVAC (heating, ventilation and air conditioning) and [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]” with a company that installed heat pumps and [NAME] units to residential and commercial customers. He claimed that this employment was a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME]. His individual employment agreement (July 2024) indicated that this was a full-time role and he would be paid $34 per hour. [9] In December 2024 and January 2025, Immigration New Zealand corresponded with the appellant’s then counsel about the issue of the appellant’s character, given that he had declared a charge of driving while disqualified and a charge of failing to provide information. Relevant information was provided by his then counsel, both with his application and in response to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns. Immigration New Zealand records indicate that the appellant was granted a character waiver on 15 January 2025.

3 [10] On 12 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand interviewed the appellant. He answered questions about his role and tasks. [11] On 13 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant of its concerns that his employment did not appear to be a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME]. It recorded the tasks that he completed in his role, as set out in his job description and as explained by him during his interview. However, he was not working to support an [NAME] or technologist, nor was he conducting tests on [NAME] systems and preparing charts and tabulations. It was therefore not satisfied that his employment was a substantial match to the claimed ANZSCO occupation. It considered that his employment was more of a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME]. However, as that occupation was not on the [NAME], it was not satisfied that he held a role or offer of employment that was listed on Tier 1 of Appendix 13 – [NAME], as required by the Straight to [APPELLANT] instructions. [12] On 20 May 2025, the appellant’s newly appointed representative responded to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns contesting Immigration New Zealand’s assessment and provided a letter from the appellant explaining how he completed the relevant ANZSCO tasks. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [13] On 9 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application because his employment was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] (SR4.10). STATUTORY GROUNDS [14] 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 [APPELLANT] 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 [APPELLANT] instructions should be recommended.

4 [15] The [APPELLANT] instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government [APPELLANT] instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [16] On 28 June 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on both grounds in section 187(4) of the Act. [17] On appeal, the representative makes submissions (26 July 2025), and, as well as copies of documents already on the Immigration New Zealand file, provides a statement (25 July 2025) from the appellant explaining his tertiary study and qualifications as well as past work experience, and a copy of his curriculum vitae. [18] 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). [19] However, while the appellant’s curriculum vitae is not on the Immigration New Zealand file, its electronic records show that it was provided to Immigration New Zealand during the processing of his application. The statement from the appellant is in the nature of the submissions. Therefore, no issues regarding the admissibility of those two documents are raised. [20] The appellant also provided a brief statement (19 May 2026) in response to the Tribunal’s query about his recent conviction as recorded on his New Zealand conviction history report. ASSESSMENT [21] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal, the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s [APPELLANT] application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [22] An assessment as to whether the Immigration New Zealand decision to decline the appellant’s application was correct in terms of the applicable [APPELLANT] instructions is set out below. This is followed by an assessment of whether the

5 appellant has special circumstances that warrant consideration of an exception by the Minister of Immigration. Whether the Decision is Correct [23] The application was made on 30 October 2024 and the relevant criteria are those in [APPELLANT] instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application because his employment was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME]. Relevant instructions [24] Instruction SR4.5.b.i (effective 28 February 2024) requires that applicants must, among other requirements, meet the acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 [NAME] role, as set out at SR4.10. Tier 1 [NAME] roles are found at Appendix 13 of the Operations Manual, where the eligible occupations are listed alongside the qualifications and/or registration requirements necessary to demonstrate acceptable employment under SR4.10 (as relevant to the appellant, effective 10 June 2024). The appellant met the qualification requirements. [25] Where an occupation, such as [NAME], does not require occupational registration, Immigration New Zealand may be required to assess whether an applicant’s employment matches the [NAME] occupation by undertaking a substantial match assessment based on the ANZSCO. These requirements are stated at SR4.10.a and d: SR4.10 Acceptable employment in a Tier 1 [NAME] role a. Acceptable employment in a Tier 1 [NAME] occupation is employment where the immigration officer is satisfied that: i. the principal applicant holds [NAME] employment or an offer of employment for an occupation listed in Tier 1 of Appendix 13; and ii. the requirements of that occupation specified in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 are met; and … d. For roles that do not require occupational registration, an immigration officer may be required to assess whether the employment matches the [NAME] occupation. In determining whether employment is for a role on the [NAME] an immigration officer may undertake a substantial match assessment (see SR2.1.1). Notes: - …

6 - For the purposes of undertaking a substantial match assessment, immigration officers must make an assessment based on Version 1.2 of the ANZSCO is available at www.immigration.govt.nz/anzsco. Effective 28/02/2024 [26] Instruction SR2.1.1.b and .c state that a substantial match assessment involves a determination of whether an applicant’s employment is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation description: SR2.1.1 Substantial match … 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 [COMPANY] (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. … Effective 09/10/2023 ANZSCO occupation [27] The ANZSCO occupation of an [NAME] (6-digit code 312312) (at version 1.2) is described as someone who “[c]onducts tests of [NAME] systems, prepares charts and tabulations, and assists in estimating costs in support of [NAME]. Registration or licensing may be required”. The alternative title is [NAME] [NAME] [NAME]. Specialisations include [NAME] and [NAME]. The occupation sits under the [COMPANY] 3123 of [NAME] [NAME], which are occupations that “assist in [NAME] [NAME] research, design, manufacture, assembly, construction, operation and maintenance of equipment, facilities and distribution systems.” [28] The core tasks within the [COMPANY] include: • preparing drawings, plans and diagrams of [NAME] installations and circuitry • assisting [NAME] in design and layout of [NAME] installations and circuitry on substations, switchgear, cabling systems and motor control systems

7 • collecting data, performing tests and complex calculations, graphing results, and preparing charts and tabulations • estimating materials costs and quantities • inspecting designs and finished products for compliance with specifications and regulations • assembling, installing, testing, calibrating, modifying and repairing [NAME] equipment and installations to conform with regulations and safety requirements • undertaking [NAME] workshop functions such as installing assemblies for protection relays, metering and indicating devices • assisting with research and experimentation programs Information and submissions about the appellant’s role [29] The appellant was employed as an “[NAME] [NAME]” with a company that installed heat pumps and [NAME] units to residential and commercial customers. The purpose of his role and his main task, as set out in his job description attached to his individual employment agreement, was to perform work related to the installation, repair, maintenance, service, and troubleshooting of the operation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and [NAME] and control systems. In order to do so, additional tasks set out in his job description were to develop and maintain collaborative relationship with key clients; maintain appropriate service and repair records; undertake follow-up purchases and inventories of equipment parts, chemicals and other supplies; and respond to routine and emergency calls for repairs and service. [30] In addition to the job description, the appellant provided information about his role in his interview, where he explained that the company installed and maintained (including repair, testing and troubleshooting) for HVAC systems. He explained he mostly undertook residential work, although sometimes was involved in commercial work. His role was to check on the HVAC system, diagnose the fault, order the relevant parts, install the parts, complete invoices for the billing, and report back to his manager at the end of the day. Sometimes he was given installation work. For residential installations, he discussed requirements with the client, took photographs of the site for the office, who then prepared the quote for the customer. If the quote was accepted, the appellant would return to do the work. New installations sometimes involved design work to ensure that the units were placed in the appropriate location. For commercial sites, he would get the drawing sheets from the client company, check the proper location was indicated, and install the units.

8 [31] The appellant and his representative also provided information about how the appellant’s role fit within the ANZSCO description and core tasks in the response to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns. In particular, his representative argued that Immigration New Zealand’s assessment had overlooked the [NAME] scope of the appellant’s work, which involved more than the installation, maintenance and repair of HVAC systems envisaged by the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] (ANZSCO code 342111) (the alternative occupation referred to by Immigration New Zealand). Specifically, the appellant and his representative highlighted that the appellant’s role involved designing [NAME] systems, particularly for commercial sites, preparing [NAME] drawings for commercial properties and installing [NAME] equipment. The representative submitted that these were core tasks for the appellant, which matched those of an [NAME], even if the appellant occasionally performed other duties unrelated to that occupation. The appellant provided a revised list of the job duties he undertook. [32] On appeal, the representative reiterates these arguments, submitting that the appellant’s employer required a person skilled in the tasks of an [NAME] because of the nature of the work with advanced HVAC systems, which were heavily reliant on complex [NAME] systems and electronic controls. Not a substantial match to [NAME] [33] The Tribunal finds that the context of the appellant’s employer’s business, and the nature of his role, which was focused on working with HVAC systems, was not the context envisaged by the ANZSCO description for an [NAME]. The ANZSCO 6-digit description for the occupation makes it clear that the role is a [NAME] one, supporting [NAME] by conducting tests of [NAME] systems, preparing charts and tabulations and estimating costs. The specialisations envisaged by the occupation, [NAME] and [NAME], confirm the parameters of the ANZSCO occupation. The broader [COMPANY] description highlights further the context of the occupation, one of two occupations in the [COMPANY], to “assist in [NAME] [NAME] research, design, manufacture, assembly, construction, operation and maintenance of equipment, facilities and distribution systems.” While the appellant may have undertaken some of the general tasks associated with the occupation in his role in installing, maintaining and servicing HVAC units, this was not the context in which an

9 [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] worked. The appellant’s employment could not be said to have met the ANZSCO description for an [NAME] because his role was not a [NAME] one supporting [NAME]. [34] The representative argues on appeal that Immigration New Zealand acted unfairly because it did not advise the appellant that an interview would be conducted or that what he said would be used in its assessment. The representative also argues that the appellant was not given an opportunity to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns and that Immigration New Zealand did not properly consider the evidence of the appellant’s role. [35] The Tribunal does not accept that there was any procedural unfairness in Immigration New Zealand’s decision making. The appellant was advised of the purpose of the interview, which was arranged in advance with his former counsel. The appellant was given an opportunity to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns, which were clearly explained in its letter of 13 May 2025, to which the [NAME] representative responded. Immigration New Zealand provided the appellant with an opportunity to comment on its concerns, after the interview, and the Tribunal is satisfied that Immigration New Zealand considered all the evidence provided by the appellant in its assessment of his role. [36] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision that the appellant’s employment was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] was correct and fairly made. As a result, the appellant did not meet the acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 [NAME] role, as set out at SR4.10. Alternative ANZSCO occupation [37] Immigration New Zealand’s assessment that the appellant’s role was a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME] (ANZSCO code 342111) was correct and confirmed its position that the appellant’s role did not meet the occupation of [NAME]. The ANZSCO description for the occupation of [NAME] is someone who “assembles, installs, maintains and repairs industrial, commercial and domestic [NAME] and [NAME] systems and equipment. Registration or licensing may be required.” This is a Skill Level 3 occupation. The core tasks associated with the [COMPANY] (and occupation) are:

10 • establishing job requirements from drawings and specifications, and laying out installation reference points • drilling holes, installing mounting brackets and cutting, bending and threading piping • installing and repairing components such as compressors, motors, condensers, evaporators, switches and gauges, and copper lines for steam, gas, refrigerant, compressed air, oil and chilled water • bolting, soldering, riveting, welding and brazing pipes to connect equipment, and checking alignment and accuracy of fit • filling systems with gas or fluid to check for leaks • test-operating [NAME] systems, checking mechanisms and making adjustments • removing test gas and fluid using vacuum pumps, and filling with refrigerant • checking and overhauling [NAME] systems, diagnosing faults and repairing and replacing defective components • adjusting system controls and mechanisms and reassembling systems • recording causes of malfunctioning and action taken [38] Although these specific tasks are not outlined in this amount of detail in the appellant’s job description, they form the basis of his main task, which was to perform work related to the installation, repair, maintenance, service, and troubleshooting of the operation of heating, ventilation, air conditioning and [NAME] and control systems. [39] The appellant’s representative highlighted the appellant’s role in designing [NAME] systems, particularly for commercial sites, preparing [NAME] drawings for commercial properties and installing [NAME] equipment. However, there was little evidence of this aspect of the appellant’s role presented, and it was not highlighted in his job description. From the evidence that the appellant gave in his interview, it appeared that he sometimes had more of a role in the design of where HVAC units would be installed, which may have required [NAME] [NAME] skills over and above those anticipated by the occupation. However, the Tribunal is satisfied that his employment was a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME]. [40] However, that occupation is not one listed in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 – [NAME] of instructions and as a result, did not enable the appellant to meet the acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 [NAME] role, as set out at SR4.10.

11 Conclusion on correctness [41] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for [APPELLANT] was correct. His employment was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME], and he did not demonstrate that he met the acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 [NAME] role, as set out at SR4.10. Whether there are Special Circumstances [42] Where the Tribunal found the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct, it has the power to consider whether the circumstances of the appellant are special, such that they warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to the [APPELLANT] instructions. [43] Whether an appellant has special circumstances will depend on the particular facts of each case. The Tribunal balances all relevant factors in each case to determine whether the appellant's circumstances, when considered cumulatively, are special. [44] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. Personal and family circumstances [45] The appellant is a 31-year-old citizen of India. [46] The appellant’s parents remain living in India. There are no details of their circumstances either presented on appeal or on Immigration New Zealand’s file, except a mention by the appellant’s former counsel (in a letter dated October 2024 submitted with the application) that, at that time the appellant’s father was in poor health, having had operations on his spine in 2021 and 2022. The appellant was then helping to support his parents financially, including repaying a loan taken out in 2018 for the purposes of his studies. [47] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in June 2019 as the holder of a student visa. He held successive student visas. In April 2022, the appellant was granted a two-year post-study open work visa. Since that time, the appellant has held an interim visa and was granted an accredited employer work visa, valid for

12 five years from May 2025. The appellant has not left New Zealand since his arrival here. Qualifications and work experience [48] The appellant explains on appeal that he completed a diploma in [NAME] [NAME] overseas but wished to further his qualifications. After he came to New Zealand, he completed his Bachelor of [NAME] (Level 7) from a [NAME], which was awarded in June 2022. His curriculum vitae indicates that he holds a number of specialised training certificates, including in [NAME] [NAME], and that he also holds a trainee electrician license in New Zealand through the [NAME] Workers Registration Board (EWRB) as well. He has work experience in a variety of roles, both in India and New Zealand, including as a machine operator, electrician and [NAME] trade/service assistant. He began his present role as an [NAME] [NAME] with a company that installed heat pumps and [NAME] units to residential and commercial customers in July 2024. Settlement in, and contribution to, New Zealand [49] There is limited information on file about the appellant’s settlement in New Zealand, but the Tribunal accepts that, after over seven years here, he will be settled here and have made friends and other connections. Letters (dated 2022 and 2023) on the Immigration New Zealand file from the [COMPANY] and the [COMPANY] indicates that he is a valued member of those communities, to which he has contributed. Pathways to [APPELLANT] [50] The appellant’s application for [APPELLANT] under the [APPELLANT] ([NAME]: Straight to [APPELLANT]) category of [APPELLANT] instructions was declined because his [NAME] employment did not substantially match the ANZSCO occupation he selected. However, a failure to meet [APPELLANT] instructions is not, in itself, out of the ordinary. Further, the appellant currently holds an accredited employer work visa, valid for five years from May 2025. He therefore has time to seek legal advice about whether he may have any other opportunities to make a further application for [APPELLANT].

13 Health and character requirements [51] Immigration New Zealand’s assessment of the appellant’s [APPELLANT] application indicated that it was satisfied that he was of an acceptable standard of health. [52] The appellant’s Indian police certificate (December 2018), which appears on the files, is clear. The Tribunal notes that the appellant was granted a character waiver by Immigration New Zealand, in January 2025, during the processing of his [APPELLANT] application. His character was at issue because he had two convictions from 2022 and 2023. The appellant’s New Zealand conviction history report (14 May 2025) records that for the 2022 conviction for failing to provide information, he was fined $800 plus court costs of $130. For the 2023 conviction, of driving while disqualified, he was fined $500, plus court costs of $130, and disqualified from driving for seven months. His then counsel provided submissions in relation to those convictions and also relating to a discharge without conviction for other driving related charges relating to offending in 2023. Counsel highlighted the number of courses the appellant had taken as part of his rehabilitation. [53] However, the appellant’s New Zealand conviction history report (14 May 2026), obtained by the Tribunal, indicates that since his initial offending, the appellant has been convicted (on 9 March 2026) for an offence of driving with excess blood alcohol content (blood/breath = 173) on 19 July 2025. The appellant was sentenced to 100 hours of [NAME], a fine of $800, and had to pay analyst fees of $365 and court costs of $130. In his statement on appeal, the appellant explains that he was returning home from work one evening when he was stopped by police. He indicates that he was depressed because of family problems. He was advised by the duty lawyer to plead guilty and then apply to not lose his licence, which he needed for work. He says that, as a result, he was sentenced to [NAME] instead of being disqualified from driving. He indicates that he has begun some rehabilitation courses, such as defensive driving and alcohol counselling, although no evidence of this is provided. He explains that it was a very hard time for him and he has stopped drinking and started to focus on his work and his future. [54] The Tribunal considers that the appellant’s recent conviction, involving driving with excess blood alcohol content several times over the legal limit, is a significant escalation in offending from his prior convictions for failing to provide information and driving while disqualified. This is especially so considering the

14 rehabilitation courses that he undertook after his initial offending. The Tribunal accepts that the appellant is remorseful and regretful about his actions. However, the appellant’s character will remain at issue should he make any further applications for visas, whether temporary or [APPELLANT], and the recent offending is treated as a negative factor in this assessment of special circumstances. Discussion on special circumstances [55] The appellant has lived, studied and worked in New Zealand for just over seven years. It is accepted that he will be settled here and that he has made friends and other connections through his study, employment and connections with the Sikh communities. He has made modest contributions through employment and to his respective community groups, although is recent conviction is a negative factor to consider. However, there is nothing out of the ordinary about his settlement in, or contribution, to New Zealand. [56] The appellant’s family nexus remains to India, where his parents reside. It is accepted that he came to New Zealand to complete a qualification and hoped to settle here more permanently in time, so as to continue to support his parents. The appellant has a [NAME] work visa that remains valid for a further four years, until May 2030. He therefore has time to seek advice as to whether there are any other options available to him to remain in New Zealand more permanently after that time. Conclusion on special circumstances [57] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant, the Tribunal finds that considered both individually and cumulatively, the appellant does not have special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to [APPELLANT] instructions. DETERMINATION [58] This appeal is determined pursuant to section 188(1)(a) of the Act. The Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to decline the appellant's application for [APPELLANT] as correct in terms of the applicable [APPELLANT] instructions. The Tribunal does not consider that the appellant has special circumstances that warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions under section 188(1)(f) of the Act.

15 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [59] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [60] 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] Member