Danny Wang, Licensed Immigration Adviser at NZ Migration, discusses his concerns about the perceived bias of Immigration NZ against applications from Indian nationals, and believes that professionals in this field should expect their Indian clients to face tougher assessments.
 |
A recent media report where Immigration NZ is accused of targeting Indian applicants has sparked my interest. To paraphrase NZ Immigration adviser Ms Arunima Dhingra, the number of post-study work visas are being “slammed” and genuine Indian applicants are “suffering”.
The report stated that figures show 14 per cent of Indian applicants were rejected last year for the employer-assisted work visa, compared to 4 per cent for Chinese applicants.
Further, it is stated that in the essential skills work visa category, 19 per cent of rejections were for Indian applicants. And, of those in the country unlawfully and whom appealed, 922 of 2541 Indian applicants were approved, compared to 828 of 1232 Chinese applicants and, 239 of 310 British immigrants. [i]
Compared to Chinese applicants, Indian applicants receive a higher rejection rate in many categories of visa applications. The gap between these two groups is widened, if attention is drawn to offshore student applications. Compared with the rejection rate of Chinese applications, being 7 per cent, the rejection rate of Indian applications is as high as 32 per cent, so literally, one out of three offshore applicants are turned down. [ii]
Immigration holds the view that fraud is a widespread issue within the immigration sector in India. Labour’s immigration spokesperson Iain Lees-Galloway has said that “the fraud was endemic” [iii] and, it was also published on INZ’s website that, “Fraud is an ongoing issue for INZ Mumbai. It is quite common for false or fake documents to be found in a visa application, and for imposters to be used for an interview with INZ.” [iv]
In our office, we have noticed through our encounters with INZ that such a view has eventually turned into a form of bias against Indian applications. What is concerning here, is that if this mentality is adopted by case officers, it could potentially affect their daily practice and the ability to offer consistency over the decision-making process and further, it could lead to biased decisions.
The associated case officers hold enormous discretion in the decision-making process for an application and, if such a biased attitude is being held towards a certain group of applicants, that may result in decision bias, which stands in stark contrast to the fundamental administrative principle of INZ: “Fairness and natural justice”.
Being on the frontier to deal with INZ daily, we expect to have a more strict assessment of Indian applications. Many in the immigration industry would understand that when preparing applications for Indian clients, it is the applicant’s responsibility to prove and convince immigration of their bona fide status, whereas for applicants from many other countries, this is often the opposite because Immigration would only decline an application if it was convinced that the applicant was not bona fide. In my view, these are clearly double standards.
Dapeng “Danny” Wang graduated with a Bachelors in Education and a Masters in Communication. Being a licensed immigration adviser, he has been in the industry for over six years. Working at NZ Migration, his major role is to interact with clients through the development of feasible immigration plans, and to monitor the progress in relation to the plans. Contact Danny at enquiries@nzmigration.com
