Strange Immigration Decision

Forums › Off topic › Strange Immigration Decision

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1508711 9-Mar-2016 10:26

andrew027:

joker97: How would an Australian coming over for a holiday know to apply for a work visa? I wouldn't have known!

But then I don't have an au pair.

An Australian wouldn't need to apply for a work visa. An Australian citizen or (in most cases) permanent resident is entitled to enter, stay, study or work in New Zealand. Of course, this rule doesn't apply to French au pairs...

I maintain, they just said the wrong thing(s) on the wrong day to the wrong person.

What came out: she's an au pair, she will be babysitting when we ski, she will be skiing when we aren't.

What should be said: she is here to ski with us, we are perfectly capable parents to our children.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1508712 9-Mar-2016 10:29

joker97:

andrew027:

joker97: How would an Australian coming over for a holiday know to apply for a work visa? I wouldn't have known!

But then I don't have an au pair.

An Australian wouldn't need to apply for a work visa. An Australian citizen or (in most cases) permanent resident is entitled to enter, stay, study or work in New Zealand. Of course, this rule doesn't apply to French au pairs...

I maintain, they just said the wrong thing(s) on the wrong day to the wrong person.

What came out: she's an au pair, she will be babysitting when we ski, she will be skiing when we aren't.

What should be said: she is here to ski with us, we are perfectly capable parents to our children.

That maybe so but the Officer(s) would be required to make a decision on what has been presented not what should have been presented. There would not have been a lot of time in which to make that decision.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1508713 9-Mar-2016 10:30

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

frankv:

Geektastic:

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

I agree that it's farcical.

But I don't get that it is INZ's fault. They applied the law as it stands.

Why did she not get a working visa? I'd suggest that she, and her employers, really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

I'm sure that if she was coming here to work, she would have done so.

However, I really do not think that what was reported meets any reasonable definition of work in that scenario.

I'm quite sure INZ has more discretion than they exercised in this particular case.

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.

Yeah I remember Auckland transport. Hides behind a tree, creates the ticket before you stop. As soon as you stop to let a passenger out the ticket in your face. (Seriously, there is no way the ticket could have otherwise been produced that quickly.) Not yellow lines, just a normal road.

Yesterday in Dunedin. SUV parked in bus stop! Ticket officer stops, starts keying in details, about 15 seconds into it a woman with a sour face rushes to the car and said something (can't hear what it was). Officer immediately stops keying details and turns around and leaves.

So yeah, wildly different depending on who you get. I wonder what Queenstown parking attendants are like.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1508714 9-Mar-2016 10:34

MikeB4:

joker97:

andrew027:

joker97: How would an Australian coming over for a holiday know to apply for a work visa? I wouldn't have known!

But then I don't have an au pair.

An Australian wouldn't need to apply for a work visa. An Australian citizen or (in most cases) permanent resident is entitled to enter, stay, study or work in New Zealand. Of course, this rule doesn't apply to French au pairs...

I maintain, they just said the wrong thing(s) on the wrong day to the wrong person.

What came out: she's an au pair, she will be babysitting when we ski, she will be skiing when we aren't.

What should be said: she is here to ski with us, we are perfectly capable parents to our children.

That maybe so but the Officer(s) would be required to make a decision on what has been presented not what should have been presented. There would not have been a lot of time in which to make that decision.

I have watched a lot of border patrol. (Australian one not NZ). THey need to be satisfied that a tourist is around to tour. That said tourist has money or is being supported by a friend. That said tourist will leave at the end of tour. THat said tourist will not be working while touring.

In that time of saying this is a friend who is skiing with us satisfies everything in the short time to make such a decision.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1508716 9-Mar-2016 10:35

joker97:

Yeah I remember Auckland transport. Hides behind a tree, creates the ticket before you stop. As soon as you stop to let a passenger out the ticket in your face. (Seriously, there is no way the ticket could have otherwise been produced that quickly.) Not yellow lines, just a normal road.

Yesterday in Dunedin. SUV parked in bus stop! Ticket officer stops, starts keying in details, about 15 seconds into it a woman with a sour face rushes to the car and said something (can't hear what it was). Officer immediately stops keying details and turns around and leaves.

So yeah, wildly different depending on who you get. I wonder what Queenstown parking attendants are like.

I was referring to real Government Agencies not pseudo agencies

Batman

Mad Scientist
29769 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1508719 9-Mar-2016 10:43

MikeB4:

joker97:

Yeah I remember Auckland transport. Hides behind a tree, creates the ticket before you stop. As soon as you stop to let a passenger out the ticket in your face. (Seriously, there is no way the ticket could have otherwise been produced that quickly.) Not yellow lines, just a normal road.

Yesterday in Dunedin. SUV parked in bus stop! Ticket officer stops, starts keying in details, about 15 seconds into it a woman with a sour face rushes to the car and said something (can't hear what it was). Officer immediately stops keying details and turns around and leaves.

So yeah, wildly different depending on who you get. I wonder what Queenstown parking attendants are like.

I was referring to real Government Agencies not pseudo agencies

Ah those ones exercise discretion only if you know someone powerful. Eg if you want to walk through airport security door you better big a big minister. Or if you want to lie about driving at 200kph your father better do business with a high ranking MP.

SaltyNZ

8234 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#1509772 9-Mar-2016 11:57

MikeB4:

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.

But that's the point, really. They must be exercising discretion most of the time, because they don't deport everyone arriving on a holiday visa who happens to bring a laptop and a phone in with them.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

Quic Broadband

Move to New Zealand's best fibre broadband service (affiliate link). Free setup code: R587125ERQ6VE. Note that to use Quic Broadband you must be comfortable with configuring your own router.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1509815 9-Mar-2016 12:35

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.

If they don't/can't apply discretion how do they ever do their job. The law cannot be written to cover every scenario. There is always going to be a time when they need to apply the spirit of the law. This is one of these cases.

I don't think any reasonable person could think the law was applied as intended in this case if what we have heard is correct.

To me it smacks of someone getting off on then fact they have uniform and abusing the powers vested with wearing that uniform.

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1509818 9-Mar-2016 12:37

This scenario has popped up on Border Patrol. Employer brings employer on holiday, no cash payment, but payment in kind. She admitted she will be working. Done. As was posted earlier, should have got a work visa for the employees. That the employee and the employer get angry, say wild excuses so as to garner a sympathetic ear, that fluff needs to be filtered out.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1509822 9-Mar-2016 12:40

joker97:

MikeB4:

Geektastic:

frankv:

Geektastic:

It's all a bit farcical though, isn't it?

I'm sure we all agree that the purpose of the rules is to prevent people coming here on holiday and just grabbing a quick job.

Patently that is not the case in a scenario like this and INZ really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

I agree that it's farcical.

But I don't get that it is INZ's fault. They applied the law as it stands.

Why did she not get a working visa? I'd suggest that she, and her employers, really ought to have used a tad of common sense.

I'm sure that if she was coming here to work, she would have done so.

However, I really do not think that what was reported meets any reasonable definition of work in that scenario.

I'm quite sure INZ has more discretion than they exercised in this particular case.

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.

Yeah I remember Auckland transport. Hides behind a tree, creates the ticket before you stop. As soon as you stop to let a passenger out the ticket in your face. (Seriously, there is no way the ticket could have otherwise been produced that quickly.) Not yellow lines, just a normal road.

Yesterday in Dunedin. SUV parked in bus stop! Ticket officer stops, starts keying in details, about 15 seconds into it a woman with a sour face rushes to the car and said something (can't hear what it was). Officer immediately stops keying details and turns around and leaves.

So yeah, wildly different depending on who you get. I wonder what Queenstown parking attendants are like.

Nope. Not at all. It's clear, very clear. Those who watch Border Patrol know what angry passengers can be like, those who work in a customer facing role, also. Its about the facts, not the fuss

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1509842 9-Mar-2016 13:29

Technofreak:

You maybe surprised at how little discretion certain Government agencies have or in fact want.

If they don't/can't apply discretion how do they ever do their job. The law cannot be written to cover every scenario. There is always going to be a time when they need to apply the spirit of the law. This is one of these cases.

I don't think any reasonable person could think the law was applied as intended in this case if what we have heard is correct.

To me it smacks of someone getting off on then fact they have uniform and abusing the powers vested with wearing that uniform.

To use as an example for this...

A person applies to Work and Income for a Statutory Benefit, to qualify for that Benefit they must meet requirements A, B, C, D. If they do not meet these requirements the application is declined. There is no discretion the Law stipulates that ABC&D must be met. The Staff member concerned has done their job.

Now to take this further assume that ABCD are met and the Statutory Benefit is granted, however, the applicant needs a one off emergency payment and applies for extra assistance. Authority to grant this is contained in the Act, however the criteria are set by Official Ministerial policy that allows prescribed discretion in to grant or decline inline with the Act and the Ministerial policy. Again the job has been done.

This is how statutory agencies work.

Technofreak

6530 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1509871 9-Mar-2016 13:46

tdgeek:

This scenario has popped up on Border Patrol. Employer brings employer on holiday, no cash payment, but payment in kind. She admitted she will be working. Done. As was posted earlier, should have got a work visa for the employees. That the employee and the employer get angry, say wild excuses so as to garner a sympathetic ear, that fluff needs to be filtered out.

Perhaps they should have got some sort of Visa, however a French national coming to New Zealand on holiday doesn't require a visa. It's easy to see how she arrived without one.

How many people posting on here can honestly say they would have been aware of the nuances regarding when a visa is required prior to this event? Would/could they have been caught out in the same manner? I bet most wouldn't have given it a second though and could have ended up in the same situation.

The issue I have is how the officials handled the problem.

I'm sure they could have been inventive and found a solution that worked for everyone instead of locking a poor unsuspecting visitor in the cells for the night.

I saw it happen post Sept 11, where someone who arrived at Canadian immigration without the required visa having traveled via the USA. In reality they should never have been allowed to board the aircraft at the point of departure in the US. The Canadian border officials had every right to put this person back on the aircraft and send them back to the USA.

In this case it was clear cut right from the start that this person needed a visa, there was no question about it.

Instead of barring the person, entry the Canadian officials were pragmatic and found a way for this person to be able to enter Canada. Why couldn't the same be done in this case?

Sony Xperia XA2 running Sailfish OS. https://sailfishos.org The true independent open source mobile OS
Samsung Galaxy Tab S6
Dell Inspiron 14z i5

Geektastic

17943 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1509883 9-Mar-2016 13:53

Technofreak:

tdgeek:

This scenario has popped up on Border Patrol. Employer brings employer on holiday, no cash payment, but payment in kind. She admitted she will be working. Done. As was posted earlier, should have got a work visa for the employees. That the employee and the employer get angry, say wild excuses so as to garner a sympathetic ear, that fluff needs to be filtered out.

Perhaps they should have got some sort of Visa, however a French national coming to New Zealand on holiday doesn't require a visa. It's easy to see how she arrived without one.

How many people posting on here can honestly say they would have been aware of the nuances regarding when a visa is required prior to this event? Would/could they have been caught out in the same manner? I bet most wouldn't have given it a second though and could have ended up in the same situation.

The issue I have is how the officials handled the problem.

I'm sure they could have been inventive and found a solution that worked for everyone instead of locking a poor unsuspecting visitor in the cells for the night.

I saw it happen post Sept 11, where someone who arrived at Canadian immigration without the required visa having traveled via the USA. In reality they should never have been allowed to board the aircraft at the point of departure in the US. The Canadian border officials had every right to put this person back on the aircraft and send them back to the USA.

In this case it was clear cut right from the start that this person needed a visa, there was no question about it.

Instead of barring the person, entry the Canadian officials were pragmatic and found a way for this person to be able to enter Canada. Why couldn't the same be done in this case?

Surely all they needed to do was issue her with a written warning that if she worked, she would be in contravention of her visitor visa and liable for deportation?

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1509886 9-Mar-2016 13:55

Technofreak:

tdgeek:

This scenario has popped up on Border Patrol. Employer brings employer on holiday, no cash payment, but payment in kind. She admitted she will be working. Done. As was posted earlier, should have got a work visa for the employees. That the employee and the employer get angry, say wild excuses so as to garner a sympathetic ear, that fluff needs to be filtered out.

Perhaps they should have got some sort of Visa, however a French national coming to New Zealand on holiday doesn't require a visa. It's easy to see how she arrived without one.

How many people posting on here can honestly say they would have been aware of the nuances regarding when a visa is required prior to this event? Would/could they have been caught out in the same manner? I bet most wouldn't have given it a second though and could have ended up in the same situation.

The issue I have is how the officials handled the problem.

I'm sure they could have been inventive and found a solution that worked for everyone instead of locking a poor unsuspecting visitor in the cells for the night.

I saw it happen post Sept 11, where someone who arrived at Canadian immigration without the required visa having traveled via the USA. In reality they should never have been allowed to board the aircraft at the point of departure in the US. The Canadian border officials had every right to put this person back on the aircraft and send them back to the USA.

In this case it was clear cut right from the start that this person needed a visa, there was no question about it.

Instead of barring the person, entry the Canadian officials were pragmatic and found a way for this person to be able to enter Canada. Why couldn't the same be done in this case?

That depends upon their delegated authority under the governing Act.

tdgeek

29753 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1509917 9-Mar-2016 14:47

When people arrive here, or Oz and they are found to be in contravention of the rules of entry they are removed. I guess we could let every one in and give them a piece of paper, i.e. warning. Its up to travellers to ensure they know what the rules are. Its not like travelling to another country is like catching a bus to the park

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9