NZ Immigration Changes. . .
Nov 25th 2002, 6:42 pm
#1
Guest
Posts: n/a
NZ Immigration Changes. . .
I'm surprised that there are so many comments about the change in English
language policy, yet no-one seems troubled by the change in the policy
regarding job offers having to be relevant to qualifications and NOT work
experience. Fine, change the rules, but not retrospectively. I applied on
2nd September for PR hoping to gain a job search visa that would enable me
to get a job relevant to my work experience and NOT my qualification.
The old rules stated that ones job offer had to be relevant to
qualifications or work experience. Could this be considered a breach of
contract by NZIS?
Does this affect anyone else out there?
Regards,
Ian & Sue.
language policy, yet no-one seems troubled by the change in the policy
regarding job offers having to be relevant to qualifications and NOT work
experience. Fine, change the rules, but not retrospectively. I applied on
2nd September for PR hoping to gain a job search visa that would enable me
to get a job relevant to my work experience and NOT my qualification.
The old rules stated that ones job offer had to be relevant to
qualifications or work experience. Could this be considered a breach of
contract by NZIS?
Does this affect anyone else out there?
Regards,
Ian & Sue.
Nov 26th 2002, 12:59 am
#2
Forum Regular
Joined: Jul 2002
Location: Tokyo, Japan
Posts: 207
Re: NZ Immigration Changes. . .
Originally posted by Sue
I'm surprised that there are so many comments about the change in English
language policy, yet no-one seems troubled by the change in the policy
regarding job offers having to be relevant to qualifications and NOT work
experience. Fine, change the rules, but not retrospectively. I applied on
2nd September for PR hoping to gain a job search visa that would enable me
to get a job relevant to my work experience and NOT my qualification.
The old rules stated that ones job offer had to be relevant to
qualifications or work experience. Could this be considered a breach of
contract by NZIS?
Does this affect anyone else out there?
Regards,
Ian & Sue
----
I suspect the English thing got more comment because it probably affects more people, and - in the long term - it could have wide-ranging implications for everyone (eg. making it easier for English speakers to get in, with or without a job offer).
As for the "relevance" of the job offer, I've seen threads from people who have managed to convince NZIS that their work experience/job offer IS relevant to their qualifications even though to a layman the two may appear totally unconnected. A lot of these people were using agents who knew how to bend the term "relevant" to suit their clients' circumstances. Perhaps you could get an agent to help you over this last hurdle.
My hunch would be that NZIS (human beings, after all) will be quite lenient on "relevance" for people caught in the trap of having the rules change midway through the process.
John
I'm surprised that there are so many comments about the change in English
language policy, yet no-one seems troubled by the change in the policy
regarding job offers having to be relevant to qualifications and NOT work
experience. Fine, change the rules, but not retrospectively. I applied on
2nd September for PR hoping to gain a job search visa that would enable me
to get a job relevant to my work experience and NOT my qualification.
The old rules stated that ones job offer had to be relevant to
qualifications or work experience. Could this be considered a breach of
contract by NZIS?
Does this affect anyone else out there?
Regards,
Ian & Sue
----
I suspect the English thing got more comment because it probably affects more people, and - in the long term - it could have wide-ranging implications for everyone (eg. making it easier for English speakers to get in, with or without a job offer).
As for the "relevance" of the job offer, I've seen threads from people who have managed to convince NZIS that their work experience/job offer IS relevant to their qualifications even though to a layman the two may appear totally unconnected. A lot of these people were using agents who knew how to bend the term "relevant" to suit their clients' circumstances. Perhaps you could get an agent to help you over this last hurdle.
My hunch would be that NZIS (human beings, after all) will be quite lenient on "relevance" for people caught in the trap of having the rules change midway through the process.
John
Nov 26th 2002, 2:08 am
#3
Banned
Joined: Aug 2002
Posts: 7,613
Hi Ian and Sue,
There have been several threads on this.
It's true, the occupational shortages list is very restrictive right now and excludes nearly all business management fields, eg marketing, sales, finance, logistics, customer management, general management etc - ie a huge change.
Given the change was in mid course for those who had already applied for PR and were waiting for PR application to be deferred (ie 5 points short of the passmark) and 6 month job search visa offered), I think it would be well worth asking your case officer for a bit of leniency as there's a big debate in NZ right now about the fairness of the change for those who already paid the fee and were being processed.
Cheers - Don
There have been several threads on this.
It's true, the occupational shortages list is very restrictive right now and excludes nearly all business management fields, eg marketing, sales, finance, logistics, customer management, general management etc - ie a huge change.
Given the change was in mid course for those who had already applied for PR and were waiting for PR application to be deferred (ie 5 points short of the passmark) and 6 month job search visa offered), I think it would be well worth asking your case officer for a bit of leniency as there's a big debate in NZ right now about the fairness of the change for those who already paid the fee and were being processed.
Cheers - Don
