Residence Application for Skilled Migrant Rejected by Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207467 [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 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 45-[NAME]-old citizen of Pakistan residing in Saudi Arabia. His residence application made under the [APPELLANT] category, which included his [NAME] and their children aged 9, 12 and 13 years (who are also citizens of Pakistan residing in Saudi Arabia), was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application because, on the expiry of the 12-month deferral period it had granted him, he did not produce evidence showing that he had obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand. The Tribunal finds that this decision to decline was correct. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances, arising from factors including his potential contribution to New Zealand, such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal finds that the appellant’s circumstances are not special.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant and his family are currently living together in Saudi Arabia. Application for Residence [5] On 16 March 2023, the appellant made his residence application under the [APPELLANT] category. He has a history of working in computer networking and systems engineering. However, he did not have current skilled employment, or an offer of skilled employment, in New Zealand, as was required by the instructions. [6] On 7 February 2024, Immigration New Zealand invited the appellant to apply for a job search work visa. If granted this visa, a decision on his residence application would be deferred for 12 months and, during that period, he would be able to travel to New Zealand to seek an offer of skilled employment. If, following the expiry of the deferral period, he did not have an offer, his residence application would be declined. It was recommended that he not make permanent arrangements to move to New Zealand until a decision could be made on his residence application. Job Search Work Visa and Deferral of Residence Application [7] On 26 April 2024, the appellant applied for a job search work visa, which was approved on 18 June 2024 and had an expiry date of 18 June 2025. However, on 2 July 2024, Immigration New Zealand discovered that the appellant had not received written notice that he had been issued this job search work visa, as he should have. It therefore re-issued approval of his application for a job search work visa that same day, meaning that the visa was now valid until 2 July 2025. It also determined to defer assessment of the residence application for the 12 months to 2 July 2025. [8] The appellant visited New Zealand for 21 days from 15 May 2025 to 4 June 2025 to search for employment, while his family remained in Saudi Arabia. No Offer of Skilled Employment in New Zealand [9] On 23 June 2025, the appellant advised Immigration New Zealand that he did not have an offer of skilled employment in New Zealand. He had been able to spend only 21 days searching for employment in New Zealand, as his family had stayed in Saudia Arabia and he had no other leave available from his employment

3 there. Given Immigration New Zealand’s advice that he not make any permanent arrangements to move to New Zealand, he had not resigned from his employment. He had spent time and money seeking residence and had the potential to successfully settle in, and contribute to, New Zealand. He asked that his application be approved despite not having skilled employment in New Zealand. [10] Also on 23 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant that it could not grant him residence without him having obtained skilled employment, or an offer of skilled employment, in New Zealand. It could not make an exception to the instructions. [11] On 24 June 2025, the appellant submitted to Immigration New Zealand that it was not reasonable to expect an [NAME] to come to New Zealand to find employment when they could not make permanent arrangements to move here. There were not many offshore employers who would give an [NAME] leave sufficient to find work in New Zealand only, on their being successful, to have them resign from their offshore employment. The instructions were “not practical”. [12] That same day, Immigration New Zealand stated that it was applying immigration instructions and could not comment on the [NAME]’s policy settings. [13] A short time later, the appellant expressed further frustrations. The next day, on 25 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand stated that it could not assist. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [14] On 10 July 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because he had not obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand during the deferral period which, it stated, had expired on 18 June 2025. STATUTORY GROUNDS [15] 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

4 (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [16] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) of the Act are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [17] On 15 July 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that his circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. However, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s residence application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. [18] The appellant has made submissions (within the Notice of Appeal form and by email dated 29 October 2025) and provided copies of documents contained on Immigration New Zealand’s file in relation to his application for residence. [19] The appellant has also provided an updated copy of his curriculum vitae (a previous version was provided to Immigration New Zealand). This document will be considered by the Tribunal, as relevant, in its assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances (section 189 of the Act). ASSESSMENT [20] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documentation provided on appeal, Immigration New Zealand’s file in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [21] 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. This is followed by an assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration of an exception by the Minister of Immigration.

5 Whether the Decision is Correct [22] On 16 March 2023, the appellant made his application for residence under the [APPELLANT] category and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because, on the expiry of the 12-month deferral period it had granted the appellant, he did not produce evidence showing that he had obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand. The relevant instructions follow. [APPELLANT] category and job search work visa instructions [23] An application under the [APPELLANT] category will be approved if Immigration New Zealand is satisfied that the requirements at SM3.15.a (effective 19 February 2018) are met. One of those requirements, applicable in this case, was that the [NAME[NAME] have current skilled employment in New Zealand or an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand: see here SM3.15.a.iv. [24] However, if all requirements but for the requirement at SM3.15.a.iv have been met, SM3.20.a (effective 28 August 2017) provides that a decision on the residence application will be deferred and, subject to meeting the requirements of the job search work visa instructions at WR5 (effective 28 August 2017), the [NAME[NAME] will be eligible for the grant of a work visa to allow them to obtain an offer of skilled employment in New Zealand. For [NAME] outside New Zealand, to which these instructions apply, the duration of any job search work visa granted is 12 months (WR5.5.c (effective 28 August 2017)) and the deferral period of their application for residence is a period of 12 months from the date their job search work visa is granted (SM3.20.1.b (effective 28 August 2017)). [25] SM3.20.5.b (effective 28 August 2017) addresses the situation where an offer of ongoing skilled employment is not obtained during the deferral period: SM3.20.5 Completing a resident visa application during the deferral period … b. If, on the expiry of the deferral period, a [NAME[NAME] has not provided evidence that satisfies an immigration officer that they have obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand, the application for a resident visa under the [APPELLANT] will be declined.

6 Immigration New Zealand’s decision [26] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application for residence because he had not produced an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand by the expiry of the deferral period that he had been granted (SM3.20.5.b). It incorrectly recorded, on the letter of decline, that the deferral period had ended on 18 June 2025 when, in fact, it was 2 July 2025. However, this error was of no consequence because the application was determined on 10 July 2025, which was, crucially, after the correct deferral period had ended. The appellant’s submissions [27] On appeal, the appellant builds on his submissions made to Immigration New Zealand. His central concern remains that it was not possible for him to [NAME] leave from his employment in Saudi Arabia and come to New Zealand on his job search work visa for any longer than 21 days to find employment. He suggests that this time period was not sufficient to find skilled employment in New Zealand. He further submits that Immigration New Zealand had recommended that he not make any permanent arrangements to move to New Zealand until a decision was made on his residence application. He had agreed that he should not resign from his employment in Saudi Arabia because, if not granted residence in New Zealand, he would be without work and so unable to stay in Saudia Arabia. He has spent much time and money trying to gain residence in New Zealand. He is skilled and would positively contribute to New Zealand. He asks that he and his family be granted residence. Correctness of Immigration New Zealand’s decision [28] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application was correct. He did not produce an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand by the expiry of the deferral period (SM3.20.5.b). The Tribunal can understand the appellant’s concerns about coming to New Zealand for up to 12 months to search for skilled employment here. However, he did decide to apply for residence without having current skilled employment, or an offer of skilled employment, in New Zealand, as required by instructions. He was then fortunate to be granted a job search work visa to give him an opportunity to come here to seek skilled employment. This effectively put him in the same position as other migrants who may have shared similar concerns about coming here for up to 12 months to search for skilled employment but did

7 so, nevertheless. Nothing in the appellant’s submissions can change the fact that his application was caught by SM3.20.5.b. Immigration New Zealand did not have any discretion to make an exception to instructions (section 72(1) of the Act). Whether there are Special Circumstances [29] Where the Tribunal has 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 residence instructions. [30] 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. [31] 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. The appellant’s family and their ties to Saudi Arabia, Pakistan and New Zealand [32] The appellant, his wife and their three children (aged 9, 12 and 13 years) are citizens of Pakistan but are living in Saudi Arabia. The appellant moved from Pakistan to Saudi Arabia in 2013 and his wife and their two oldest children followed in 2015. The couple’s youngest child was born in Saudi Arabia in 2017. [33] The appellant has previously declared to Immigration New Zealand that his father is deceased and his mother and five siblings reside in Pakistan. Further, his wife’s parents and her three siblings also reside in Pakistan. [34] As noted, the appellant made a 21-day visit to New Zealand in 2025, as the holder of a job search work visa. His wife and children have never travelled here. [35] The Tribunal finds that the appellant and his family have strong ties to Saudi Arabia given the length of time that they have lived there, the settlement that will have occurred and the appellant’s employment there (discussed further below). However, their familial ties are to Pakistan, where the members of their extended family reside. The appellant and his family have no disclosed ties to New Zealand.

8 Job search work visa and the decline of the residence application [36] The appellant did not come to New Zealand for the full 12-month duration of his job search work visa to assist with finding skilled employment here. As noted, he came for just 21 days. His reasons for such a short trip included that he could not [NAME] further leave from his employment in Saudi Arabia and he did not want to resign with no certainty of gaining residence in New Zealand. His family was also still in Saudi Arabia. These reasons, while understandable, do not make his circumstances out of the ordinary. The end result was that his application for residence had to be declined because he did not have an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand. Reasons for seeking residence in New Zealand [37] On appeal, the appellant submits that he and his family have dreamed of having a better life in New Zealand, which is “such a beautiful, tolerant society” where there is peace and a love of nature. They want to make their home here. [38] The Tribunal notes that many migrants wish to move to New Zealand because they have perceptions of the country similar to those of the appellant and his family. This family’s reasons for seeking residence are not out of the ordinary. The 2026 [NAME]/Israel and Iran conflict [39] The Tribunal acknowledges that Saudi Arabia and other Middle Eastern countries have suffered well-documented strikes by Iran as part of the 2026 [NAME]/Israel and Iran conflict, which is currently the subject of a fragile ceasefire. This regional instability does not, of itself, make the appellant’s circumstances special. As Pakistani citizens, he and his family will have the right to relocate to Pakistan if they have any concerns about staying in Saudi Arabia. Potential contributions to New Zealand [40] The appellant has a Bachelor of Science (Mathematics and Statistics) degree, a Master of Computer Sciences (Software Engineering and Systems) degree and a Master of Computer Science (Software Engineering, Systems and Networks) degree. These qualifications were gained in Pakistan. He has also completed numerous courses and certifications relevant to his areas of work.

9 [41] The appellant has a solid work history in Saudi Arabia and Pakistan in the field of computer network and systems engineering. He is currently the manager of digital transformation at a company based in Saudi Arabia. Letters provided to Immigration New Zealand from [NAME] and his current employer reflect that he is well regarded for his work ethic, skills and work performance. [42] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant is highly skilled and experienced in the field of computer network and systems engineering. He may contribute to [NAME] if granted residence. However, he has not been able to secure an offer of employment in New Zealand to date and so whether he will, in fact, be able to transfer these skills to a position of employment in New Zealand remains a matter of speculation. [43] The appellant’s wife also has qualifications, including a Master of Science (International Relations) degree from Pakistan. She declared to Immigration New Zealand that she used to be a schoolteacher in Pakistan but has managed her family’s household since 2013. There is no evidence before the Tribunal that she would make any particular contribution to New Zealand’s workforce or economy if granted residence along with the appellant and their three children. Best interests of the children [44] The Tribunal must have regard to the best interests of any children affected by the outcome of an appeal and must treat those best interests as a primary consideration: see Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. [45] It has not been suggested that the needs of the appellant’s children aged 9, 12 and 13 are not being met in Saudi Arabia. They have not visited New Zealand and have no ties to the country. It has not been demonstrated that their best interests require that they and their parents be granted residence in New Zealand. Health, character and English language requirements [46] Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant, his wife and their children met the health instructions for residence applications. It also found that he and his wife met the applicable character and English language instructions.

10 Discussion on special circumstances [47] The appellant and his family want to move to New Zealand because they believe they will have better lives here, a common reason amongst applicants for residence. [48] While the appellant may contribute to [NAME] if granted residence, he currently does not have an offer of skilled employment here and so his contributions to the New Zealand workforce and economy are speculative. Even if he had secured skilled employment in his field of computer networking and systems engineering, this would not, of itself, make his circumstances special such that it would warrant an exception to the instructions. [49] The appellant and his family have no ties to New Zealand. In contrast, they have strong ties to Saudi Arabia having regard to the length of time that they have lived there and the associated settlement that will have taken place, and the appellant’s financial ties to the country through his employment. They also retain strong (familial) ties to Pakistan, where their extended family members reside. It has not been demonstrated that this family’s interests, or the best interests of the children, require that they be granted the right to live permanently in New Zealand. Conclusion on special circumstances [50] Having considered the appellant’s and his family’s circumstances individually and cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that it has not been demonstrated that the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation to the Minister of Immigration for consideration of an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [51] 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 residence as correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. The Tribunal does not consider that the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions under section 188(1)(f) of the Act. [52] The appeal is unsuccessful.

11 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [53] 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 or his family members. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member