Tribunal Upholds Rejection of Residence Application for Skilled Migrant

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207460 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: K Lash (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 24 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 34-year-old citizen of [COMPANY_4] whose application for residence under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included his 32-year-old partner, also of [NAME_1] nationality. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because it was not satisfied that his skilled employment was a substantial match to the Australian and New Zealand Standard Classification of Occupations (ANZSCO) description of a [NAME_2]. [3] The principal issues for the Tribunal are whether Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application, and if so, whether the appellant’s circumstances are special. [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision was correct, and also that the appellant does not have

2 special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is a 34-year-old [NAME_1] national. He first came to New Zealand in November 2015 and lived and worked here until February 2017. He returned again in November 2023 and has predominantly remained here since. [6] For the duration of his time in New Zealand, the appellant has held work visas. His current accredited employer work visa is valid until 4 November 2026. The appellant has been employed as a specialist abseiler/rope access technician by a [COMPANY_3] since December 2023. He has a master’s degree in sport for health from a [COMPANY_4] which has been assessed by the New Zealand Qualifications Authority ([NAME_5]) as a master’s degree at Level 9 on the [NAME_5] ([NAME_5]). [7] The appellant has been in a relationship since 2021 with a [NAME_15] who has been living in New Zealand with him since their arrival in November 2023. Her current partnership-based work visa is valid until 4 November 2026. Residence Application [8] On 24 April 2025, the appellant made an online application under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category of residence instructions. To be granted residence under this category, a principal applicant must, among other requirements, qualify for 6 points (SR3.10.b.iii). The appellant claimed 6 points comprised of 5 points for a qualification recognised on the [NAME_5] as a Level 9 qualification and 1 point for 12 months’ skilled work experience in New Zealand. [9] The appellant claimed that he had skilled employment and skilled work experience from his employment with a New Zealand rope access, façade remediation and height safety services company as a specialist abseiler/rope access technician. To qualify for points for skilled work experience, the appellant’s employment must have been full time and paid at least the median wage for an occupation listed at ANZSCO skill level 1–3 (SR3.35).

3 [10] The appellant’s application relied on his role being substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of a [NAME_2] (ANZSCO code 821711), a skill level 3 occupation. Immigration New Zealand’s Concerns and Appellant’s Response [11] On 29 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand conducted a phone interview with the appellant during which he explained that he primarily supervised teams undertaking work on buildings at height. He was responsible for installing and maintaining at height lifeline systems which support the workers. [12] By letter dated 12 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant stating that it did not consider his role substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of a [NAME_2]. Rather, it assessed the appellant’s role as substantially consistent to the ANZSCO occupation of a [NAME_6] (899311), a skill level 5 occupation. At this assessed skill level, with the renumeration the appellant was earning, the role was not eligible to accrue any points for skilled work experience. As such, Immigration New Zealand assessed the appellant as eligible for a total of only 5 points for his qualification which was less than the required 6 points for a grant of residence under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category. [13] The appellant responded on 18 June 2025 clarifying his duties and including a letter from his employer, registration documents and qualifications. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [14] By letter of 4 July 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application. It found that the appellant’s claimed skilled employment did not qualify as such, nor as skilled work experience, because the employment was not substantially consistent with an ANZSCO occupation at skill level 1 to 3. Specifically, it was not consistent with the ANZSCO skill level 3 occupation of [NAME_2] (821711). [15] Accordingly, Immigration New Zealand was unable to award the appellant the 1 point he had claimed for 12 months’ skilled work experience. As he was eligible for only 5 points for his qualification (SR3.25.5.a.ii), he did not qualify for the 6 points required to be granted a Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category resident visa (SR3.10.b.iii), and the application was declined.

4 STATUTORY GROUNDS [16] 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. [17] 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 [18] On 7 July 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on both grounds in section 187(4). He states that Immigration New Zealand misclassified his employment and as such, its decision was wrong. Alternatively, he contends that he has special circumstances. [19] In support of his appeal, the appellant provided, along with his submissions, the following documents: (a) A letter (14 July 2025) from the appellant’s employer confirming the specialist skills the appellant has and is required to have for his employment. It noted that his role includes rigging complex rope systems, conducting various at height rescues, operating at height with rigorous risk protocols, and certifying work sites in accordance with industry standards: [COMPANY_7] ([NAME_7]) and [NAME_7] ([NAME_7]). (b) A statement (14 July 2025) from the [NAME_8] who confirms (and provided copies of documents) that he obtained a resident visa on the basis of his employment as a rope access technician.

5 (c) Evidence (December 2025) from another rope access technician (with the same company) who had his experience as such recognised by Immigration New Zealand as skilled work experience. (d) Evidence of his level 1, 2 and 3 [NAME_7] certifications. (e) His certified [NAME_7] logbook. Further information provided on appeal [20] 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). [21] There is an exception to section 189(1) (at section 189(3)(a)). However, the Tribunal finds that this exception does not apply because the information existed at the time of Immigration New Zealand’s decision, it may have been relevant to the making of that decision, and it could have been provided to Immigration New Zealand (section 189(3)(a)(ii)). [22] There is an additional 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 further information, particularly that with respect to the appellant’s colleagues’ treatment by Immigration New Zealand, is only considered by the Tribunal in its special circumstances assessment. ASSESSMENT [23] 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. [24] 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.

6 Whether the Decision is Correct [25] The application was made on 24 April 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. [26] Instruction SR3.10 (effective 28 February 2024) summarises the requirements for the grant of a resident visa under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category. These requirements include (among others) that an applicant holds current skilled employment (SR3.10.b.ii), and that the applicant qualifies for 6 points from either one of the three skill categories (namely, income, qualification, or New Zealand occupational registration) or from a combination of one skill category and the applicant’s skilled work experience in New Zealand (SR3.10.b.iii). [27] The appellant did not qualify for 6 points from one skill category. He therefore sought to accrue points from a combination of the qualification skill category – 5 points (SR3.25.5, effective 1 August 2024) and skilled work experience in New Zealand – 1 point (SR3.35.b, effective 28 February 2024). [28] Immigration New Zealand accepted that the appellant was eligible for 5 points for his qualification, a Master of Sport for Health from a [COMPANY_4] (SR3.25.5.a.ii). However, it did not accept that he was eligible for any points for skilled work experience in New Zealand. Skilled work experience [29] The appellant has been employed as a specialist abseiler/rope access technician for the same [COMPANY_3] since 1 December 2023, therefore for 17 months prior to his application for residence being submitted. [30] Instruction SR3.35 sets out the requirements for an applicant’s skilled work experience to qualify for points: SR3.35 Skilled work experience in New Zealand (28/02/2024) a. When claiming points for skilled work experience in New Zealand, immediately prior to submitting the residence application, the principal applicant must have completed skilled work experience in New Zealand for: … iii. 12 months in the prior 24 months to qualify for 1 point. Note: …

7 b. Skilled work experience in New Zealand is time that the applicant worked in full-time employment (employment is full-time if it amounts to at least 30 guaranteed hours per week for every week worked) in New Zealand where they earned at least the equivalent of: i. the median wage if their occupation is listed at ANZSCO skill level 1-3; or ii. 1.5 times the median wage if their occupation is listed at ANZSCO skill level 4-5, or not included in ANZSCO; or … c. The median wage in effect for the Skilled Migrant Category across time is: Date range Median wage 1.5 times median wage 2 times median wage … … … … From 27 February 2023 – 27 February 2024 $29.66 $44.49 $59.32 From 28 February 2024 $31.61 $47.41 $63.22 … SR3.35.1 Determining skilled work experience in New Zealand a. In determining the ANZSCO skill level of an applicant’s employment an immigration officer: i. will determine whether the applicant’s employment is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO ‘Occupation’ (6-digit) level job title and description for that occupation; and ii. may undertake a substantial match assessment (see SR2.1.1). b. Skilled work experience in New Zealand will start being counted when the applicant earns at least the wage required by SR3.35(b) at that time.

… SR2.1.1 Substantial match a. An immigration officer may undertake a substantial match assessment to determine whether the applicant’s employment or offer of employment is listed at a specific ANZSCO level or in a specific occupation listed in the ANZSCO. b. The assessment of a substantial match involves a determination of whether the applicant’s employment is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO Occupation (6-digit) level description for that occupation and with the tasks listed at the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) level description for that occupational group, excluding any tasks which are not relevant to the Occupation description.

8 c. To be considered a substantial match to an occupation, the tasks that are relevant to the ANZSCO occupation description must comprise most of the applicant’s role. Notes: Where no description is stated at the ANZSCO occupation (6-digit) level, an immigration officer should refer to the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) description or the higher ANZSCO group (3-digit or 2-digit) level as necessary to determine a substantial match with the stated occupation. Similarly, where no ANZSCO core tasks are listed at the ANZSCO Unit Group (4-digit) level, an immigration officer should refer to a higher ANZSCO group (3-digit or 2-digit) level as necessary to locate the core tasks that ANZSCO associates with the stated occupation. Determining whether an applicant’s employment substantially matches an ANZSCO occupation description may require consideration of the scope and scale of the employer’s organisation and operation (the size of the operation, the number of staff and managers, and whether management functions are centralised at a head office or undertaken by other managers). Effective 09/10/2023 [31] In determining the application, Immigration New Zealand was required to apply principles of fairness and natural justice (A1.1, effective 29 August 2012). It is however an applicant’s responsibility to demonstrate, to the satisfaction of Immigration New Zealand, that they meet the requirements of immigration instructions (R5.10, effective 25 September 2023). [32] The appellant claims that his position as specialist abseiler/rope access technician is skilled employment as it is substantially consistent with the ANZSCO occupation of a [NAME_2], a skill level 3 occupation, being the most closely aligned ANZSCO occupation. His remuneration at $32 an hour was above the required median wage $31.61 per hour (SR3.10.b.ii). The ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_2] [33] The ANZSCO occupation of a [NAME_2] (821711) is a skill level 3 occupation. The ANZSCO describes the occupation as someone who: Assembles and installs rigging gear, such as cables, ropes, pulleys and winches, to lift, lower, move and position equipment, structural steel and other heavy objects. Registration or licensing may be required. [35] The other synonyms for [NAME_2] are [NAME_2], [NAME_2], [NAME_2], [NAME_2]. [NAME_2] is within the Unit Group 8217 of [NAME_2] Workers. The ANZSCO description for the Unit Group 8217 [NAME_2] Workers provides that: [NAME_2] WORKERS assemble rigging gear to move and position equipment and structural components, erect scaffolding,

9 position and secure steel reinforcing in concrete forms, and erect and dismantle structural steel frames. [34] The other occupations in the Unit Group are Scaffolder, Steel Fixer and Structural Steel Erector. The core tasks in the Unit Group 8217 in which the occupation is found, are listed as follows (numbering added): 1. erecting lifting tackles by attaching pulleys and blocks to fixed overhead structures, and installing cables and attaching counterweights 2. attaching slinging gear to hoisting equipment and objects to be moved using clamps, hooks, bolts and knots 3. fitting and bolting tubes, support braces and components to form bases and build up scaffolding 4. lifting and positioning sections of scaffolding 5. measuring, cutting, bending and fitting welded wire mesh into concrete areas to be mesh-reinforced 6. fixing mesh and reinforcing steel into position in formwork for concrete pours 7. setting up winches and rigging equipment to raise and position girders, plates, columns and other steel units 8. erecting guard rails, guy wires, ropes and clears, laying planks and hanging safety nets. Appellant’s submission of application of his role to the ANZSCO occupation [35] The appellant’s submission is that his role is most consistent with, or the closest match to, the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_2] in terms of core tasks, skill level and training/qualifications required. He notes that rope access technician is a synonym for the occupation. [36] The appellant’s job description lists his tasks as: Specialist Rope Access • perform rope access work, including repairs at heights, building washing, inspections, and other specialist requirements • install and maintain at height lifeline systems, both temporary and permanent • supervised site operations, oversee project teams, site safety and coordinate with teams to ensure smooth project execution Project Management and Quality Assurance • manage projects on site, ensuring timelines, budgets, and quality standards are met • ensure compliance with all health and safety regulations while working at heights and with hazardous materials

10 • conduct regular site inspections and ensure work is carried out safely and efficiently, and findings and recommendations are suitably documented • support and specialised rigging and lifting operations Job Administration and Documentation • document daily work activities and report any safety concerns or project issues • ensure accuracy of job notes, team time sheeting and other general administrative requirements [37] The appellant explains that his position involves specialised rigging operations at height, installation of lifeline systems, rescue preparedness and strict compliance with international rope access safety standards such as [NAME_7] and the [COMPANY_9] ([NAME_9]). Therefore, he undertakes highly skilled operations requiring international certification and training. As such, he submits that Immigration New Zealand’s classification of his role as a [NAME_6] who performs routine maintenance was inaccurate and disrespectful. [38] He explained that when he commenced employment on 1 December 2023, he had passed the [NAME_7] level 1 certification. In May 2024, he passed the level 2 certification, and in June 2025, he passed the level 3 certification. Each level requires a minimum of a 1,000 verified hours and 12 months of practical experience. [39] The appellant notes that the [NAME_10] ([NAME_10]) has specifically recognised a Rope Access Technician ([NAME_10] code 821715) since November 2025 as a [NAME_10] skill level 3 occupation. It is described as: [NAME_5] Level 4 qualification, or at least three years of relevant experience may substitute for the formal qualification ([NAME_5] Level 4/[NAME_10] 3). Performs specialized work at height using rope access techniques to inspect, maintain, and repair structures such as buildings, bridges, and towers. Duties include rigging safety equipment, conducting safety checks, executing precision tasks in confined or elevated areas, and documenting completed work to meet industry safety and quality standards. [T]his occupation excludes the following: [NAME_2]. [40] In summary, the appellant argues that his employment requires a similar skill level to that of [NAME_2] in the ANZSCO and is best aligned with Rope Access Technician in the [NAME_10]; the two categorisation systems being misaligned. His employment is highly skilled and technical, and as such meets instruction.

11 Immigration New Zealand’s assessment [41] Immigration New Zealand was not satisfied that the appellant’s employment was a substantial match to the ANZSCO description of a [NAME_2]. It noted that although the role involved work with ropes, the ropes were not for the movement of equipment, specifically structural steel and other heavy objects. It acknowledged that the role had elements of assembling and installing rigging gear, however that was used to lift and lower tools and materials. It noted that the appellant had stated that his substantive work consisted of glazing, leak sealing, flashing, structural repairs and inspections, or supervising teams at height, and at times he was required to move cranes using rigging and rope systems. It accepted that he was installing and inspecting temporary and permanent lifelines to undertake at height operations. [42] Immigration New Zealand assessed the appellant’s role as more consistent with ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_6] (899311), a skill level 5 occupation. The description of this occupation is “Cleans, paints, repairs and maintains buildings, grounds and facilities.” The tasks of the [COMPANY_6] are (numbering added): 1. repairing broken windows, screens, doors, fences, barbecues, picnic tables, shelves, cupboards and other items 2. replacing defective items such as light bulbs 3. repairing and painting interior and exterior surfaces such as walls, ceilings and fences 4. clearing rubbish and leaves from driveways and grounds 5. adjusting doors and windows 6. replacing tap washers 7. putting up handrails and grab rails. [43] This was because the appellant’s role was primarily made up of repairing and maintaining commercial buildings (albeit at height). It explained its conclusion on the basis that the information indicated to it that the appellant “substantially focussed on repairs and maintenance such as glazing, flashing and sealing leaks along with other jobs.” [44] In coming to its conclusion, Immigration New Zealand had before it, the appellant’s job description from his employment contract, the information provided in his interview and submissions, and a letter from his employer.

12 Was Immigration New Zealand’s assessment correct? [45] Having considered the evidence Immigration New Zealand was privy to, the Tribunal is satisfied that it was entitled to find that that the appellant’s employment was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_2] (821711). The description and tasks listed in the ANZSCO are focussed towards working with structural steel and structural components, whereas the appellant’s role of specialist abseiler/rope access technician is better characterised as safely conducting technical tasks at height. Although Rope Access Technician is listed as a synonym for [NAME_2], it is not described further in that context. [46] Both occupations may have a similar skill level, however Immigration New Zealand was correct to focus on the appellant’s actual employment tasks in assessing whether it was a substantial match, rather than the appellant’s personal expertise (SR2.1.1). [47] The Tribunal acknowledges the submission made by the appellant that the [NAME_10] occupation of Rope Access Technician ([NAME_10] code 821715) appears to be a substantial match with his role. The tasks and description do align with the appellant’s employment. However, the [NAME_10] is not presently the recognised occupation classification system that is used in residence instruction. Currently, [NAME_10] occupations are only relevant to accredited employer work visas. [48] For the sake of completeness, the Tribunal also finds that Immigration New Zealand’s classification of the appellant’s occupation as a [NAME_6] (899311) was not correct. The appellant’s role is a specialist position that requires significant technical expertise, safety awareness and internationally accredited training because it involves work at heights. It is not a generalised maintenance role. [49] In summary, Immigration New Zealand was correct to find that the appellant’s employment as specialist abseiler/rope access technician was not a substantial match to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_2]. Although undoubtably a skilled and technical position, rope access technician is not a discrete occupation under the ANZSCO. As such, Immigration New Zealand’s decision that the appellant’s application for residence could not succeed because his employment was not a substantial match for any of the skill level 1 to 3 occupations described in ANZSCO, was correct.

13 [50] Ultimately there is no ANZSCO code that matches the appellant’s particular employment. This is problematic for the appellant on appeal as the Tribunal cannot, and should not, circumvent instruction. Similar situations have been noted in other cases. For example, in CY (Skilled Migrant) [2011] NZIPT 200111, the Tribunal observed: [38] The appellant’s situation is therefore, in the Tribunal’s conclusion, a problematic one in terms of this appeal. On the one hand, logical adherence to the details of policy and ANZSCO, as indeed was carried out by the immigration officer, led to a conclusion that the appellant does not have an occupation that ‘substantially matches’ SM7.10.1 of the policy.

Accordingly, points were not be allocated for this. On the other hand, a purposive approach, taking into account the objectives of Government residence policy in regard to such skilled migration, must be taken. This is because of the inherent logic that these policies are designed to attract and secure skilled migrants to New Zealand (and not turn them away). The Skilled Migrant policy is intended to ensure that this group of migrants can give quick and effective contributions towards New Zealand’s overall economic growth. [39] Unfortunately, even adopting a purposive approach, the Tribunal simply cannot conclude the appellant is employed as either a ‘Travel Agency Manager’ nor indeed as a ‘Travel Consultant’, without either unreasonably stretching the words ‘substantially matched’ or alternatively omitting significant and important parts of the appellant’s actual job description/employment. There are just too many gaps between the reality of her employment and the ANZSCO descriptions. There is thus, in fact, a surprising lacuna in the ANZSCO which affects the assessment of this appellant’s occupation and potentially many others in the inbound tourism sector. The only ANZSCO positions remaining with some proximity, because they are in the overall tourism industry, concentrate on outbound retail travel rather than wholesale inbound tourism. [51] Likewise in ET (Skilled Migrant) [2011] NZIPT 200325, the Tribunal concluded: [71] Ultimately, [NAME_11] was faced with assessing the appellant’s highly specialised employment, in properties damaged by fire, flood or chemical contamination, that did not substantially match the tasks in any of the occupations listed in the ANZSCO code. Even the occupations described as ‘nec’, that is, not elsewhere classified, did not assist, and the appellant was described as a ‘cleaner’ on the employer’s database. [NAME_11] was correct to focus on the actual employment tasks, not the personal expertise of the appellant, in order to satisfy the policy at SM7.10 and SM7.10.1. [72] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant has become a valued employee, albeit on a relatively modest wage, and has been strongly supported by the General Manager of the company as being the only person with his particular skill-set. The Tribunal is satisfied that [NAME_11] correctly assessed the appellant’s employment.

In all the circumstances, [NAME_11] was entitled to conclude that the appellant was employed in a position that was not a substantial match for any of the occupations described in ANZSCO, as required by the Skilled Migrant policy at SM7.10.b. [73] The Tribunal finds that [NAME_11] was correct to conclude that the appellant’s employment did not satisfy the Skilled Migrant policy because, although he was valued for his specialised skills, his position description had eluded classification as being skilled within the meaning of policy.

14 Fairness [52] The appellant submits that Immigration New Zealand has been inconsistent in its decision-making in breach of its obligation to ensure consistency (A1.5, effective 29 November 2010). Specifically, he states that Immigration New Zealand approved his colleague’s application for residence in the same occupation and applied for under the same category. This application was made under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category and, as did the appellant did in his application, 1 point was claimed for skilled work experience as a rope access technician with the same employer as the appellant. His work experience was however accepted by Immigration New Zealand as substantially matched to the ANZSCO occupation of [NAME_2] (821711). [53] In further evidence, the appellant also refers to a second colleague, similarly a rope access technician, who is said to have his experience as a rope access technician accepted by Immigration New Zealand as skilled work experience. This, he says, is inconsistent treatment and practice. [54] The Tribunal acknowledges that to the appellant this appears to be an inconsistent approach by Immigration New Zealand. However, the Tribunal is not privy to all of the circumstances of the appellant’s colleagues’ applications, or the verification and assessments undertaken by Immigration New Zealand in respect of those applications. In this appeal, the Tribunal can only assess the decision made by Immigration New Zealand with respect to the appellant’s application. Additionally, as stated above, the Tribunal can only consider information before Immigration New Zealand when it made its decision to decline the application (section 189(1) of the Act). [55] Consequently, the Tribunal is satisfied that it has not been established that Immigration New Zealand breached its fairness obligations in respect of the appellant’s application. Conclusion on correctness [56] For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. The appellant’s skilled employment as a rope access technician was not a substantial match with an ANZSCO-nominated occupation, in particular a [NAME_2] (821711). The appellant therefore did not qualify for the required 6 points

15 (SR3.10.c) through his skilled work experience (SR3.35), and his application was required to be declined. Whether there are Special Circumstances [57] 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. [58] 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. [59] In support of the grounds of appeal relating to the existence of special circumstances, the appellant has provided, upon invitation of the Tribunal: (a) A statement (8 April 2026) from the [NAME_12] recording that the appellant and his partner are contributing members of the community. (b) A statement (7 April 2026) from the appellant’s employer recording that the appellant demonstrates a strong work ethic, is reliable and has a high level of technical competence. He is a valued member of their workforce and there are ongoing challenges in recruiting suitably qualified and experienced rope access technicians in New Zealand. (c) Evidence of the appellant’s involvement in New Zealand sporting events, the [COMPANY_13] and the [NAME_12]. (d) Proof of the appellant’s income in New Zealand in 2015 and 2016 when he lived in the country holding a working holiday visa. Personal and family circumstances and immigration history [60] The appellant is a 34-year-old national of [COMPANY_4]. The appellant and his 32-year-old partner, also from [COMPANY_4], have lived in New Zealand for two and a

16 half years. They wish New Zealand to be their long-term home and state they have put down meaningful roots here to further that goal. [61] The appellant first came to New Zealand in November 2015 holding a working holiday visa. That was extended and he remained working in New Zealand until February 2017. He says this first period in New Zealand ignited his desire to settle in the country permanently. [62] In November 2023, the appellant returned to New Zealand with his partner holding an accredited employer work visa to work as a specialist abseiler/rope access technician. This visa, and his partner’s associated work visa, remain valid until November 2026 which the appellant says (9 April 2026) creates a degree of uncertainty for them in light of their attempts to establish a life for themselves in the country. [63] Little information has been provided to the Tribunal of the appellant’s partner’s circumstances in New Zealand. Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the couple have a genuine and stable partnership. [64] The appellant says that he and his partner have made meaningful attempts to integrate into New Zealand and are well settled in the country. Specifically, they are actively involved in their local Czech and Slovak community and the [COMPANY_13]. They have a wide circle of friends and support networks in New Zealand. [65] The appellant is involved in the New Zealand triathlon and endurance sports community. He completed a marathon in 2024, and in 2026 an Ironman. He and his partner additionally regularly participate in regional triathlon and running events throughout New Zealand. [66] Although the couple could return to Europe, they have significant concerns in doing so. The ongoing war in Ukraine affects the region, particularly as [COMPANY_4] borders Ukraine. The appellant says that the general sense of instability in Europe and the wider region is of great concern to the couple and has contributed to their decision to live in New Zealand permanently if permitted. [67] The Tribunal is satisfied that although the appellant and his partner have been in New Zealand only a modest period of time, they have established themselves in the country with the intention of remaining long term. However, whilst it may not be their preference, they do retain the ability to return to live in [COMPANY_4] or potentially other European countries.

17 Qualifications and work experience [68] The appellant, as discussed above, is a specialist abseiler/rope access technician. He has a level three certification from [NAME_7] as a rope access technician. He additionally has a Master of Sport for Health from a [COMPANY_4]. [69] The appellant’s employer since 2023 states (14 July 2025) that the appellant’s role requires specialist training, rigorous certification and adherence to strict safety protocols; it is a highly specialised occupation at which the appellant is proficient. The director notes (7 April 2026) that they maintain their accredited employer status as the “pool of workers with the required certifications, experience, and competency is limited, and it can be difficult to source local candidates who meet both the technical and safety standards required for this role”. [70] It is apparent from the employer’s evidence that the appellant’s role is highly skilled and specialised, albeit one which is unable to be recognised as skilled employment pursuant to instructions because of the lack of a commensurate ANZSCO occupation against which it could be measured. It is however included in the [NAME_10]. [71] The [NAME_10] is a specifically New Zealand occupation classification system as opposed to the ANZSCO which was a joint initiative between New Zealand and Australia. The [NAME_10] is intended to reflect New Zealand’s actual labour market and is being phased into immigration instructions. It is currently applied in the accredited employer work visa programme, but not yet in residence instructions. The Tribunal understands it will eventually be incorporated into all instructions, however the timeline is unclear, and Immigration New Zealand can only assess applications based on instructions applicable at the time the application was made. [72] Despite the anomaly that catches the appellant’s application, the Tribunal is satisfied that he retains options. His current work visa is valid until November 2026, and he likely will have eligibility to apply for a second accredited employer work visa. During that time, the appellant would have the opportunity to apply again for a resident visa, this time including the information he has regarding his colleagues in the same occupation. This will give Immigration New Zealand the opportunity to fully consider the evidence the appellant has that it has previously accepted the role of a rope access technician to be substantially similar

18 with an ANZSCO skill level three occupation, whilst bearing in mind its obligation to ensure consistency (A1.5.a.iv). [73] The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant’s occupation is highly skilled and specialised, and he is contributing to New Zealand in this way. Given his young age, he will continue to be in such a position for many years to come and he is clearly valued by his employer who appear to find it difficult to recruit such employees. However, the occupation of rope access technician is not on the Green List and therefore is not recognised by instruction as a role that is hard to fill. [74] Despite the appellant’s skill level and specialised role, it has long been held by the Tribunal that a failure to meet the requirements of instructions is not a circumstance that, by itself, can be described as unusual or out of the ordinary. Health, character and English language requirements [75] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellant and his partner met instruction requirements for health, character and English language. Clear New Zealand police certificate checks were provided to Immigration New Zealand for both the appellant and his partner (12 May 2025). [76] The appellant provided a clear criminal record check from [COMPANY_4] (18 March 2025) and Canada (14 April 2025). His partner’s criminal record check from [COMPANY_4] (18 March 2025) was likewise clear. [77] The appellant and his partner both achieved IELTS overall band scores of 6.5 and therefore the Tribunal is satisfied that they have a proficient grasp of English. Discussion on special circumstances [78] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME_14] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. [79] The appellant is 34 years old, his partner is 32, and they are both [NAME_1] citizens. They have lived in New Zealand for a modest period of time (two and a half years) but have made meaningful attempts to establish themselves in the community.

19 [80] The appellant is a skilled and experienced specialist abseiler/rope access technician, a position that requires international accreditation. He is valued by his employer of almost three years who states it is difficult to source such employees. His employment is recognised as of a high skill level (3) under the temporary visa scheme ([NAME_10]) but not residence instruction. This is an anomaly that will be addressed in due course by instruction adopting the [NAME_10] uniformly. [81] However, a failure to meet instructions does not, on its own, demonstrate special circumstances. To meet the high threshold, additional extraordinary circumstances must be present. In the appellant’s situation, his evidence does not indicate that their level of settlement or contribution through employment is out of the ordinary for temporary visa holders who live and work in New Zealand and wish to remain here. Their situation is not uncommon. Furthermore, the appellant retains a valid work visa, with likely eligibility for another, and the potential to apply again for a grant of residence. At this point in time, his options are not exhausted. Conclusion on special circumstances [82] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant the Tribunal finds that, considered individually and cumulatively, the appellant does not have special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [83] 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. [84] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [85] 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

20 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

K Lash Member removal of the appellant’s name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or his partner. “K Lash” K Lash Member