Skilled Migrant Residence Application Rejected Due to Income Thresholds

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207478 [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] 20 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 45-year-old citizen of South Africa whose application for residence under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included his wife, also aged 45 years and a citizen of South Africa. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because he did not meet the income threshold required by instructions and therefore did not qualify for the 6 points required by the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category. [3] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision is correct and, if so, whether the appellant has special circumstances such that a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions is warranted.

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 arrived in New Zealand from Australia in April 2023 as the holder of a visitor visa. In May 2023, he was granted a three-year accredited employer work visa on the basis of his employment as a senior health and safety advisor at [APPELLANT]. [6] In June 2023, the appellant’s wife joined him in New Zealand, as the holder of a partnership-based work visa. [NAME]’s respective visas are valid to May 2026. [7] Since 15 May 2023, the appellant has been continuously employed by [APPELLANT] as a senior health and safety advisor. At the commencement of his employment, the appellant was paid $125,000 per annum and worked a minimum of 40 hours per week. [8] In August 2024, the appellant received an increase in his remuneration. With effect from 1 September 2024, his salary increased to $128,750 per annum. Residence Application [9] On 15 May 2025, the appellant lodged an expression of interest under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category, on the basis of his employment with [APPELLANT]. He claimed 6 points comprised of 4 points for his income and 2 points for 2 years’ skilled work experience in New Zealand. [10] On the same day, Immigration New Zealand invited the appellant to apply for residence. On 16 May 2025, the appellant lodged his application. [11] To be granted residence under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category, the principal applicant must, among other things, qualify for 6 points from either one skill category (their income, qualification or New Zealand registration) or a combination of one skill category and skilled work experience in New Zealand (see instruction SR3.10.b.iii).

3 Immigration New Zealand’s Verification [12] On 22 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant’s employer seeking confirmation of the maximum number of hours the appellant was required to work in any given week. The employer confirmed that the appellant was being paid an annual salary of $128,750 and that his maximum number of hours worked per week was most likely to be 55 hours. Immigration New Zealand’s Concerns [13] On 22 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant that it held concerns regarding his skilled employment and his eligibility to claim the requisite points for his income under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category. [14] Of relevance to the present appeal, Immigration New Zealand was concerned that the appellant did not meet the claimed 4 points for having an income at two times the median wage. It noted his employment agreement stated that his salary was $125,000 per annum, calculated at an hourly rate of $60.09 per hour based on 40 hours’ work per week. However, his payslip for the period ending 30 April 2025 stated a rate of $61.90 per hour. [15] Immigration New Zealand also noted that the employer had stated the appellant’s maximum hours of work per week were most likely 55 hours. Based on the salary in his employment agreement ($125,000 per annum) and a maximum of 55 hours per week, Immigration New Zealand calculated his hourly rate as $43.71 per hour. This hourly rate was below the threshold income of $63.22 per hour, being two times the median wage as at the time the appellant was invited to apply for residence on 15 May 2025. As such, it appeared the appellant’s income would not meet the eligibility requirements of instruction SR3.10.b.iii. [16] The appellant responded to Immigration New Zealand by email on 27 May 2025, 6 June 2025 and 9 June 2025. In his various responses, he acknowledged that he had initially miscalculated his hourly rate; he had incorrectly understood that his hourly rate and the median wage rate were calculated at the time he commenced his employment, that is, in May 2023. [17] The appellant also responded that the information received from his employer regarding the maximum number of hours worked per week may have been misleading. He was paid a fixed salary, not an hourly wage, and therefore was not

4 paid additional income for any hours worked over the minimum of 40 hours per week. The appellant provided copies of his payslips for the previous 24 months. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [18] On 26 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant’s employment did not meet the income threshold required by instructions (of earning two times the median wage) to qualify for 4 points for his income. Therefore, he did not have the 6 points necessary to be granted residence under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category, as per SR3.10.b.iii. Immigration New Zealand accepted that the appellant earned an income of $61.90 per hour at the time he lodged his application. However, to be eligible to claim 4 points for income, the appellant needed to earn $63.22 per hour. STATUTORY GROUNDS [19] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 187(4) of the Act provides: (4) The grounds for an appeal under this section are that— (a) the relevant decision was not correct in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the relevant application for the visa was made; or (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [20] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [21] On 21 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. [22] In the appeal form, the appellant reiterates that he genuinely believed he met the eligibility criteria for income because his hourly rate was more than two times the median wage at the time he commenced his employment in May 2023. He submits

5 that both he and his wife are law-abiding and pay their taxes and that they actively contribute to their local community and wish to make New Zealand their permanent home. [23] In support of the appeal, the appellant provided a letter (21 August 2025) from his employer stating he had received a further increase in renumeration to $131,970 per annum, effective from 1 September 2025. [24] On 17 April 2026, the appellant’s newly appointed representative filed submissions and further information including: (a) A letter (undated) from [NAME] stating they had initially intended to move to New Zealand in 2020 but were delayed by the COVID-19 pandemic. They sold their house in South Africa that year, were married in 2021, and came to New Zealand in 2023. (b) A document (22 June 2020) confirming the sale of [NAME]’s house in South Africa. (c) Various documents relating to the appellant’s employment, including his curriculum vitae, his letter of resignation from his job in South Africa, a letter of support from his current employer, recent payslips and evidence of certifications he has obtained in New Zealand. (d) Various documents relating to the wife’s employment as a personal assistant/administrator at an [NAME], including confirmation of her salary and Inland Revenue records. (e) Medical records relating to the wife’s recent cancer diagnosis. (f) Several letters from [NAME]’s former and current employers and friends, in South Africa and New Zealand, attesting to their good character. Further information provided on appeal [25] 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).

6 [26] 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)). The Tribunal considers the further information provided, to the extent it is relevant, in its assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances. ASSESSMENT [27] The Tribunal has considered the submissions made by the appellant 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 for the appellant and his wife. [28] 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 [29] The application was made on 16 May 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in the residence instructions as at that time. [30] Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant did not meet the income threshold to be awarded 4 points and, although granted 2 points for 2 years’ skilled work experience, he did not qualify for the 6 points required under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category. Relevant instructions [31] In order to be granted residence under [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category, an applicant must meet the requirements at SR3.10, including to qualify for 6 points:

7 SR3.10 Summary of requirements … b. In addition, the principal applicant must: … iii. qualify for the 6 points, from: ○ one skill category (income, qualification, or New Zealand registration, see SR3.25); or ○ a combination of one skill category and their skilled work experience in New Zealand (see SR3.35). c. An applicant may be considered to meet the income thresholds for skilled employment and points if they meet the income thresholds that were the basis for them being invited to apply for residence. … Effective 28/02/2024 [32] The appellant claimed 4 points for income, in accordance with SR3.25.1.a.ii (effective 1 August 2024). In order to qualify for 4 points, he was required to earn at least two times the median wage as it was at the time he was invited to apply for residence, being $63.22 per hour (as per instruction SR3.25.1.a.ii effective at the time the appellant was invited to apply for residence): SR3.25.1 Income a. When claiming points for income, the principal applicant must have full- time employment or an offer of full-time employment in New Zealand (employment is full-time if it amounts to at least 30 guaranteed hours per week for every week worked) which pays at least the equivalent of: … ii. 2 times the median wage (currently $63.22 per hour) to qualify for 4 points; or … b. As evidence of income, applicants must provide an employment agreement and job description specifying the occupation, hours and remuneration of the employment. [33] An applicant’s remuneration is calculated in accordance with SR2.5, which relevantly states: SR2.5 Calculating remuneration a. Remuneration will be calculated on the basis of guaranteed payment per hour. b. Remuneration will be calculated according to the hours of work stated in the employment agreement.

8 … d. If all or part of the payment is proposed to be by annual salary, the payment per hour for the salary portion will be calculated by dividing the annual salary by 52 weeks, followed by the number of hours that will be worked each week. If the payment is by salary, but not annual salary, then the relevant number of weeks will be used instead. … SR2.5.1 Variable hours a. Hours of work per week will be considered variable where the proposed employment agreement contains a provision allowing the employer to request or require the employee to work additional hours from time to time. b. If the hours of work are variable and the proposed employment agreement specifies payment other than by hour (including payment by salary), an immigration officer may request a declaration from the employer of the range of hours to be worked, including the maximum, in order to calculate the remuneration of the employment. c. Where evidence of the range of hours is provided in terms of (a) above or proposed employment agreement specifies a range of hours, the maximum hours will be used to calculate the remuneration. Effective 09/10/2023 Points awarded to the appellant for income [34] The appellant claimed 4 points for income earned in his current role at [APPELLANT]. In order to claim 4 points for income, the appellant was required to demonstrate that at the time he was invited to apply for residence (being, 15 May 2025) he was earning two times the median wage, as set out in SR3.25.1. [35] Immigration New Zealand correctly applied SR3.25.1 when calculating the appellant’s income. The appellant had stated that he worked 40 hours per week and, from 1 September 2024, his salary increased to $128,750 per annum. Immigration New Zealand appears to have accepted this. The most recent payslip provided (for the period ending 30 April 2025) was consistent with the appellant earning that salary and working those hours as it recorded the appellant had an hourly rate of $61.90. However, that hourly rate was below $63.22 per hour, being the rate required under SR3.25.1.a.ii. [36] Immigration New Zealand stated the appellant did not meet instruction SR3.25.1 therefore he could not be awarded 4 points for income. The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly determined the appellant was not eligible for his claimed points for income. The appellant did earn 1.5 times the median wage at the time of his application (which was $47.41 per hour) which meant he could have qualified for 3 points for income (see SR3.25.1.a.iii). However, if those 3 points were

9 combined with the 2 points Immigration New Zealand awarded for skilled work experience, he would still not have the 6 points required under instruction SR3.10.b.iii. [37] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant misunderstood when it was that he was required to meet the requisite income threshold at twice the median hourly rate. That is unfortunate, however it does not alter the Tribunal’s finding that Immigration New Zealand was correct in its decision. Conclusion on correctness [38] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. The appellant was not earning an income of at least two times the median wage at the time he was invited to apply for residence and was therefore not eligible for 4 points in accordance with SR3.25.1.a.ii. With only 2 points for skilled work experience, and even if awarded 3 points for earning an income which was at least 1.5 times the median wage, the appellant did not meet the requirements of instruction SR3.10.b.iii. Whether there are Special Circumstances [39] 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. [40] 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. [41] 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. Personal and family circumstances [42] The appellant was born in South Africa. In 2016, he was visiting his mother in Australia. While there, he met his wife who is also a South African citizen. The appellant states [NAME] moved in together in July 2016 but it is unclear whether

10 they moved in together in Australia or returned to South Africa. At some point, they returned to South Africa as they have provided evidence that they owned a property together there, which was sold in 2020. On 24 April 2021, they were married. [43] [NAME] do not have any children and the appellant did not declare any family members in his application form. The appellant has stated that his mother resides in Australia. It would appear that neither the appellant nor his wife has any family members residing in New Zealand. Immigration history [44] On 4 April 2023, the appellant first arrived in New Zealand from Adelaide as the holder of a visitor visa. On 9 May 2023 he was granted a three-year accredited employer work visa. He has not departed New Zealand since his arrival in April 2023. [45] On 3 June 2023, the appellant’s wife first arrived in New Zealand from Perth. Prior to her arrival, she was granted a work visa on the basis of her partnership with the appellant which will expire on 9 May 2026. She has not departed New Zealand since her arrival. Settlement in, and contribution to, New Zealand [46] The appellant has been employed as a senior health and safety advisor at [COMPANY] since May 2023. During his employment to date, he has received two remuneration increases. The appellant’s ongoing employment and increases in renumeration are a reflection of both his value to his employer and of his contribution to New Zealand. [47] The appellant’s wife is employed as a personal assistant/administrator at an [NAME]. The appellant writes that he and his wife “actively contribute” to their local community and that they have embraced life in [NAME]. They are members of their local church and are described by the senior pastor as actively involved in their community and trusted members of the church’s leadership team. The appellant is also a regular blood donor, having made seven donations in his time here. [NAME] say that they wish to make New Zealand their permanent home. [48] The length of the appellant and his wife’s stay in New Zealand, being approximately three years each, is modest for temporary visa holders. The Tribunal acknowledges that [NAME] have achieved a level of settlement in New Zealand

11 commensurate to the length of time they have spent here, and that they have made friends and other connections, particularly through their church community. However, the evidence before the Tribunal does not demonstrate that their level of settlement and contribution is unusual, or out of the ordinary, for a [APPELLANT] [NAME] that wishes to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. Wife’s medical condition [49] The appellant’s wife has recently been diagnosed with cancer and is scheduled for surgery. [Withheld] In a report (16 April 2026), her surgeon states she has an excellent prognosis and is expected to make a full recovery [withheld]. [50] The Tribunal acknowledges that the wife’s recent diagnosis has undoubtedly caused [NAME] significant stress and anxiety during an already challenging period. However, the medical evidence indicates that the scheduled surgery and subsequent treatment are expected to result in a full recovery. Consequently, the Tribunal finds that these health challenges, though deeply personal and distressing, do not give rise to circumstances that necessitate the grant of residence as an exception to instructions. Pathway to residence [51] The Tribunal accepts the appellant genuinely misunderstood the requirement set out in SR3.25.1 to demonstrate that, at the time he was invited to apply for residence, he was earning two times the median wage. However, his genuine misunderstanding does not give rise to special circumstances. As acknowledged by the representative, it appears the appellant’s application for residence was simply premature. [52] The evidence presented to the Tribunal suggests that the appellant has continued in his employment, and therefore, by May 2026, he will have completed 36 months’ skilled work experience in New Zealand in the prior 60 months, as required by instruction SR3.35.a.i (effective 18 August 2025). By then, and assuming there is no change to residence instructions, it seems likely he will qualify for 3 points for skilled work experience and would therefore only need a further 3 points from income, qualification, or New Zealand registration to meet instructions. As noted above, so long as his income at the time of any new application remains more than 1.5 times the median wage at that time, he will qualify for 3 points for income (see SR3.25.1.a.iii). It therefore appears open to the appellant to re-apply for residence under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category after

12 15 May 2026. The Tribunal notes that the success of any future application is entirely a matter for Immigration New Zealand, based on residence instructions in force at that time. [53] The Tribunal acknowledges that [NAME]’s current visas will expire on 9 May 2026. The appellant and his wife may wish to seek a further accredited employer work visa and partnership-based work visa, respectively. The appellant’s employer appears to retain accreditation and it is evident that the appellant is a capable and valued employee. It sees no apparent reason why the appellant could not obtain a further accredited employer work visa until such time as he considers that he meets the skilled work experience requirements for residence. Health, character and English language requirements [54] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellant and his wife were of an acceptable standard of health for residence, and that they met the English language requirements in instructions. [55] Immigration New Zealand obtained confirmation that the appellant has no convictions in New Zealand (as at 11 June 2025) and the appellant provided evidence that neither he nor his wife have convictions in South Africa (as at 12 March 2025). Discussion on special circumstances [56] The appellant and his wife have been in New Zealand for approximately three years. It is evident that the appellant is a valued employee and that he and his wife have settled well into life in New Zealand during the time they have been here. However, there is nothing about their level of settlement or contribution that is unusual or out of the ordinary. [57] The wife’s recent medical diagnosis and planned surgery has added stress to [NAME]’s situation but does not of itself meet the threshold of special circumstances. That the appellant genuinely misunderstood the income requirement of instructions is unfortunate. However, he retains a pathway to residence. It appears that he will shortly qualify for the 6 points required by instructions, and there is no suggestion that he cannot make a fresh application for residence under the [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) category.

13 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Conclusion on special circumstances [58] Having regard to the circumstances of the appellant and his wife as disclosed, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does not have special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [59] 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. [60] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy and Abridged Research Copy [61] Pursuant to clauses 18(4) and 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 wife. This includes withholding a portion of paragraph [49] from the research copy of this decision to preserve the privacy of the wife in relation to her medical information. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member