Tribunal Reassesses Residence Application After Teacher Registration

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207494 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 22 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 35-[NAME]-old citizen of Tonga whose application for residence under the [APPELLANT] category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included her [NAME] and five- and three-[NAME]-old daughters, all also Tongan citizens. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because she did not have New Zealand Teachers Council registration and therefore could not be assessed as suitably qualified for her claimed employment as a [COMPANY]. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant’s subsequent registration constitutes a particular event that has occurred post decision, and whether the Tribunal is satisfied that the event materially affects the applicant’s eligibility under residence instructions.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application but that a particular event has occurred which materially affects the applicant’s eligibility under the residence instructions. It also finds that it is fair, in all the circumstances, to cancel Immigration New Zealand’s decision and refer it back for a new assessment.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant, her husband and two young daughters are Tongan citizens. They have been living in New Zealand since April 2021 with the appellant’s [NAME] mother and critically ill brother who are New Zealand residents, and two other siblings. [6] The appellant and her family originally entered New Zealand holding visitor visas. In May 2022, the appellant obtained a work visa on the basis of her partnership with her husband, an essential skills work visa holder. In May 2025 the appellant applied for an accredited employer work visa based on her job offer as a [COMPANY]. The application was declined on 29 July 2025. [7] The appellant subsequently sought a work visa as an exception to instructions pursuant to section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act) in August 2025 because her interim visa had lapsed. This was approved as a three-month open work visa, during which time the appellant obtained a further work visa (18 December 2025) on the basis of being the partner of an accredited employer work visa holder as her husband’s such visa had been approved (9 June 2025). [8] The appellant and her husband are both teachers employed by a [COMPANY]. They have work visas to undertake their employment that are valid until 2030. Their daughters hold corresponding valid student visas. Residence Application [9] On 14 May 2025, the appellant made an online application under the [APPELLANT] category of residence instructions based on her job offer as a [COMPANY]. To be granted residence under the Skilled Residence ([APPELLANT]) category, the [NAME] applicant must, among other requirements, establish that they are suitably qualified for the claimed employment and that they meet character requirements for residence.

3 Immigration New Zealand’s Concerns [10] By letter dated 26 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant with concerns regarding her application. First, that she and her husband had not established that they met the English language requirements of the instructions. Second, that her and her husband did not meet character requirements as they had not provided clear and valid police checks from Tonga, the United Kingdom and China. [11] Third, Immigration New Zealand considered that the appellant was not suitably qualified for her role, and as such did not meet skilled employment instructions, because she did not hold full or provisional registration to be employed as a [NAME]. Fourth, documentary evidence regarding her employment agreement had not been provided. Appellant’s Response to Immigration New Zealand’s Concerns [12] On 6 June 2025 the appellant responded to Immigration New Zealand. She provided evidence of her and her husband’s English language ability in the form of International English Language Testing System (IELTS) test results of 7.5 for the appellant and 8.0 for her husband. Additionally, she provided clear Tongan police certificates for [NAME] and her husband. [13] The appellant advised that she was awaiting police certificates from the United Kingdom and China for her husband and [NAME] which were expected before the end of June. She had also applied for her teaching practising certificate which was still being processed. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [14] Immigration New Zealand declined the application on 2 July 2025 for the following reasons: (a) neither the appellant nor her husband had provided a clear police certificate from the United Kingdom as was required by SR3.10.a.i, A5.1.a, A5.5.a.i, and .b.ii being a country they had lived in for 12 months or more in the last 10 years; and

4 (b) the appellant had not provided a clear police certificate from China as she was required to by SR3.10.a.i, A5.1.a, A5.5.a.i, and .b.ii being a country she had lived in for 12 months or more in the preceding 10 years; and (c) the appellant was not suitably qualified for her skilled employment as a [COMPANY] (ANZSCO code 241411) because she did not provide evidence of registration with the New Zealand Teaching Council. STATUTORY GROUNDS [15] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of 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. [16] 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 [17] On 11 August 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that her and her family’s circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. She submits that she is required to stay in New Zealand to support [NAME] and ill brother, that both her and her husband work in occupations that are in demand in New Zealand, they are both making significant contributions to the community and it was only due to financial hardship and time constraints that her application did not meet the instructions in the short period afforded to her before a decision was made.

5 [18] In support of her appeal, in addition to the documents already provided to Immigration New Zealand, the appellant provided the following documents: (a) Confirmation of her family’s updated visas. (b) Clear police certificates from the United Kingdom for the appellant and her husband (2 June 2025). (c) Clear police certificate from China for the appellant (11 June 2025). (d) Confirmation (8 August 2025) that the appellant has been granted registration with a [NAME] sector endorsement from the Teaching Council of [NAME]. (e) Confirmation (29 May 2025) of the appellant’s husband’s Limited Authority to Teach from the Teaching Council of [NAME], valid from 29 May 2025 until 28 May 2026. (f) A statement (17 July 2026) from the [NAME] of the high [COMPANY] that employs the appellant and her husband. The [NAME] records that it is difficult to source suitable, qualified, high performing teachers (as the appellant and her husband are) for their [COMPANY], particularly given its Special Character. (g) A statement (22 July 2025) in support from the pastor of the high [COMPANY]. (h) Updated IELTS tests results (13 July 2025): 7.5 for the appellant and 8.0 for her husband. (i) A statement (7 August 2025) from the appellant’s mother regarding her need for the appellant and her family to remain in New Zealand. Further information provided on appeal [19] When assessing whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision was correct, 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 [20] There is an exception to section 189(1) (at section 189(3)(a)). This is however not available to the appellant regarding the United Kingdom and Chinese police certificates because they existed at the time the decision to refuse the visa was made, would have been relevant to the making of that decision and could have been provided by the exercise of reasonable diligence to the immigration officer. [21] As such, the Tribunal cannot consider the appellant’s United Kingdom and Chinese police certificates in this appeal. Given the Tribunal’s decision however, they can be considered by Immigration New Zealand upon its reassessment of the application. [22] This exception does not apply to the [NAME]’s registration because the appellant had not been registered by the Teachers Council at the time Immigration New Zealand made its decision (189(3)(a)(i)). However, there is a further exception to section 189(1) when there has been a “particular event” which has occurred after the decision was made and which materially affects the appellant’s eligibility (section 189(6)). The Tribunal’s discussion of whether this exception applies to the appellant’s teaching registration is set out below at [35] to [45]. ASSESSMENT [23] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal, including the further information provided on appeal which meets the exception discussed, the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [24] 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 as to whether a particular event has occurred. Whether the Decision is Correct [25] The application was made on 14 May 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant did not provide the required police

7 certificates and was not considered suitably qualified for her claimed employment in New Zealand as she had not obtained her teaching registration. Police certificates [26] Instruction SR3.10.a.i requires applicants under the [APPELLANT] category to meet character requirements as they must be of good character (A5.1.a) to be eligible for resident visas. Instruction A5.5.a.i requires a character check to be completed on applicants aged 17 and over by providing a valid police certificate for their country of citizenship (A5.5.b.i) and each country that an applicant has lived in for more than 12 months in the last 10 years (A5.5.b.ii). [27] The appellant had lived in the United Kingdom and China for more than 12 months in the 10 years preceding her application for residence, therefore she was required to provide police certificates from those countries. She had applied for the required certificates and received them on 19 June (UK certificates) and approximately 24 June (Chinese certificate). She did not however forward them to Immigration New Zealand prior to her application being declined because she intended to provide all the documentation together when the teachers registration was received. In short, she thought she had more time than in fact she did. [28] Ultimately however, the certificates could not be taken into account by Immigration New Zealand when it conducted its assessment, because it did not have them. As such, Immigration New Zealand was required to find that the appellant did not meet instruction A5.5.b.ii. Suitably qualified [29] The relevant instructions regarding the assessment of the appellant’s claimed skilled employment are as follows: SR3.20.5 Suitably qualified a. An applicant will be assessed as being suitably qualified if they: i. have a relevant qualification meeting the requirements at SR3.25.5(c) that is at, or above, the qualification level on the New Zealand Qualifications Framework (NZQF) that corresponds to the indicative skill level described for their occupation in the ANZSCO; or ii. have the relevant work experience that the ANZSCO indicates may substitute for the required qualification; or iii. are in a skill level 1 occupation and have five years of relevant work experience; or

8 iv. are in a skill level 2 or 3 occupation and have three years of relevant work experience; or v. have current registration for their employment listed at SR3.30 or Appendix 16. … d. Where their skilled employment is in an occupation that requires registration by law (see Appendix 16), the [NAME] applicant must have the required full or provisional registration for that occupation in New Zealand (or a letter of eligibility from the New Zealand Medical or Dental Council) to be suitably qualified. Effective 28/02/2024 [30] Immigration New Zealand accepted that the appellant’s claimed occupation of [COMPANY] (ANZSCO code 241411) was a skill level 1 occupation. However, to be employed as a [NAME], Appendix 16 (effective 9 October 2023) states that registration is required by law. The appellant had not provided evidence of being registered with the New Zealand Teaching Council prior to the decline of the application. [31] In its letter of decline, Immigration New Zealand noted that the appellant was not suitably qualified for her role as a [COMPANY]. It recorded that SR3.20.5.a “requires an applicant to have either a relevant qualification at NZQF Level 7, five years relevant work experience, or registration for their employment listed at SR3.30 or Appendix 16 to be suitably qualified.” It then went on to discuss her lack of confirmation of registration. [32] This was a convoluted discussion of why the application was being declined and as such likely confusing for the appellant. Essentially what Immigration New Zealand should have recorded was that the appellant did not have registration as is required by SR3.20.5.d to be considered suitably qualified. However, whilst the wording used by Immigration New Zealand breached its principle of fairness to give appropriate (and implicitly clear) reasons for its decision (A1.5.a, effective 29 November 2010), there was no prejudice to the appellant as the result was the same: she had not provided evidence of registration and therefore could not satisfy instruction SR3.20.5.d. Conclusion on correctness [33] For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. She had not provided police certificates from the United Kingdom and China where her and

9 her husband had spent more than 12 months in the preceding 10 years. Therefore, the application did not satisfy SR3.10.a.i, A5.1.a, A5.5.a.i, and .b.ii. [34] Additionally, the appellant had not provided confirmation of her [NAME]’s registration and therefore could not be assessed as suitably qualified for her claimed employment (SR3.20.5.d and Appendix 16) as a [NAME]. On the information available to it at the time it made its assessment, Immigration New Zealand therefore was required to decline the appellant’s application. Particular Event [35] On appeal, the appellant has provided further information being confirmation of her teaching registration with the New Zealand Teaching Council. As set out above, the Tribunal is unable to consider information that was not provided to Immigration New Zealand prior to the decision being made on the application (section 189(1)). However, the Act provides a relevant exception at section 189(6), which states: 189 Use of further information in appeals under section 187 … (6) The Tribunal may, if it considers it fair in all the circumstances to do so, determine the appeal in the manner set out in section 188(1)(d) where— (a) it comes to the attention of the Tribunal that any particular event has occurred after the time at which the Minister or the immigration officer made the decision on the appellant’s visa application; and (b) the Tribunal is satisfied that the event materially affects the applicant’s eligibility under residence instructions. [36] Under section 188(1)(d) of the Act, the Tribunal may cancel Immigration New Zealand’s decision and refer the appellant’s application back to it for reassessment as if a new application had been made that included additional information properly before the Tribunal. [37] The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant’s teaching registration constitutes a particular event. Instruction SR3.20.5.d, as discussed above, required the appellant to be registered with the Teaching Council before she could be considered suitably qualified to [NAME] up the skilled employment as a [NAME]. That she was not registered was a fundamental ground upon which Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application. As such, her registration shortly after the decision materially affects her eligibility pursuant to instruction for residence under the [APPELLANT] category. She was in the process of obtaining

10 her registration when making her application, but was unable to complete the process prior to her application being declined. [38] If Immigration New Zealand additionally determines that the appellant has eligible skilled work experience (SR3.35), she may now qualify for the mandatory points required to apply for a resident visa. The appellant required 6 points (SR3.10.b.iii effective 28 February 2024) to meet the residence instructions and had been assessed as eligible for 5 points on the basis of her qualification (Master of Education) (SR3.25.5.a.ii effective 1 August 2024). She therefore required at least 1 further point from her skilled work experience. [39] The appellant had claimed 2 points for 24 months’ work experience in New Zealand based on two positions she held between 31 October 2022 and 31 December 2023 ([NAME] code 422116, skill level 3), and between 24 January 2024 and 19 May 2025 (IT, [NAME]). Immigration New Zealand had completed its assessment of the appellant’s eligibility under SR3.35 and had not put any concerns, if it had any, regarding her skilled work experience, to the appellant for comment. [40] The Tribunal considers that it is fair in all the circumstances that the new evidence be admitted and that the appeal be determined in accordance with section 188(1)(d) of the Act. Immigration New Zealand was not incorrect to decline the application, as it correctly identified that the appellant did not meet the requirements of instructions at the time the application was determined. However, the appellant obtained [NAME]’s registration shortly after the decision was made which materially affects her eligibility under instructions. [41] Furthermore, the appellant, in her email to Immigration New Zealand on 6 June, advised that she had applied for her registration which was being processed. An extension of time was not discussed by Immigration New Zealand although it stated by email (10 June 2025) that it would contact the appellant if further information was required. It did not. Also notwithstanding this communication, it did not seek evidence of the delays the documents were suffering, despite citing the absence of such as a reason for decline. [42] The application was assessed on 26 June and the letter confirming the decline of the application was sent to the appellant on 2 July. The application had only been made in May 2025 and therefore it would have been reasonable of Immigration New Zealand to allow the appellant an extension to provide the documents that she had advised had been sought. The Tribunal is however

11 cognisant that it was within Immigration New Zealand’s discretion to assess the application on the basis of the documentation available to it after fair warning (R2.40.e.v and sections 26 and 58 of the Act). [43] The appellant has provided a breakdown of the extensive costs she has been put to in making her application (almost $14,000). She had made the application for residence at the time she did in order to avoid the cost of applying for further work visas. This is a considerable amount of money to anyone, but particularly the appellant and her husband who are both working on modest [NAME] salaries and supporting a family of seven (the appellant, her husband, their two children, and the appellant’s mother and three siblings). She had explained to Immigration New Zealand the burden that this cost was placing on the family in explanation for the delays. [44] If the application is returned to Immigration New Zealand for reassessment, it will be able to rely on the evidence provided to date and the assessment it has already conducted (save for the need to update as appropriate and to rely on the Tribunal’s findings in this decision). It will then be in a position to continue to assess the appellant’s application. There will therefore be greater efficiencies in undertaking a reassessment rather than requiring the appellant to submit a further application. In such circumstances, the Tribunal finds that it fair that the new evidence be admitted, and the application is referred back to Immigration New Zealand for assessment. Conclusion on particular event [45] Given the factors set out above, the Tribunal finds that a particular event has occurred after Immigration New Zealand made its decision that materially affects the appellant’s eligibility and that it is fair in all the circumstances to determine the appeal in the manner set out in section 188(1)(d) of the Act. DETERMINATION [46] This appeal is determined under section 188(1)(d) of the Immigration Act 2009. The Tribunal notes the correctness of the original decision of Immigration New Zealand in terms of the applicable residence instructions on the basis of the information provided to Immigration New Zealand before the time of the decision. However, the Tribunal cancels the decision and refers the application back to the chief executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment for

12 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member consideration by Immigration New Zealand, as if a new application had been made, that included any additional information properly provided to the Tribunal. [47] The Tribunal emphasises this does not mean the appellant is entitled to residence. It means the application will be the subject of a new assessment. Further, this requires an assessment under the residence instructions which applied to the appellant’s application when it was made, not current instructions. [48] The appeal is successful in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [49] 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 her family members. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member