The recent ruling by Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) about the flawed assessment of residence visa applications by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) for Information and communications technology (ICT) professionals is calling for a complete overhaul of the entire system says a top immigration lawyer.
Alastair McClymont, an Auckland based immigration lawyer, speaking with the Indian Weekender, confirmed his doubts if the IPT ruling would have any immediate favourable impact on the outcome of the applications.
“INZ like to ignore IPT decision unless it suits them,” argues Mr McClymont.
This is despite INZ area manager Marcelle Foley giving an assurance that they will be reassessing the applications.
Recently Radio NZ had reported that a group of 15 ICT professionals who were previously declined resident visa had successfully appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against the INZ ruling.
The INZ had accepted that their assessment was flawed.
"INZ accepts the findings in these cases by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal that the assessments were flawed,” INZ area manager Marcelle Foley had told the Radio NZ.
“INZ was in the process of reassessing the applications and was reviewing the assessment guidelines for ICT jobs to ensure they reflected the tribunal's directives,” Ms Foley had further said.
However, immigration lawyer Mr McClymont is not very hopeful of an immediate and favourable outcome for applicants, given the bigger flaws in the design of the whole immigration system.
“This is an INZ way of controlling the number of applications for resident visas,” Mr McClymont argues.
The argument seems to gain probability when INZ area manager Marcelle Foley herself concedes that in the past it has approved applicants employed in these types of ICT roles.
There seems to be a compelling need for an immediate political intervention to overhaul the entire NZ immigration system.
Fixation over numbers, and not quality of application
“Over the last five years or more there has been a perceivable shift of emphasis away from quality decision making to a fixation on numbers.
“Be it the number of decisions made, the speed of decisions or how much it costs the government to run the department, the fixation on numbers is clearly visible,” Mr McClymont argues.
There are increasing numbers of cases where immigration officials are seen fixated with numbers and deadlines than common sense.
“In one of the cases of my client, the applicant had submitted documents were by email and were received by the officer who advised that an assessment will be made when the originals arrive.
“The officer was advised by the applicant that the originals will be sent within five days. After four days the officer, aware of the pressure of meeting the decision target, declines the application because the originals haven’t been received. This is despite having all the information available in email copies, the originals being in the post,” Mr McClymont told the Indian Weekender.
ANZSCO is an inappropriate tool for assessment
One of the major restrictive guidelines that often blinds and limits INZ officials ability to assess the quality of applications is over-reliance on ANZSCO as an assessment tool.
“ANZSCO is an inappropriate tool of assessment,” asserts Mr McClymont.
In determining whether a job is skilled inexperienced and unskilled immigration officers are tasked with deciding if an applicant’s work is a match with complicated and detailed job descriptions (as mentioned in ANZSCO code).
Many of which are extremely difficult to comprehend. This is particularly so in areas such as IT, accounting and management positions.
Bureaucracy rules, not political oversight, in immigration system
However, nothing will change without concerted political action, believes Mr McClymont, as the current system has not evolved in isolation and is a product of a bureaucratic obsession with numbers and speed rather than the quality of decision making.
“The Bureaucrats now run our immigration system, and their focus is solely on speed and efficiency in decision making.
“Acknowledging fault or reviewing bad decisions hamper that efficiency.
“So a Fast Bad decision is now much more preferable to a Slow Good decision,” Mr McClymont asserted.