INZ Not Satisfied?
As I write this, I have a song swirling around in my head, one written and performed by the Rolling Stones…you can probably guess what it might be. When it comes to the visa process, it is often about being able to satisfy an individual immigration officer that the claims you are making are credible and that you meet the requirements for the visa you are applying for.
Unfortunately, some officers have a different level of satisfaction to others and trying to work out what might satisfy them and what doesn’t can be as complicated as filing a visa application itself. The irony of course is that we only have one set of rules that govern how a visa should be decided and the requirements that applicants need to meet, but when you have a lot of different bodies interpreting those rules, there is bound to be some inconsistency.
The tricky part however is that often INZ doesn’t actually tell you why they are not satisfied and for applicants and advisers alike, this can be deeply frustrating. You can spend weeks gathering supporting evidence, translating documents, and meeting every published requirement, only to be told that the officer “wasn’t satisfied” with your explanation or proof. To make things worse, there’s often no clear guidance on exactly what would have satisfied them instead.
This subjective element of the visa process is one of the biggest challenges and it highlights the importance of presenting applications clearly, anticipating possible concerns, and explaining evidence in a way that addresses potential doubts before they arise. It’s not just about providing information - it’s really about making sure the decision-maker understands why it should satisfy them, which is a very different task to accomplish.
One Set Of Rules
There is of course only one set of immigration rules, referred to as the “instructions” which are in fact exactly that. They “instruct” an immigration officer as to how to assess the eligibility of an applicant for the visa they have applied for. The instructions are also not statute, meaning that unlike the application of the law, the instructions are more like guidance to an officer as to how to assess an application. For the most part however officers tend to treat these pretty strictly and apply those rules as they are outlined.
One challenge however that surfaces in almost every part of the rules, is the advice to officers, that the evidence being provided has to be satisfactory…but satisfactory to whom? For the most part the instructions refer to the individual officer assessing that specific application. For example, at the very start of the instructions for Accredited Employer Work Visas (AEWV), is the following line…
“An immigration officer may grant an Accredited Employer work visa if they are satisfied that the applicant…”
What follows that sentence is a list of criteria including specific evidence that an applicant will need to provide to satisfy that officer. In this simple sentence and with those few words, lies the main problem. What satisfies one officer, wont always satisfy another - after all people see the world through different lenses, often based on their own experiences and then also their level of experience in dealing with this process.
One Rule, Different Measures
While all visas are decided using one set of rules, how they are decided will vary from officer to officer.
Bob, might be a very seasoned immigration officer, who has been around the process for a very long time. Bob understands that in some countries, the level of evidence available for work experience may be less than others, particularly in places where cash is still the key form of payment.
Bob might then consider other evidence of that work experience as being satisfactory, based on his understanding of that applicant’s situation.
Jane however, has only just joined INZ and comes from a background in NZ finance. Jane sees the world through a very different lens and applies the criteria based on that interpretation, lacking perhaps the understanding of how things work in other countries. Odds are, Jane’s assessment will differ greatly from Bob’s.
Of course INZ does try to “standardise” this across their teams, by giving broader guidance on how to apply the rules consistently, but even that guidance is written by someone who views the process in their own unique way. Add to that, the fact that INZ places a different level of risk assessment, depending on where you come from and its a bit of a recipe for chaos (or rather inconsistency).
What can be even more frustrating for advisers, and something that we challenge relentlessly is that because the criteria require an officer to be “satisfied”, they often simply say they aren’t that, when it comes to the decision process. In many cases, requests for additional information or decline letters will simply state that the officer was not satisfied with the information provided, leading to their concerns. This means that the applicant has no way to understand where they went wrong, or what they might do to try and fix it.
When you are processing thousands of visas a day, it is understandable that you want to do that efficiently but in the same breath, simply stating you aren’t satisfied with something, without explaining why isn’t a fair process for the applicant. This doesn’t happen all the time of course, but it happens often enough to be concerning. As advisers our role is often to challenge that lack of context and find out exactly what the missing ingredient is, that will lead to that officer being as satisfied as they possibly can be.
Who Decides and How?
For an applicant, who has worked tirelessly to prepare and present the right application, receiving a letter from a Government official that simply says that they aren’t satisfied can be both frustrating but also the stuff of nightmares. You have followed the rules down to the last full-stop, scoured your archives for information and evidence and the one thing standing in your way is the fact that someone out there isn’t satisfied you have provided enough. The icing on the cake? That same person doesn’t actually tell you why they aren’t happy with all the effort you have made.
With Great Power…
The decision on whether to grant a visa or not often comes down to who is in charge of making that decision.
Advisers receive the same letters of course, because even the best prepared application might end up with Jane, rather than Bob - the difference however is that a good adviser, who has been around long enough will understand what to do next.
Visas are of course decided by immigration officers and they do have the built in discretion to determine if you meet the criteria (to their satisfaction), however they are also beholden to applying that discretion consistently and being able to separate fact from rumour and so on.
Officers are also subject to “quality assessment” checks of their applications to ensure they are applying their interpretation of the rules in a consistent and fair manner - however achieving that consistency is hard to do when you have a lot of officers, spread out across a lot of branches with a very complicated set of rules to administer. Not an easy task by any stretch and so I have some sympathy for the system, but equally, to be fair to applicants, that system has to constantly be striving to be better at delivering that consistent approach.
When we receive a request like this, where the only explanation offered is that the officer is not satisfied, we go back to request that they explain why. You cannot reasonably answer a concern on an application without understanding what that concern might actually be. Of course we also try and avoid receiving letters of concern in the first place, by understanding that even though you hope you might end up with Bob assessing your application, you plan for it to be Jane.
Getting It Right
At the end of the day, a big part of the immigration process comes down to interpretation - how an individual immigration officer (or their manager) views your situation, your documents, and your overall eligibility for the visa you are applying for. That’s why even strong applications can sometimes run into issues of “insufficient evidence” or an officer not being “satisfied” with what’s been provided. It is also why there is a constant struggle with consistency within the system, because these are human beings assessing applications filed by human beings…every one a bit different to the next.
Having an experienced immigration adviser on your side can make a real difference in how that process unfolds, not only by getting it right at the start but also how to deal with those objections should they be raised. We understand how Immigration New Zealand applies these sometimes, discretionary tests and what kinds of evidence, context, and presentation can help to address an officer’s concerns before they become roadblocks.
If you’re unsure about what evidence to include, how to explain your circumstances, or how to respond to INZ’s letter of concerns, it’s worth getting professional guidance early on. Our team helps clients prepare and present clear, persuasive applications that give decision-makers every reason to be “satisfied”.
For tailored advice or assistance with your visa application, contact us on 09 486 2169 or email immigration@turnerhopkins.co.nz - we’re here to help you get the clarity and confidence you need.
Until next week.
