Skilled Migrant Application Rejected for Lack of Job Offer

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207459 [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] 28 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 47-year-old dual citizen of Kenya and the United Kingdom whose application for residence under the [APPELLANT] category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included his wife, aged 40 and their first child, aged seven years, both citizens of Singapore. The appellant and his wife also have a [NAME] son, aged one year, who was not included in the application. He is also a citizen of Singapore. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the appellant’s residence application because he had not obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand during the deferral period of his resident visa application. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances such that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does not have special circumstances.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant was born in Kenya in 1978. He later became a citizen of the United Kingdom and is currently a resident of Singapore. [6] The appellant’s wife was born in 1985. Their two children were born in 2018 and 2025 in Singapore. All three are citizens of Singapore. [7] The appellant and his wife were married in Singapore in April 2018. [8] The appellant holds a Bachelor of Science in Networking and Computer Science (2005), a Master of Science in Advanced Computer Networking (2006) and a Master of Business Administration (2017) from universities in the United Kingdom. [9] The appellant’s wife holds a Bachelor of Business (2007) from a university in Singapore. [10] The appellant, his wife and two children have never travelled to New Zealand. Residence Application [11] On 12 November 2022 the appellant submitted an Expression of Interest (EOI) under the [APPELLANT] category of residence instructions. Immigration New Zealand invited the appellant to apply for residence on 19 January 2023. [12] On 11 March 2023, the appellant made an online application under the [APPELLANT] category. He claimed a total of 165 points, made up of 20 points for age, 70 points for a recognised qualification, 50 points for skilled work experience, 15 points for skilled work experience in a role on the long-term skill shortage list and 10 points for his partner’s recognised qualification. He did not provide evidence of a job offer in New Zealand.

3 [13] On 14 March 2024 Immigration New Zealand invited the appellant to apply for the [APPELLANT] category Job Search visa so he could secure an offer of skilled employment. [14] The appellant made the application and, on 29 May 2024 Immigration New Zealand granted the appellant a 12-month job search visa. [15] On 7 April 2025 the appellant requested an extension to the deadline of 29 May 2025, or a deferral. He explained that his wife had given birth to their second child in January 2025 which had delayed his ability to seek employment in New Zealand. [16] On 8 April 2025, Immigration New Zealand advised that an extension was not possible because immigration instructions did not allow for it. [17] On 29 April 2025 Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant to remind him that he needed to provide evidence of an offer of skilled employment on or before 29 May 2025. [18] On 20 May 2025 the appellant advised Immigration New Zealand that he and his family had not been able to relocate to New Zealand within the expected timeframe because his wife had a difficult pregnancy that required extensive medical care. He again asked for an extension. [19] On 22 May 2025 Immigration New Zealand advised that an extension was not possible and that a decision on the application would be made on 29 May 2025. [20] On 27 May 2025 the appellant provided a medical report regarding his wife’s difficult pregnancy, a copy of his child’s birth certificate and a hospital record for Immigration New Zealand’s consideration. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [21] On 6 June 2025 Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant had not obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand during the deferral period of the resident visa application. Instruction SM3.20.5.b required that an application be declined if, at the end of the deferral period, the applicant had not provided evidence of an offer of ongoing employment.

4 STATUTORY GROUNDS [22] 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. [23] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [24] On 5 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. [25] In support of his appeal, the appellant provides a letter outlining the difficulties he had in looking for employment in New Zealand given his wife’s pregnancy (4 July 2025) and the following documents: (a) A bundle of documents relating to the wife’s pregnancy and the birth of the [NAME] child (variously dated between June 2024 and July 2025). (b) Curriculum vitae for the appellant and his wife; and (c) Job application log detailing the appellant’s efforts in obtaining a job offer in New Zealand, including screenshots with a [NAME]. Further information provided on appeal [26] 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).

5 [27] There is a relevant exception to section 189(1) where, as in this case, the Tribunal considers that the further information provided on appeal is necessary for its determination of whether the appellant has special circumstances (section 189(3)(b)). This assessment is set out below from [35]. ASSESSMENT [28] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [29] Although the appellant appeals only on the ground of having special circumstances, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. This is set out below and 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 [30] The application was made on 11 March 2023 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant had not obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment in New Zealand during the deferral period of the resident visa application. [31] The appellant applied for residence under the [APPELLANT] category when he was overseas and had no employment or offer of employment in New Zealand. In such a case, instructions provided that a decision on the application could be deferred for 12 months while he was granted a work visa to search for and obtain an offer of skilled employment in New Zealand: SM3.20 Deferral of a decision on the resident visa application a. The decision on a [APPELLANT] application will be deferred and, subject to meeting the requirements of WR5 [APPELLANT], the [NAME] applicant will be eligible for the grant of a work visa to allow them to obtain an offer of skilled employment in New Zealand if they:

6 i. do not qualify for points for an offer of skilled employment or current skilled employment in New Zealand; and ii. have not undertaken two or more years of full-time study in New Zealand that has resulted in the award of a Doctorate or Master’s degree; and ... SM3.20.1 Duration of deferral period … b. [NAME] who are outside New Zealand will have the decision on their [APPELLANT] application deferred for a period of 12 months from the date their work visa is granted under WR5 [APPELLANT]. Effective 28/08/2017 [32] If the appellant obtained an offer of ongoing skilled employment during the 12 month deferral period, the application could be approved (SM3.20.5.a). However, if he did not obtain an offer of ongoing skilled employment during the deferral period, the application would be declined (SM3.20.5.b): SM3.20.5 Completing a resident visa application during the deferral period … b. If, on the expiry of the deferral period, a [NAME] applicant 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. Effective 28/08/2017 [33] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant’s wife experienced a difficult pregnancy which he claims delayed the family’s travel to New Zealand to search for employment. However, under SM3.20.5.b, the appellant was required to obtain an offer of ongoing skilled employment within 12 months from the date that his job search visa was granted (SM3.20.1.b, SM3.20.5). The appellant did not provide Immigration New Zealand with an offer of skilled employment by 29 May 2025, and instructions required that Immigration New Zealand decline the application. Conclusion on correctness [34] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct under SM3.20.5.b. The appellant did not provide evidence of a job offer of skilled employment in New Zealand before the end of the deferral

7 period of his job search visa. Immigration New Zealand had no discretion to extend that period or grant a further job search visa. Special Circumstances [35] 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 residence instructions. [36] 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. [37] 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 [38] The appellant is a 47-year-old citizen of Kenya and the United Kingdom. He is also a resident of Singapore, where he lives with his wife (aged 40) and their two children (aged 7 and 1). His application for residence records that his parents live in Kenya, and his wife’s mother and brother live in Singapore. [39] Neither the appellant, nor his wife and children, have ever been to New Zealand. The appellant was granted a 12-month job search visa on 29 May 2024, but did not travel to New Zealand during the currency of the visa. Qualifications and work experience [40] In 2005, the appellant obtained a Bachelor of Science in Networking and Computer Science. In 2006 he completed a Master of Science in Advanced Computer Networking and in 2017, he completed a Master of Business Administration, all from universities in the United Kingdom. [41] According to his curriculum vitae, the appellant has almost 20 years of work experience in various computer networking and systems roles in the United Kingdom, Bermuda and Singapore.

8 [42] According to her curriculum vitae, the appellant’s wife holds a Bachelor of Business degree from a university in Singapore and has worked for 15 years in Singapore and Bermuda for a [NAME] as an actuary. Impact of the wife’s pregnancy [43] The appellant describes in his letter on appeal that the job search visa was granted just as he and his wife found out that they were expecting their second child. The pregnancy required regular monitoring because of his wife’s age and the presence of an ovarian cyst. The wife was advised not to travel internationally and remained under observation throughout the pregnancy through to postnatal clearance. The child was born in [DATE] that treatment for the cyst was completed, after the appellant’s job search visa had expired. [44] While he remained offshore, the appellant applied for skilled roles and engaged with [NAME] and employers, including some of the [NAME] and [NAME] in New Zealand. The appellant has provided evidence of this engagement and feedback from [NAME] and explains that [NAME] had a preference for those already in New Zealand. The Tribunal acknowledges the difficulty the appellant has faced in seeking skilled employment in New Zealand from offshore. [45] The Tribunal acknowledges the reasons why the appellant failed to travel to New Zealand. However, the missed opportunities identified by the appellant do not amount to special circumstances. It is not uncommon for expectant mothers to be advised against long-distance travel, and in this instance, it was the appellant’s wife, not the appellant himself, who required medical supervision. There is no explanation provided as to why the appellant was unable to undertake short trips to New Zealand for the purpose of looking for work or attending job interviews. Health and character requirements [46] The appellant, his wife and child met the health and character requirements of the instructions.

9 Best interests of the children [47] The Tribunal has an obligation to have regard to the best interests of any children affected by the outcome of the appeal, under Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of the child(ren) are a primary consideration and must be afforded substantial weight; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 at [49]. [48] The best interests of a child must be considered having regard to their particular circumstances and the nature and quality of the relationships which they have in New Zealand. [49] The appellant’s [NAME] was included in the residence application, whereas [NAME] was not added to the application after his birth (and therefore is not included in the appeal either). Despite this, the Tribunal considers it necessary to assess the best interests of both children, as each will be affected by the outcome of the decision. The [NAME] is now seven years of age. The appellant submits that he would be eligible to commence Year 4 in 2026, and that early integration into the [NAME] would promote his development and facilitate the family’s successful settlement. The Tribunal accepts that such integration would be beneficial were the family to relocate to New Zealand in the near future. However, at his current age, he remains wholly dependent on his parents for his care and wellbeing. It is therefore in his best interests to remain in their care, whether that care is provided in Singapore or in New Zealand. [50] [NAME], being only one year of age, is even more dependent on his parents. It follows that his best interests are likewise served by remaining in their care, irrespective of the country in which that care is provided. Discussion on special circumstances [51] The appellant is a highly educated professional, with significant work experience in the [COMPANY] in various countries. It is accepted that he (and his wife) have the potential to contribute to New Zealand’s economy through employment here. However, that is not uncommon in many skilled migrants who seek to settle in New Zealand and the appellant has not been able to secure an offer of employment in New Zealand from abroad. Further, the appellant, his wife and children have never visited

10 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member New Zealand and have no connections to this country. Their familial, social and other connections remain in Singapore and Kenya. Conclusion on special circumstances [52] The Tribunal finds that, when all the appellant’s circumstances are considered, they are not special such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider making an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [53] This appeal is determined pursuant to section 188(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009. 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. [54] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [55] 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