Residence Application Rejected: Claimant Did Not Meet Tier 1 Requirements

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207446 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: M B Martin (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted] informal context)

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 6 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 31-year-old citizen of the Philippines. His application for residence made under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category of instructions was declined by Immigration New Zealand because he did not meet the requirements for the role of Quantity Surveyor specified in Tier 1 of the Green List at Appendix 13 of Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual. THE ISSUES [2] The 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 such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider making an exception to residence instructions. [3] For the reasons below, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision was correct and that the appellant’s circumstances are not special.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant’s parents and 10 siblings reside in the Philippines. The appellant came to New Zealand in April 2023, on an accredited employer work visa, and has remained here since (apart from one short trip overseas). He currently holds what is his second accredited employer work visa, which is valid to 15 April 2028. Residence Application [5] On 24 April 2025, the appellant made his application for residence under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category on the basis of employment as a quantity surveyor with a [COMPANY_2]. He produced documentary evidence including a copy of his employment agreement and job description. [6] The appellant also provided an International Qualifications Recognition Statement from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority ([NAME_3]) recording that he had a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree (2015) from the Philippines and that it was comparable to a bachelor’s degree at Level 7 on the [NAME_3] ([NAME_3]). The appellant also provided Immigration New Zealand with a New Zealand “Diploma — Certificate in Estimating and Surveying” (2024) together with the associated grade transcript. [7] By letter dated 30 April 2025, Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant that applicants under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category must meet acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 Green List role, including the requirements for an occupation as specified in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 (as indicated above, Tier 1 Green List roles are set out in Appendix 13 of Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual). The requirements for the appellant’s Tier 1 role of Quantity Surveyor were as follows:

One of the following: • A bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7, or a higher qualification with the minimum equivalent of 360 credits, which includes the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics • Student or Affiliate Membership, or MNZIQS, of the [NAME_4] (with an overseas degree approved by [NAME_4])

3 [8] Immigration New Zealand noted that the appellant had provided an International Qualifications Recognition Statement recording that he had a bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3]

7. However, a copy of the degree had not been produced, the number of equivalent credits had not been stated, and there was no information as to whether the degree included the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. The appellant was invited to provide submissions and/or evidence in response by no later than 14 May 2025. [9] On 8 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand asked the appellant to confirm that he had received the above letter but stated, in conflict with the deadline of 14 May 2025 set out in the letter, that he needed to respond by 10 May 2025. [10] That same day, the appellant advised that he was instructing a lawyer and had also requested the [NAME_3] further assess his bachelor’s degree — it had stated that this would take 30 days. He requested an extension to provide his response. [11] Later that day, Immigration New Zealand stated that it would not grant an extension. It informed the appellant that he could withdraw his application. [12] On 9 May 2025, the appellant’s newly-instructed counsel asked whether a response was due on 10 or 14 May 2025, given the previously conflicting advice. [13] That same day, Immigration New Zealand apologised for the confusion and clarified that the response was due by 14 May 2025, as noted in the original letter. [14] On 14 May 2025, counsel submitted that the appellant had to demonstrate that he had a bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3]

7. It was only if he was relying on having a higher qualification with a minimum equivalent of 360 credits that he would also need to show that this met the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or constructions economics. Further, he was making significant contributions to New Zealand through his employment and certain volunteer work. [15] Counsel provided evidence in support of the above submissions including: a list of the appellant’s colleagues; a letter from the appellant; a letter of support from the appellant’s employer; information connected to the building project work in which the appellant was involved for his employer; an article on local housing shortages; and a letter from the managing director of a building consultancy who has worked with the appellant professionally and has also relied on him to assist, voluntarily, with the preparation of training materials on building-related matters.

4 Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [16] On 19 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application for residence because he did not meet the acceptable employment requirements for the Tier 1 Green List role of Quantity Surveyor. Specifically, it had not been demonstrated that his overseas bachelor’s degree included the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. Immigration New Zealand also stated that the appellant did not appear to meet the requirements of any other category of residence instructions. STATUTORY GROUNDS [17] 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. [18] 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 [19] On 27 June 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on both grounds in section 187(4) of the Act. [20] The managing director of the building consultancy noted at [15] above is acting as the appellant’s representative on appeal, in an informal context. The representative makes submissions (various dates between June 2025 and January 2026) and provides copies of documents contained on Immigration New Zealand’s file relating to the appellant’s application for residence.

5 [21] The representative also provides further evidence including: (a) A copy of the appellant’s Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree (2015) from a tertiary provider located in the Philippines. (b) A letter (5 June 2025) from the [NAME_4] ([NAME_4]) stating that the appellant had been accepted as a student member of the [NAME_4] on 4 June 2025. (c) Emails (June 2025) between the appellant and the [NAME_4] with the latter stating that it could not approve the appellant’s degree because it was not included on their immigration-approved qualifications list. Relevant supporting documents were provided with these emails. (d) Correspondence (May 2025 to January 2026) between Immigration New Zealand and the representative connected to requests made by the latter to the former under the Official Information Act 1982. [22] Under the Official Information Act 1982, the representative has obtained documents including: information from Immigration New Zealand’s Global Process Manual and its training resources entitled “Straight to Residence Visa Pathway — Tier 1” and “Straight to Residence Visa (Green List — Tier 1) Facilitator Guide”. The Tribunal finds that evidence of this kind is not “further evidence” as it was before Immigration New Zealand when it decided the application and was part of its internal resources. This evidence can be considered by the Tribunal, as relevant, when assessing both appeal grounds. [23] However, the Tribunal must determine the admissibility of the further evidence summarised at [21(a)–(d)] above. It will now make this determination. Admissibility of the further evidence [24] The general rule is that further evidence adduced by an appellant that was not provided to Immigration New Zealand before the time at which it made its decision on the application cannot be considered by the Tribunal (section 189(1) of the Act). However, there are exceptions. For example, the Tribunal may consider further evidence, when assessing the correctness of the decision, where the following requirements are met: the evidence existed at the time of the decision, and would have been relevant to the making of that decision; the appellant could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have placed that evidence before

6 Immigration New Zealand at the time at which it made its decision; and in all the circumstances it is fair to consider the evidence (section 189(3)(a) of the Act). [25] The Tribunal finds that the appellant’s Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree existed at the time of Immigration New Zealand’s decision on his application and would have been relevant to the making of that decision. It has not been demonstrated that the appellant could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have placed a copy of that evidence before Immigration New Zealand at the time it made its decision. Therefore, this evidence cannot be considered by the Tribunal in its assessment of the correctness of Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application. However, the Tribunal is able to consider the International Qualifications Recognition Statement which was before Immigration New Zealand and referred to the appellant as having this degree and assessed it as being comparable to a bachelor’s degree at Level 7 on the [NAME_3]. [26] The Tribunal is unable to consider the other further evidence set out above in its assessment of the correctness of Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application. This is because, to the extent that it would have been relevant to the making of Immigration New Zealand’s decision, and the Tribunal is referring here in particular to the correspondence between the appellant and the [NAME_4], it did not exist at the time of Immigration New Zealand’s decline decision. [27] Another exception to section 189(1) of the Act is where there has been a particular event which has occurred after the decision was made and which materially affects the appellant’s eligibility under instructions (section 189(6) of the Act). Here, the Tribunal may, if it considers it fair in all the circumstances to do so, refer the application back to Immigration New Zealand for a new assessment. [28] The representative does not suggest, and the Tribunal is unable to find, that there has been a particular event materially affecting the appellant’s eligibility under residence instructions based on the further evidence produced on appeal. It will be seen in the below assessment that, while the appellant is now a member of the [NAME_4], this does not, by itself, mean that he now meets the requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor as specified in Tier 1 of the Green List. [29] The Tribunal can and does consider the further evidence provided on appeal, to the extent that it is relevant, in its assessment as to whether the appellant has special circumstances — as per section 189(3)(b) of the Act.

7 ASSESSMENT [30] The Tribunal has considered the above submissions and documents, Immigration New Zealand’s file in relation to the appellant’s residence application and Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records in relation to the appellant. [31] 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. Whether the Decision is Correct [32] On 24 April 2025, the appellant made his application for residence under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant did not meet the requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor as contained in Tier 1 of the Green List at Appendix 13. Specifically, while he had an overseas bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7, he had not demonstrated that this qualification included the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. The relevant instructions in this case are set out below. Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category instructions [33] In order to be granted residence under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category of residence instructions, principal applicants must, among other things, “meet acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 Green List role (see SR4.10)”: per SR4.5.b.i (effective 28 February 2024). [34] Instruction SR4.10 (effective 28 February 2024) states, relevantly: SR4.10 Acceptable employment in a Tier 1 Green List role a. Acceptable employment in a Tier 1 Green List occupation is employment where the immigration officer is satisfied that: i. the principal applicant holds current 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 …

8 [35] Tier 1 of Appendix 13 (effective 26 March 2025) states, relevantly: Occupational Group Occupation Occupations are listed by ANZSCO (Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations) code Green List Requirements Qualifications must be comparable to the standard of the New Zealand qualification listed. Also see Note 1 at the end of this list Registration Qualifications Qualifications required for registration for occupations on the Green List. Also see Note 4 at the end of this list …

Construction …

Quantity Surveyor (233213) One of the following: ● A bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7, or a higher qualification with the minimum equivalent of 360 credits, which includes the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics ● Student or Affiliate Membership, or MNZIQS, of the [NAME_4] (with an overseas degree approved by [NAME_4])

…

… Note 1: Qualifications listed (unless an exception is stated) are New Zealand awarded qualifications on the [NAME_3] ([NAME_3]). Overseas qualifications must be comparable to the standard of the New Zealand qualification listed. Unless an overseas qualification is listed on the Immigration New Zealand List of Qualifications Exempt from Assessment (Appendix 3), an International Qualification Assessment (IQA) from the New Zealand Qualifications Authority stating the comparable [NAME_3] qualification is required. …

9 Fairness and natural justice requirements [36] Immigration New Zealand must act in accordance with the principles of fairness and natural justice: see A1.1 (effective 29 August 2012) and A1.5 (effective 29 November 2010) of the fairness and natural justice instructions. Whether the appellant satisfied the Green List requirements for Quantity Surveyor [37] The central issue is whether the appellant met the Green List requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor as specified in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 (per SR4.10.a.ii and see the third column of Appendix 13 at [35] above). In order to meet these requirements, the appellant had to satisfy one of two options. The first option required that he have a bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7, or a higher qualification with the minimum equivalent of 360 credits, which included the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. The second option required that he have one of the above specified memberships of the [NAME_4], with an overseas degree approved by the [NAME_4]. — The first option [38] The appellant claimed that he satisfied the first option because he had a bachelor’s degree (a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree from the Philippines) assessed at Level 7 on the [NAME_3]. His then counsel submitted that the appellant did not need to go on to demonstrate that his degree also “includes the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics”. It was contended that it was clear, on a plain interpretation of Appendix 13, that this “modifying clause” only applied to the clause relating to a higher qualification with the minimum equivalent of 360 credits. It did not “reach back across the disjunctive ‘or’ to modify the first clause ‘a bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7’”. [39] The appellant did not provide Immigration New Zealand with a copy of his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree. However, Immigration New Zealand appeared to accept that he had this degree based on the International Qualifications Recognition Statement he produced, which recorded that he had this qualification and it had been assessed at Level 7 on the [NAME_3]. It went on to find that, while the degree was at Level 7, as required by the first option, the degree also had to include the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics to ensure that the qualification was relevant to the occupation of Quantity Surveyor. The appellant had not shown that

10 his degree included the requirements of a New Zealand major in either of those subject areas. [40] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s interpretation was correct. Immigration instructions are policy and are not to be construed with the strictness of interpreting a statute (as per [NAME_5] v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour [1997] NZAR 264 ([NAME_5]) at p271). It is evident that both a bachelor’s degree at [NAME_3] 7, and a higher qualification with the minimum equivalent of 360 credits, must include the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. If that were not the case, an applicant relying on the occupation of Quantity Surveyor could produce a Level 7 bachelor’s degree in any area of tertiary study, which would undermine the purpose of the applicable Green List requirements, which are designed to ensure that an applicant is sufficiently qualified for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor. [41] The Tribunal finds that there was no objective evidence before Immigration New Zealand confirming that the appellant’s Level 7 bachelor’s degree included the requirements of a New Zealand major in quantity surveying or construction economics. The [NAME_3] Statement provided by the appellant did not specify whether his degree included these requirements. As the Tribunal has previously stated, there is a more detailed assessment available from the [NAME_3], called a Skill Shortage List IQA, which can provide evidence as to whether a qualification meets the specific credit and knowledge requirements for an occupation under the Green List (see, for example, the decision of AD (Straight to Residence) [2024] NZIPT 206844 at [39]). On 8 May 2025, the appellant advised Immigration New Zealand that he had requested the [NAME_3] provide him with a more detailed assessment of his degree, but he noted that it would take 30 days to process. Immigration New Zealand did not grant him an extension of 30 days, and was not required to defer its assessment for this length of time under instructions. No such document was provided to Immigration New Zealand and, the Tribunal notes, the appellant has not produced such evidence in support of this appeal. [42] For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand was correct to find that the appellant did not satisfy the first option contained in the Appendix 13 Green List requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor.

11 — The second option [43] The appellant has recognised that he did not satisfy the second option because, at the time of Immigration New Zealand’s assessment, he was not a member of the [NAME_4] and his degree had not been approved by the [NAME_4]. However, the representative is critical of Immigration New Zealand for failing to delay its assessment to afford the appellant time to gain membership of the [NAME_4]. The representative submits that, by failing to delay its assessment, Immigration New Zealand breached the principles of fairness and natural justice. [44] The Tribunal finds that, if the appellant had believed that he could satisfy the second option, he should have taken the appropriate steps to do so, including applying for [NAME_4] membership, before he applied for residence. Immigration New Zealand also provided him with an opportunity during the assessment to produce evidence showing that he met the Green List requirements, but he was unable to demonstrate that he satisfied either of the two options. Immigration New Zealand had no basis, under instructions, to delay assessment of the application any longer to afford the appellant more time to try and obtain membership of the [NAME_4] and, also, to have his degree approved by the [NAME_4]. [45] On appeal, the appellant has provided further evidence showing that he has now gained student membership of the [NAME_4] which, as noted above, cannot be considered by the Tribunal at this part of the assessment. However, the Tribunal notes that, even if it could consider this evidence here, the appellant would still not satisfy the second option because the [NAME_4] has not approved his degree. [46] The representative submits that the [NAME_4] approves only a limited number of overseas degrees from a small number of countries, which does not include the Philippines. The second option, he argues, is not well thought out and is unfair. The representative suggests various changes to the applicable instructions. However, the Tribunal notes that its jurisdiction here requires it to determine whether or not Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. The Tribunal has no jurisdiction to change immigration instructions, such as this policy relating to the [NAME_4], with policy settings being a matter for the Government to determine. — Green List requirements for a Quantity Surveyor not met [47] Having regard to the above, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly determined that the appellant did not satisfy the Green List

12 requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor as specified in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 (SR4.10.a.ii). [ADDRESS] occupations / eligibility under other residence categories [48] Having made the above determination, Immigration New Zealand then proceeded to state, in its letter declining the appellant’s residence application, that: We have also considered your application using the criteria for other residence categories. You do not appear to meet the requirements of any other residence category. [49] The representative, in his submissions on appeal, has interpreted the above as meaning that Immigration New Zealand had found that the appellant did not meet the requirements of any other relevant occupation on the Green List. The representative submits that the appellant did in fact satisfy the Tier 1 requirements at Appendix 13 for the alternative occupations of Construction Project Manager, Project Builder and Civil Engineering Technician, and the Tier 2 requirements for a Building Associate (Tier 2 is also contained within Appendix 13 but, the Tribunal notes, is outside the scope of the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category). The representative submits that Immigration New Zealand failed to explain why it did not consider the appellant met the requirements for any of these specified occupations. Therefore, a manifest error was made in the assessment, which undermined the principles of fairness and natural justice. [50] The Tribunal notes, in the interests of clarity, that Immigration New Zealand’s above finding was not connected to an assessment of Green List requirements for alternative occupations under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category. Rather, it was finding that the appellant did not appear to satisfy the requirements of any other category of residence instructions. Here, Immigration New Zealand was correctly acting in accordance with R5.20 (effective 25 September 2023) of the generic residence instructions, which states: R5.20 Assessment of applications a. Immigration officers need only assess applications under the category the principal applicant nominates. b. Officers are not obliged to seek further information to determine whether the principal applicant may be eligible under another category. c. However, officers should request further information to enable the application to be assessed under another category if: i. an application does not meet the criteria for approval under the category in which it was made; and

13 ii. information contained in the application form or accompanying documents clearly indicates that the principal applicant may be eligible under that other category. … [51] Immigration New Zealand did not make any express findings as to whether or not the appellant satisfied the requirements of different Green List occupations under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category. [52] The Tribunal turns now to consider: (a) Whether Immigration New Zealand should have considered and found that the appellant met the Green List requirements for a different Tier 1 occupation under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category (as noted, Tier 2 occupations are not relevant here). The Tribunal observes that any obligation to conduct such an assessment would arise under Immigration New Zealand’s general obligation to consider applications in a fair way (see A1.1). (b) Whether information before Immigration New Zealand clearly indicated that the appellant may be eligible under another category of residence instructions (see R5.20). — Green List requirements for different Tier 1 occupations [53] On the first question, the Tribunal finds that the evidence before Immigration New Zealand did not demonstrate that the appellant satisfied the requirements for a different Tier 1 occupation under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category. Reliable evidence provided to Immigration New Zealand, including the appellant’s employment agreement and job description, demonstrated that he was employed as a quantity surveyor and performing duties connected to this role. [54] It was never suggested to Immigration New Zealand that the appellant was employed in any of the roles set out at [49] above, such as a Civil Engineering Technician. On this particular occupation, the Tribunal notes that the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (“ANZSCO”) description for this role states that a Civil Engineering Technician “[c]onducts tests of construction materials, prepares sketches and tabulations, and assists in estimating costs in support of Civil Engineering Professionals and Engineering Technologists”. The evidence before Immigration New Zealand did not allow for a

14 finding that the appellant’s role was a substantial match to the description and core tasks of a Civil Engineering Technician (as required by instructions). Therefore, no assessment of the corresponding Green List requirements for this occupation, as contained at Appendix 13, was warranted. [55] Further, the evidence provided did not reflect that the appellant’s qualifications, namely his Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree (Philippines) and New Zealand “Diploma — Certificate in Estimating and Surveying”, satisfied the Green List requirements for a Civil Engineering Technician or the two other Tier 1 occupations referred to by the representative on appeal, being Construction Project Manager and Project Builder. With respect to these two roles, the appellant would encounter the same problem that he did in meeting the Green List requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor. This is because, while he had a bachelor’s degree assessed at [NAME_3] 7, which was relevant to these two roles, there was no evidence from the [NAME_3] showing that it met the requirements of a New Zealand major in the areas noted in the relevant Green List requirements (which, for the role of Project Builder, were identical to those for Quantity Surveyors). [56] In addition, even if the “Diploma — Certificate” that was produced was a diploma, not a certificate (and this is not clear from the evidence), no objective information was provided confirming the relevant [NAME_3] was met. While certain diplomas are included within the Green List requirements for the above three occupations, a central requirement is that they be at Level 6 or 7 on the [NAME_3]. [57] The Tribunal is not satisfied Immigration New Zealand was required, under the principles of fairness and natural justice, to assess whether the appellant met the requirements for the alternative Tier 1 occupations raised on appeal. The Tribunal does not consider that the evidence before Immigration New Zealand was such that it should have been alerted to the need to conduct such an assessment. In any case, the Tribunal finds, for the reasons set out above, that the evidence before Immigration New Zealand would not have allowed for any findings to be made that the appellant met the requirements for the various occupations referenced on appeal. — Eligibility under other residence categories [58] The Tribunal turns now to consider the second question, namely whether Immigration New Zealand’s finding under R5.20 — that the appellant did not

15 appear to meet the requirements of any other residence category of instructions — was correct. The Tribunal finds that this determination was correct. The representative suggests that the appellant could be considered a Building Associate under Tier 2 of Appendix 13, which is relevant to the Skilled Residence (Green List: Work to Residence) category of residence instructions. However, the Tribunal does not consider that the evidence before Immigration New Zealand clearly indicated that the appellant’s role was a substantial match to the occupation of Building Associate and that he may be eligible under this category. His evidence was firmly focused on establishing that he met the Tier 1 role of Quantity Surveyor. [59] The Tribunal finds that the information before Immigration New Zealand did not clearly indicate that the appellant may be eligible under any other category of residence instructions (R5.20.c.ii). Other submissions on appeal [60] For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal will now address other submissions which have been made by the representative in support of the appeal. [61] First, the representative submits that the ANZSCO occupation descriptor “Quantity Surveyor” does not reflect more widely used global terminology for that occupation. However, that is the occupation descriptor used in instructions and, indeed, it was also used by the appellant’s employer at the time the appellant’s residence application was made. [62] Second, the representative submits that Immigration New Zealand did not adequately consider the impact on the appellant’s employer of not granting the appellant residence. However, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly applied the applicable residence instructions and had no discretion to consider, alongside those, the impacts of a declined decision on the employer. [63] Third, the representative submits that, on declining the application, Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant of his right to appeal to the Tribunal but failed to explain that there were other options available to him, including lodging complaints with Immigration New Zealand/the Minister of Immigration and/or the Ombudsman. The Tribunal notes that Immigration New Zealand was only required to advise the appellant that he had the right to appeal to the Tribunal: see R5.55.1.b.ii (effective 21 May 2018) of the generic

16 residence instructions. The process for complaining to Immigration New Zealand is clearly set out on its website and the representative was, in fact, able to complain to Immigration New Zealand on the decline of the appellant’s application without any disclosed difficulties (these complaints were, in the end, not successful). The representative also knew about the appellant’s other options, as he made clear to Immigration New Zealand, in writing, on the decline of the application. [64] Fourth, the representative submits that Immigration New Zealand brought forward the date for responding to its letter (30 April 2025) containing potentially prejudicial information only to return to its original deadline without any explanation or apology for the stress this had created for the appellant. It subsequently stated that the time granted to the appellant to provide a response was in accordance with its standard operating procedures. However, the representative notes that he has not been provided with a copy of those standard operating procedures. [65] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand stated, in its letter of 30 April 2025, that a response was due by 14 May 2025 (or in two weeks). Then, on 8 May 2025, when confirming whether the appellant had received this letter, it stated that the response was due by 10 May 2025. On 9 May 2025, the appellant’s then counsel sought clarification on this inconsistency and Immigration New Zealand apologised, that same day, and clarified that the response was due by 14 May 2025, as per its original letter. The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand promptly resolved the mistake it had made within a day and, more importantly, it gave the appellant until 14 May 2025 to provide a response, which he was able to do through his then counsel. The Tribunal finds that the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond to Immigration New Zealand’s concerns and that the mistake that was made did not prejudice the application. [66] Fifth, the representative submits that a question arises as to whether Immigration New Zealand acted in a way that was biased and submits that it undermined its customer-centric commitment to migrants and acted, overall, unfairly. However, the Tribunal finds no evidence that Immigration New Zealand acted with bias and the Tribunal considers the assessment to have been conducted fairly (A1.1). The appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to present evidence in support of his application before the application was declined (after which Immigration New Zealand could not engage in any further assessment). It has not been demonstrated that the application was prejudiced in any way through unfair actions or decisions made by Immigration New Zealand.

17 [67] Finally, during the course of the appeal, the representative has expressed frustration at delays and the responses he received relating to requests for information he made to Immigration New Zealand under the Official Information Act 1982. However, the Tribunal finds that the representative’s concerns in this regard can have no bearing on the correctness of Immigration New Zealand’s decision on the residence application. The Tribunal has found that the evidence provided by the appellant to Immigration New Zealand did not demonstrate that his application satisfied a central requirement of the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category of instructions. Conclusion on correctness [68] For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. The appellant did not satisfy the Green List requirements for the occupation of Quantity Surveyor specified in Tier 1 of Appendix 13 and so had not demonstrated that he met the acceptable employment requirements in a Tier 1 Green List role (SR4.5.b.i and SR4.10.a.ii). Further, the evidence did not reflect that the appellant met the requirements for the other Tier 1 occupations referred to by the representative on appeal and Immigration New Zealand was correct to find that the evidence did not clearly indicate that he may be eligible under another category. The assessment was conducted in a fair and proper way. In the end, the appellant did not discharge the onus placed on him to demonstrate that he was eligible under the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category. Whether there are Special Circumstances [69] 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. [70] 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. [71] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME_5] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 ([NAME_5]) at [24] per Glazebrook J.

18 The appellant’s circumstances / ties to New Zealand and the Philippines [72] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in April 2023 and he has lived here for just over three years. He has made one short trip overseas during June 2025. He currently holds an accredited employer work visa, which is valid to April 2028. [73] Evidence before the Tribunal shows that the appellant has previously worked in paid employment for a [COMPANY_2] as a carpenter and then quantity surveyor (this is the employment he relied on for his residence application). Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records show that he has, more recently, commenced working for the [NAME_2], again as a quantity surveyor (his above work visa was granted on this basis). The representative also submits that the appellant has been involved in a project alongside the representative, on a volunteer basis, which is centred on developing training materials which the representative has been asked to create. [74] The appellant is also active in a local church community. He advised Immigration New Zealand that, through his church, he provides practical and emotional support to others. For example, he and another member of his church have visited a couple with financial difficulties and provided them with support. [75] The Tribunal finds that the appellant has settled well in New Zealand and has ties to the country through his employment and church community. However, he has not lived here for a significant period of time and he has not disclosed a familial nexus to New Zealand. He retains a strong nexus to the Philippines, which is where he has lived for the greater part of his life and which is where, he previously advised Immigration New Zealand, his parents and 10 siblings reside. Ability to remain in New Zealand [76] The appellant has only ever lived in New Zealand on a temporary visa basis. He has been provided with no guarantees that he would be able to remain here on a permanent basis. He does not face an imminent departure from New Zealand because, as stated above, he holds a work visa which is valid until April 2028. If he believes that he could obtain sufficient evidence to demonstrate that he satisfies the requirements of the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category or any other category, he will be able to make another application for residence during the period that he is allowed to live in New Zealand. However, the Tribunal cannot comment on whether he will satisfy the requirements of instructions that may apply to any future residence application.

19 Potential contribution to New Zealand [77] The appellant has a Bachelor of Science in Civil Engineering degree (from the Philippines), assessed as a Level 7 degree by the [NAME_3], and a “Diploma — Certificate in Estimating and Surveying” (obtained in New Zealand). He also declared to Immigration New Zealand the completion of various certificates. [78] The appellant has previously advised that he worked in the Philippines as an office engineer, junior planning engineer, and then a senior planning engineer. [79] While the appellant was not able to demonstrate that he met the Green List requirements for a Quantity Surveyor, the Tribunal acknowledges that he has been employed in New Zealand as a quantity surveyor by a building company and now by his representative. His former employer stated that he made “invaluable” contributions. His representative also speaks highly of his skills and experience. [80] As noted above, the appellant is involved with a local church and is volunteering in New Zealand, thereby making contributions to the community. [81] The Tribunal finds that the appellant is highly valued by those for whom he has worked/is working professionally and on a voluntary basis. He is making positive contributions to New Zealand drawing on his skills and work experience. Health, character and English language requirements [82] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellant met the health, character and English language requirements of the applicable instructions. Discussion on special circumstances [83] The appellant has settled in New Zealand, but he has not lived here for a significant period of time and there is nothing about his ties to the country that are out of the ordinary. He has a strong nexus to the Philippines, which is where he has lived for the greater part of his life and which is where all his family reside. [84] The appellant is making positive contributions to the [NAME_7] and his local community. While, if granted residence, he would no doubt continue to make these positive contributions, his potential contributions to New Zealand are not, of themselves, out of the ordinary when considered in the context of the many individuals who wish to settle permanently in New Zealand under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category or one of its

20 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

M B Martin Member sub-categories, including the Skilled Residence (Green List: Straight to Residence) category. Given the duration of his current accredited employer work visa, the appellant will be able to continue working in paid and voluntary work in New Zealand until, at least, April 2028. Whether he will try again to seek residence during this period will be for him to decide and the Tribunal cannot comment on his prospects of success. Conclusion on special circumstances [85] Having regard to the above factors on an individual and cumulative basis, 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 the residence instructions. DETERMINATION [86] 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. [87] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [88] 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. “M B Martin” M B Martin Member