Immigration New Zealand raised concerns about our clients application for residence under the Skilled Migrant Category, stating that the role is not a substantial/holistic match to Accountant (General).  INZ was not satisfied that the client is performing any of the core tasks as envisioned by ANZSCO. Therefore, without points for skilled employment, or bonus points for skilled employment outside Auckland, he was entitled to only 80 points, which was not sufficient for his application to be approved under the Skilled Migrant Category. 

We appealed to the Tribunal, successfully arguing that INZ did not fairly and correctly assess the client’s application. 

Our client is an accountant for a company that ran three food stores and a distribution centre and he is the one who is the company’s “management and taxation accountant” since the company does not employ an external accountant.  

INZ was not convinced that the client met the description for the occupation and raised concerns of undertaking many “accounts admin” duties which impacted on the client’s ability to perform the accountant’s role.

The Tribunal has consistently found that a substantial match should be determined on a holistic basis, taking into account the core tasks and specific characteristics of the client’s particular employment (question of fact and degree in the context of an employment).

The Tribunal found that the assessment of the client’s application was conducted unfairly because it failed to properly consider clients’ employment against the ANZSCO occupation of Management Accountant, even though INZ stated that it had considered. The Tribunal has consistently found that while it is incumbent on an applicant to identify the ANZSCO occupation most closely aligned to their position, where a position more clearly fits a different ANZSCO occupation to that chosen by an applicant, INZ is obliged to consider the alternative occupation and give the applicant an opportunity to demonstrate whether their employment substantially matches the more appropriate occupation. 

INZ failed to consider all relevant information and breached its obligations to consider the application fairly.

INZ approach was not correct because it was clear from the evidence presented to it that the appropriate occupation against which the client’s role should have been assessed, prejudiced this application. 

The application was therefore returned to INZ for a correct assessment. 

This case shows a good example that there is always a chance to fight your application, INZ is not always conducting fairly and by using your opportunity to appeal your case, you can be closer to your dream to become a resident of New Zealand. 

Our company of an immigration experts is here for you to represent you to have the best chance of success to appeal your declined resident visa application.