NZ residency appeals success stories
Our immigration services are available to you wherever you are in NZ or the world.
We have clients throughout the Asia Pacific region, Canada, South America, the United States, France and beyond, as well as here in New Zealand. Our immigration lawyers are available New Zealand wide and we frequently visit Christchurch, Hamilton and many other centres throughout NZ. We have two permanent office locations (in Wellington and Auckland) and we are also available to you via email and Skype.
Lower Hutt lawyer Richard Small recognised for huge immigration impact
Residency granted; case won
Hemasi Hea W5475 (2008-2011)
This client has agreed to have his name published and has also provided a testimonial.
Background
Heamasi’s lodged an application for residence under the Residual Pacific Access Category. This was refused in early 2007.
The residence application was handled unsatisfactorily by Immigration New Zealand. Immigration New Zealand wrote to the client’s previous agent, Exodus Limited whose office they knew had closed in late 2006. Heamasi made efforts to contact Immigration New Zealand’s contact centre but could make no progress.
Immigration New Zealand in May 2009, advised our office that they had agreed to grant an open work permit and to reopen Heamasi’s residence application. After further delays from Immigration New Zealand, residence was finally granted in 2011.
Comment
This case is again notable because Immigration New Zealand again acknowledged that they had information that the agent’s office was closed and ought reasonably to have contacted the client directly.
Inconsistent information given by INZ; residency granted
Reference 177864 – (2006 to 2011)
hese 15 clients were part of a larger group of complaints that amassed against the Pacific Division of Immigration New Zealand from 2006 onwards. These complaints were against Immigration New Zealand’s Pacific Division, concerning misleading advice given by them at community meetings in early 2005. These led to State Services Commission and Auditor-General complaints as well as media coverage.
In August 2009, Immigration New Zealand’s response to the Ombudsmen was that that the guidance of their staff was late and unclear, which resulted to clients and their agents being given inconsistent information. In another report to our office, Immigration New Zealand also accepted that “the facilitation approach … was poorly executed.”
The remedy offered was that all circumstances of the clients would be looked at. There was then agreement to offer residence if the client met the health and character requirements. Thirteen of the 15 clients have now been granted residence.
Comment
Other than these 15 cases, a further eight to ten cases are still left in limbo. We were asked not to put further cases in while this initial group is resolved.
Without doubt, this was the most extensive complaint our office has had with the Office of the Ombudsmen.
