Ahead of the Immigration Law Symposium 2026, we spoke with Shi Sheng Cai, Partner at Ascroft Mitchell McGregor, about the immigration policy and operational changes currently shaping advice across New Zealand. With reforms affecting the Accredited Employer Work Visa framework, dependent child settings, compliance enforcement and skilled migrant pathways, advisers are increasingly being asked to navigate complex issues in an environment where policy and practice do not always align neatly.
In this Q&A, Shoosh shares his insights on the developments having the greatest practical impact on migrants and employers, common compliance pitfalls, and the policy trends practitioners should be watching closely in the year ahead.
What recent INZ policy changes are having the greatest practical impact on immigration advisers and their clients?
There have been a number of significant changes to New Zealand’s immigration settings over the past 12 months, with further reforms expected in the year ahead. These developments have had a substantial impact on advisers and their clients, as there is a need to continually adapt to a changing policy environment.
Key changes introduced over the past year include:
- The reopening and redesign of the Active Investor Plus Visa category to attract high-value investment into New Zealand.
- The planned introduction of two new Skilled Migrant Category residence pathways, which will provide additional options for skilled workers seeking residence.
- Increased compliance and enforcement activity by Immigration New Zealand (INZ), with a stronger focus on ensuring accredited employers meet their obligations under New Zealand employment and immigration laws and to capture migrant exploitation.
Looking ahead, further policy and operational changes are anticipated over the next 12 months, making it more important than ever for employers and migrants to stay informed and seek timely advice.
In our experience, INZ generally applies immigration instructions in a manner that is consistent with both policy and operational guidance. However, one area where we occasionally see outcomes that differ from advisers’ expectations is the treatment of police certificate requirements.
INZ's guidance is clear that police certificates should be provided at the time a visa application is lodged wherever required. There are, however, circumstances where an applicant has not provided a police certificate and is not yet required to do so because they have not and will not be in NZ for 24 months, even when the duration of the proposed visa is taken into account.
In these situations, INZ should grant a visa for the remaining portion of the 24-month period, rather than declining a visa application. Despite this, we have seen cases where visa applications are being declined when a shorter-duration visa could instead have been granted in accordance with the relevant instructions.
Similarly there have been instances where migrants are declined their visa application a few days before their police certificate becomes available.
This can create unnecessary disruption for migrants and employers and highlights the importance of ensuring that advisers are keeping up to date with how policy is being applied.
INZ's guidance is clear that police certificates should be provided at the time a visa application is lodged wherever required. There are, however, circumstances where an applicant has not provided a police certificate and is not yet required to do so because they have not and will not be in NZ for 24 months, even when the duration of the proposed visa is taken into account.
In these situations, INZ should grant a visa for the remaining portion of the 24-month period, rather than declining a visa application. Despite this, we have seen cases where visa applications are being declined when a shorter-duration visa could instead have been granted in accordance with the relevant instructions.
Similarly there have been instances where migrants are declined their visa application a few days before their police certificate becomes available.
This can create unnecessary disruption for migrants and employers and highlights the importance of ensuring that advisers are keeping up to date with how policy is being applied.
Around the second quarter of 2026, INZ began applying increased scrutiny to ANZSCO skill level assessments for certain retail and service management roles. This often involved the issuance of standardised template letters raising concerns that the skill level associated with a role was lower than that claimed by the employer.
This approach created uncertainty for employers who rely on migrant workers in these sectors and roles, particularly where the roles genuinely met the higher skill level requirements. In many cases, employers were required to provide extensive additional evidence to demonstrate that the position was appropriately classified, resulting in increased processing times, costs, and administrative burden, or Job Check applications were declined.
This highlights challenges employer and advisors can face when role classifications do not align with the practical realities and responsibilities of modern retail and service management positions.
This approach created uncertainty for employers who rely on migrant workers in these sectors and roles, particularly where the roles genuinely met the higher skill level requirements. In many cases, employers were required to provide extensive additional evidence to demonstrate that the position was appropriately classified, resulting in increased processing times, costs, and administrative burden, or Job Check applications were declined.
This highlights challenges employer and advisors can face when role classifications do not align with the practical realities and responsibilities of modern retail and service management positions.
For some families that are new to NZ, this has meant that they are not able to bring their dependent children to NZ.
Some of the most common compliance issues that can unexpectedly place both a migrant’s immigration status and an employer’s accreditation at risk include:
- Paying a migrant worker less than the remuneration specified in their AEWV as a pay rate requirement.
- Requiring or allowing a migrant worker to work for an extended period in a location that differs from the location specified on their AEWV, particularly where the change exceeds a short-term or temporary arrangement.
While these issues may appear minor from an operational perspective, they can have significant immigration and compliance consequences.
Potential consequences for workers include:
- Visa breaches and compliance action
- Liability for deportation
- Difficulties obtaining future visas or meeting residence requirements
Potential consequences for employers include:
- Financial penalties and infringement notices
- Public shaming as an employer that has breached NZs employment or immigration laws
- Suspension or revocation of accreditation
- Stand-down periods
- Increased scrutiny and compliance monitoring by INZ
Given the growing emphasis on compliance and enforcement by INZ, employers should regularly review their employment practices and complete immigration audits to ensure they remain fully compliant with both immigration and employment obligations.
In your experience, what type of applications are currently attracting the greatest level of scrutiny from INZ?
Student visa applications from India and Bangladesh typically attract a higher level of scrutiny from INZ. This reflects the need for INZ to carefully assess applications from markets where there is a greater risk of document fraud, non-genuine applicants, or the provision of false or misleading information/documentation.
While this enhanced scrutiny is understandable and serves an important integrity function within the immigration system, it can result in more extensive verification processes, longer assessment timeframes, and additional information requests for genuine applicants.
While this enhanced scrutiny is understandable and serves an important integrity function within the immigration system, it can result in more extensive verification processes, longer assessment timeframes, and additional information requests for genuine applicants.
Can you share an example of a complex scenario where understanding policy intent, rather than just the wording, was critical to the outcome?
Scenarios involving employer compliance breaches often require more than a literal reading of immigration instructions. A thorough understanding of policy intent is important, particularly where the consequences for employers can be significant.
We have experience with assisting employers that have been issued with infringement notices and associated financial penalties for employing a migrant worker in a manner that was alleged to be inconsistent with the conditions of the worker’s visa. On a plain reading of the relevant instructions, it appeared that a breach had occurred.
By including documents and submissions on policy intent, as well as relevant internal INZ training materials, and providing submissions on the specific circumstances of the case, we were able to secure revocation of the infringement notice and associated penalties.
This case highlights the importance of looking beyond the wording of immigration instructions alone and considering how those instructions are intended to operate in practice. In many situations, a good understanding of policy objectives can make a significant difference to the outcome for employers and migrants alike.
We have experience with assisting employers that have been issued with infringement notices and associated financial penalties for employing a migrant worker in a manner that was alleged to be inconsistent with the conditions of the worker’s visa. On a plain reading of the relevant instructions, it appeared that a breach had occurred.
By including documents and submissions on policy intent, as well as relevant internal INZ training materials, and providing submissions on the specific circumstances of the case, we were able to secure revocation of the infringement notice and associated penalties.
This case highlights the importance of looking beyond the wording of immigration instructions alone and considering how those instructions are intended to operate in practice. In many situations, a good understanding of policy objectives can make a significant difference to the outcome for employers and migrants alike.
I recommend that advisers encourage their AEWV-holder clients and accredited employer clients to undertake regular immigration compliance audits. These reviews should assess whether migrant workers are performing their roles in a manner that is fully consistent with the conditions of their visas, including their occupation, remuneration, employer, and work location.
Regular audits can help identify potential compliance issues before they escalate into more serious problems. In particular, they can uncover situations where a migrant worker may inadvertently be working in breach of their visa conditions, potentially exposing them to deportation liability and creating compliance risks for their employer.
Early identification of these issues allows employers and migrant workers to take corrective action promptly, reducing the risk of enforcement action, financial penalties, accreditation consequences, and disruption for migrant workers and employers.
As INZ continues to increase its compliance and enforcement activity, proactive compliance reviews have become an important risk-management tool for both employers and migrant workers.
Regular audits can help identify potential compliance issues before they escalate into more serious problems. In particular, they can uncover situations where a migrant worker may inadvertently be working in breach of their visa conditions, potentially exposing them to deportation liability and creating compliance risks for their employer.
Early identification of these issues allows employers and migrant workers to take corrective action promptly, reducing the risk of enforcement action, financial penalties, accreditation consequences, and disruption for migrant workers and employers.
As INZ continues to increase its compliance and enforcement activity, proactive compliance reviews have become an important risk-management tool for both employers and migrant workers.
Some migrant workers and employers assume that seemingly minor breaches of visa conditions—such as a worker performing their duties at a location not specified on their work visa for more than a few months—are unlikely to result in compliance issues. In reality, this assumption can be incorrect and may expose both the migrant worker and the employer to significant risks.
Even where the underlying employment relationship remains unchanged, working in a manner that is inconsistent with visa conditions can constitute a breach of immigration requirements. Depending on the circumstances, this may result in a migrant worker becoming liable for deportation and can expose the employer to compliance action, including financial penalties, increased scrutiny, or consequences affecting their accreditation status.
The key message is that employers and migrant workers should not underestimate the importance of complying with visa conditions. What may appear to be a minor operational change can, from an immigration perspective, have serious consequences if it is not managed appropriately.
Even where the underlying employment relationship remains unchanged, working in a manner that is inconsistent with visa conditions can constitute a breach of immigration requirements. Depending on the circumstances, this may result in a migrant worker becoming liable for deportation and can expose the employer to compliance action, including financial penalties, increased scrutiny, or consequences affecting their accreditation status.
The key message is that employers and migrant workers should not underestimate the importance of complying with visa conditions. What may appear to be a minor operational change can, from an immigration perspective, have serious consequences if it is not managed appropriately.
The trends that immigration practitioners should watch closely are:
- The Government’s proposed reforms to humanitarian appeal rights, including potential restrictions on appeal options for migrants who receive criminal convictions or who become unlawful after holding a visitor visa. If implemented, these changes could significantly affect the avenues available to migrants seeking to regularise their status or obtain relief from deportation liability.
- Ongoing reforms to skilled migrant residence pathways, including the potential consolidation of the Green List and the introduction of the proposed Skilled Migrant Category Trades and Technicians Pathway and Skilled Work Experience Pathway on 24 August 2026. These changes may reshape residence options for skilled workers and the advice practitioners provide to both migrants and employers.
- Operational and policy developments relating to the Immigration Employment Infringement Scheme, particularly the use of infringement notices and compliance enforcement measures. As this regime continues to evolve, practitioners should pay close attention to how immigration instructions are interpreted and applied in practice, as well as the implications for accredited employers and migrant workers.
Shi Sheng explores these issues further in afternoon session of Immigration Law Symposium 2026 on Thursday, 13 August 2026
In his session you will focus on the following critical areas:
- Practical tips on navigating changes in policy and operation including in respect to Dependent Child Income thresholds, Job Change applications, breaches
- Helpful information on upcoming and recent policy suggestions
- Case examples to navigate complex scenarios
Shi Sheng Cai, Partner, Ascroft Mitchell McGregor
Shi Sheng Cai (Shoosh) is a Partner at Ashcroft Mitchell McGregor and regularly acts for employers to help with immigration matters. He has over 7 years of work experience in the immigration sector including experience in the areas of global mobility, corporate immigration, investor migration and expertise with complex New Zealand immigration matters. Shoosh is a member of the Law Association Immigration Committee and is an author for Thomson Reuters Human Rights Law resource. You will find Shoosh "a great guy to deal with". He enjoys working with government officers and is a critical thinker with an insightful legal mind.
