It's just a thought...
Attend a seminar as a starting point to learn more about the lifestyle of each country, their general migration process and a broad overview of Visa categories.
Migrating is more than just filling in forms and submitting paperwork; its a complex process that will test even the most resilient of people. Understanding Australia & New Zealand at a grass-roots level is paramount to your immigration survival, and to give you a realistic view of both countries, its people and how we see the world, as well as updates about any current or imminent policy changes, subscribe to our regular blog posts by entering your details below.
Posted by Myer on Nov. 20, 2020, 1:27 p.m. in Consultations
To encourage or discourage? That’s the question that we at IMMagine face every day when receiving preliminary questionnaires and accompanying CVs for those people thinking of having a consultation with us, and we are acutely aware of the responsibility and the potential effect in making these decisions on people’s lives.
We generally find that we need 90 minutes to adequately explain the migration options to anyone thinking of immigrating to Australia and/or New Zealand and we do so by way of consultation that is delivered via Zoom/Skype for which we charge AU$350. Pre-Covid 19 we used to hold these consultations face-to-face every six weeks in Hong Kong, Singapore and South Africa.
We realise that many people don’t want to “waste” AU$350 in having a consultation only to be told that they don’t have a chance of qualifying for permanent residence in either country and that’s why we created the free preliminary evaluation.
Essentially anyone thinking of having a consultation with us can complete a free preliminary questionnaire on our website and attach CVs for us to peruse, and we will then advise whether we can potentially establish a suitable strategy to gain residence of Australia and/or New Zealand, and if so we will invite them to an in-depth consultation.
In a typical week we receive anything from 100 to 200 of these preliminary questionnaires and it does occupy a substantial amount of our week to peruse the questionnaires and provide preliminary email responses.
In making my decision to encourage or discourage, I’m weighing up certain variables relating to the probability of success in obtaining permanent residence in either country based on information contained in CVs and the questionnaire. Often however I am reading poorly drafted documentation that reveals very little about the applicant and even when reading well drafted CVs I’m reading them as a layperson. I often don’t know much about the role that the applicant performs or the employer and I’m (particularly as far as Australia is concerned) trying to find an occupational match in which I can obtain a positive skills assessment.
I also don’t know what the potential applicant would consider to be value in having the consultation. Would they be satisfied with something less than permanent residence such as advice regarding pathways relating to those wishing to study in Australia or New Zealand and the possibility of permanent residence which may flow on from the initial student visa?
I remember having a consultation with someone in Singapore many, many years ago and I felt almost apologetic in telling her that her options were limited to applying for student visa and then explain the pathways for her to obtain permanent residence. She was delighted with the news because she had done her own research and believed that her options were zero.
It highlights the issue of expectations. If someone has expectations that the process is easy (usually formed from anecdotes from family members or friends who immigrated several years ago) then anything less than confirmation of the ease of migration would be a disappointment. If on the other hand someone has expectations that the process is extremely difficult then any glimmer of hope would be gratefully received.
Those that have very low expectations of success would feel that $350 has been well spent in receiving advice that a pathway to Residence is possible albeit difficult. Those with high expectations of success might feel disappointed in spending $350 to receive advice that it’s a difficult process and compromises might have to be made in terms of timeframe, type of visa and likely destination.
In making the judgement call to encourage or discourage a consultation I tend to put myself in the applicant’s position and ask myself the question whether I would think that I would be receiving “value” in having the consultation. I think it could be argued that even if someone told me that I don’t have a chance of migrating that would be money well worth spending providing the advice is accurate because it prevents me from investing more time and money in pursuing the impossible.
Of course anything is possible depending upon the lengths that people are prepared to go to and I never know the level of motivation of anyone completing one of these preliminary questionnaires.
We do preface our responses in these preliminary evaluations to stipulating that the response isn’t meant to act as a comprehensive evaluation of all of the applicant’s migration options but I know that most people don’t understand the complexity and range of potential visas and do expect a definitive answer from these preliminary evaluations.
Notwithstanding all of the above the feedback we receive is that most people are grateful to receive these initial responses albeit just to tell them whether they are in the right ballpark to qualify for residence of Australia/New Zealand and can then proceed to payment of AU$350 for a detailed consultation secure in the knowledge that they are not wasting their money in doing so.
If you would like to have a preliminary evaluation of your options with regard to migration to Australia and/or New Zealand please visit the following page of our website: http://www.immagine-immigration.com/assessments/free-evaluation/
Posted by Iain on Oct. 19, 2020, 10:35 a.m. in Skilled Migrant Category
The NZ government (in waiting) announced this morning that they will not be resuming skilled migrant ‘pool draws’ for another six months. They haven't done any since March this year anyway so this is hardly ‘news’, more a clarification of an existing position.
It has many people aflutter as usual but I don’t feel the fear.
I have written about why they stopped pool selections previously and to me the agenda was always clear – they got themselves into a right processing pickle with many skilled migrant resident visa applications sitting unallocated and unprocessed for up to 24 months because there was no ability of the Government to agree on the numbers in their residence program. In fact there hasn’t been a residence programme since the last one finished in December 2019. The numbers of resident visas available has never been made official so INZ was flying blind for much of 2019 given they had already filled the years ‘quota’. Naturally the immigration department stopped approving visas (or at best were on a go slow in terms of allocation) last year and the backlog grew larger and larger. A number of months ago they clearly got a nod and a wink from the political parties in the government to resume processing and approving residence as if there was a residence program with the same numbers of visa places available as in previous years.
INZ then was presented with a de facto residence programme but by the time they started to gear up on processing, the backlog had grown exponentially.
After Saturday’s landslide win by the Labour Party, the ‘handbrake’ that was the NZ First Party that sat around the cabinet table with the Labour party has been released. If you haven’t heard New Zealand First is gone from the Parliament and the Labour Party is the first political party since 1996 to be able to govern alone without any coalition partners or side agreements with minor parties.
This announcement does not mean they are closing down migration because traditionally the Labour Party has always been very pro-immigration given its traditional voting base. Turkeys don't vote for an early Christmas so I think we will return to the days where we had sensible policy and residence programmes allowing INZ to stay on top of numbers.
Not that INZ is faultless in the debacle that has been the past 18 months. In order to deal with the skilled migrant case backlog and under the smoke screen of Covid back in March INZ stopped doing pool selections. They said at the time it's because they had no ability to work remotely but that was clearly untrue because as soon as they went back to work pool draws did not resume.
We have been waiting for this announcement since March.
I said back in March when pool draws stopped that INZ was buying time to start dealing with that backlog. It was becoming embarrassing on so many levels, with unintended consequences and creating a whole lot of uncertainty for anyone trying to plan their move here. In fact, it was confirmed unofficially to me by a very senior manager a few months ago that the truth was INZ wanted to get rid of the resident visa backlog. They are currently around 18 months from receipt date to allocation of these resident visa applications which means they are starting to get ahead of where they have been over the past 12 months.
So what does the future hold? When they start resuming the pool draws what will happen to the pass mark?
Government will have a number of options and in some ways we might be about to go back to the future:
1. Simply increase the pass mark to be selected from the ‘pool’. That will instantly lower the number of applications flowing into the system but the problem with that is the more points people need, the more points they tend to get. When for example the pass mark went up to 160 many clients dealt with the signal by getting a job outside of Auckland (30 additional points) and continued to qualify. And the more points people need the less control Government has over the skills mix – for example a 26-year-old genius software developer with a job offer in New Zealand or the 27 year old teacher we are desperate to find might only ever be able to get 160 points. Putting the pass mark up to 180 and cutting them but allowing entry to a 36 year Master of Arts carrying Marketing Manager might not be the best outcome for NZ. Increasing the pass mark will certainly slow down the flow of applications into the system but will create other serious problems so I don't believe a higher pass mark is the solution. I don't believe it will solve any of the problems.
2. Return to the days of multiple pass marks and prioritise selection based on whatever has the most positive impact. We could therefore see multiple different pass marks once again. It worked before and was relatively transparent. For example, if you work in an occupation that is on the long-term skills shortage list the pass mark might be 160 points. You might make it 190 points for people who do not work in an occupation on a skills shortage list. If you want people to go outside of Auckland you might make the pass mark 160 but make it 190 for someone with a job in Auckland. If your priority is high income earners give them a lower points threshold or give points based on salary bands.
3. We could adopt the Australian model whereby you keep the pass mark at, say, 160 points for everybody but it is a first in, first out situation. Given there is a finite number of resident visas that can be approved and issued in any given year, what the Australians do is they say if you are a Civil Engineer and you filed your EOI in July last year and you have the same "points" as a Civil Engineer who filed in January this year, you will be selected first. I am not suggesting we go to annual quotas by occupation - it could simply be a pass mark of 160 and first in first out. It’s clean but again it means you might miss out on particular skills sets because the applicant has to wait for so long to get that shot at residence and they want certainty so take their skills off to Canada instead.
There is always positives and negatives in any system.
The market always reads the sort of signal sent this morning as negative. I don't feel that way at all.
Clearly the skilled migrant system needs tweaking (and a points based system is a very blunt tool to begin with but given the intellectual capacity of your average civil servant the system is almost designed for them to not have to think terribly hard) but the backlogs in recent times was largely caused by the New Zealand First political party that wanted, and therefore could cause, significant disruption to the migration program.
Now that they are gone, that handbrake has been released.
The Labour Party has also said in their manifesto that one of their priorities is to review the settings of the Parent Category. This will be welcome news to many when the child(ren) they have living in New Zealand who currently don't earn enough to sponsor their parent(s). The only way the Labour Party could get any parent category policy past the New Zealand First coalition partner in the last Government was to limit the numbers annually to 1000 visas and also to impose household income levels that would put the sponsors in the top 20 to 30% of earners in the country or they couldn’t sponsor their parent(s). That excluded many people that would traditionally vote for the Labour Party and given many who traditionally vote Labour are immigrants themselves, I think you can expect to see some movement over the next few months in terms of parent category settings. An easing, not a tightening.
The next three years are going to be very interesting with the government able to govern without worrying about what any coalition partner might think. Given the Labour Party has moved to the right and are very much a centrist party, conservative with a small ‘c’ (but continuing to tell us they are progressives) these days they will want to keep as many of those who would traditionally be centre-right voters.
My prediction is they will return to their pro-immigration roots.
That doesn't mean an open door but equally nor should the confirmation that the pool draws will not resume for another six months be seen as New Zealand shutting the door. Think of it as a bit of house work.
Until next week
Posted by Iain on July 27, 2018, 1:51 p.m. in Visas
About three years ago whilst in Johannesburg I met a young couple with a four year old son. On the face of the application, it looked fairly straight-forward in terms of there not being anything out of the ordinary i.e. we had a skilled migrant who needed to get skilled employment in New Zealand in order to get the points. So far, so good. The issue, potentially, was that the principal applicant’s wife was blind having lost her sight four years earlier during childbirth.
Many Immigration Advisers advise people who are blind (or for that matter deaf) that they will not be found to be of an acceptable standard of health, something I have always found disappointing, if not laughable. Blind or deaf people are not sick, they have a disability but that does not make them unhealthy nor a likely future cost on our health system.
A person can only be declined a Visa on health grounds if the Immigration Department’s Doctors are able to confirm that the person is likely to represent a significant cost on the health services for the duration of the Visa that they are applying for. If they had a chronic or an acute condition, and I guess blindness might be deemed an acute or chronic condition, then if the cost of the likely care is $41,000 or more they are not someone who would normally be granted a Resident Visa.
I explained all of this to my potential clients two years ago and explained that whilst she was blind she was most definitely not sick. As far as I was aware there is no medication she might take which could alleviate nor cure the condition.
The husband went to New Zealand and secured skilled employment and we filed his Work Visa, her Work Visa and their son’s Visitor Visa at the same time. In typical fashion the Immigration Department’s Doctors tried to block the Work Visa on the grounds that she was not of an acceptable standard of health.
This despite the fact that we had gone to some effort to provide evidence that since her son was born she had received no care and no assistance in the raising of her boy and her husband, now in New Zealand, was often away on business and other parts of Africa and not there to help her out.
She had managed perfectly well without any assistance whatsoever to raise her son. Despite this, the Immigration Doctors pushed back quite firmly and tried to argue that she was likely to be a burden on our health services.
This is clearly ludicrous.
As we do, we pushed even harder and the Work Visa was granted.
The medical standard for a Resident Visa is higher than a Work Visa and whilst she had an Open Work Visa which gave her the possibility of working in New Zealand while we processed the residency, we had warned her that the Immigration Department, being Immigration Department would likely try and block them at Resident Visa stage.
I am very pleased to report that this application was approved a couple of weeks ago and the family is now the proud holders of New Zealand Resident Visas.
It just goes to show that a disability does not make someone unhealthy and if anybody ever tries to tell a blind or deaf or other person with some physical disability that they don’t meet the standard of health for entry to New Zealand, they probably do not know what they are talking about.
Until next week
Iain MacLeod, Southern Man
Attend a seminar as a starting point to learn more about the lifestyle of each country, their general migration process and a broad overview of Visa categories.
Have a preliminary evaluation to establish which Visa category may suit you and whether it’s worth your while ordering a comprehensive Full Assessment.
Let us develop your detailed strategy, timeline and pricing structure in-person or on Skype. Naturally, a small cost applies for this full and comprehensive assessment.