Skilled Migrant Policy Changes to remuneration thresholds
During the recent years, Immigration NZ has changed the remuneration thresholds two times.
We found some lawyers and advisers are still referring to the old thresholds for assessing their clients' cases.
We found some lawyers and advisers are still referring to the old thresholds for assessing their clients' cases.
Previous remuneration thresholds for SMC
Current remuneration thresholds for SMC
Other changes introduced to SMC
Changes to this category include:
- the introduction of remuneration thresholds as an additional means of defining skilled employment
- the requirement for previous work experience to be skilled, with more points available for skilled work experience
- an increase in points for age between 30 and 39
- an increase in points for level 9 and 10 post graduate qualifications
- points for employment, work experience and qualifications in identified future growth areas, qualifications in areas of absolute skills shortage and close family in New Zealand will be removed.
Understand SMC Resident Visa - The entire process
This is a category for people who have the skills, qualifications, and experience that New Zealand needs. If you are between the age of 22 and 55 years and hold qualification(s) and/or have experience and/or have a job offer in New Zealand, we can calculate your points and advise whether you qualify. Processing could take 6 to 9 months.
The points threshold for EOI selection has increased from 140 to 160. The evidence for English language has also changed. For more information, please visit here.
Skilled employment must be matched with ANZSCO.
How does your Immigration Officer determine skilled employment?
Under the SMC, skilled employment is defined as employment that requires specialist, technical or management expertise.
1. An offer of employment or current employment in New Zealand will be assessed as skilled whether employment is skilled, and is primarily based on the ANZSCO which associates skill levels with each occupation.
2. The applicant’s offer of employment or current employment must be assessed to determine whether it substantially matches the description for that occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO.
3. There has been some inconsistency in the assessment of whether applicants’ offers of employment or current employment substantially match the description for the occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO. The following occupations have been identified in particular:
141111 Café or Restaurant Manager, 142111 Retail Manager (General) and 512111 Office Manager.
4. Careful consideration must be given when dealing with any SMC applications based on an offer of employment or current employment in the above occupations, including undertaking verification where appropriate.
5. Inconsistent and inadequate assessment of whether employment substantially matches the ANZSCO description for an occupation is contrary to the purposes of the SMC and may result in decision-making that is not correct in terms of Government residence instructions. It may also lead to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) returning applications to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) for re-assessment.
6. Any application under the SMC must be assessed on its own merits. Although a previous application based on similar employment may have been approved, whether the employment is a ‘substantial match’ must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Further verification and information that may not have been known at the time of a previous decision may mean that similar employment is later not found to be a ‘substantial match’. An application must not be approved simply because a previous decision found similar employment to be a ‘substantial match’.
Assessment of a ‘substantial match’
7. Assessing whether an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment is a ‘substantial match’ requires careful consideration of a range of factors, remembering that skilled employment requires a specialist, technical or management expertise. Immigration officers must pay close attention to the factors outlined below, which have been noted in recent IPT decisions.
Whether there are other similar ANZSCO occupations
8. Look for the relevant range of ANZSCO occupations with varying titles and listed specialisations. An applicant’s occupation title may differ to that described in the ANZSCO, but the core tasks will be consistent. This assessment should include a comparison of similar ANZSCO positions, including whether the role substantially matches a lower skilled occupation than the one nominated, e.g. Retail Supervisor instead of Retail Manager.
‘Management’ will have a specific meaning depending on the occupation
9. ‘Management’ is a generic term, but it must be assessed narrowly when considering whether an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment substantially matches a management position as described in the ANZSCO. E.g. does the applicant “organise and control the operations” of the retail/café/restaurant establishment? Although the job title may contain ‘manager’, this does not necessarily mean the applicant holds the managerial responsibility for organising and controlling the operations of the business.
Consider whether the employment is a substantial match ‘as a whole.'
10. The IPT has made it clear that INZ should consider the offer of employment or current employment ‘holistically’. What this means is taking into account the core tasks as set out in the ANZSCO and the specific characteristics of the applicant’s employment as a whole, not focusing solely on whether the applicant performs certain tasks.
11. In practice, this means considering the scope and scale of the employer’s organisation and operation. This may include factors such as the size of the operation, the number of staff and managers, and whether management functions are centralised at a head office or undertaken by other managers. Centralisation of many core managerial functions, specifically about planning, purchasing, financial and overall responsibility for decision-making, may result in a downgrading of the managerial responsibility held by a manager. For example, in the case of a takeaway pizza franchise, the IPT found that due to this centralisation of many core managerial functions, the franchisee rather than the ‘manager’ was in the ANZSCO position of Restaurant Manager (IPT 200150).
The salary may indicate whether the position is a ‘substantial match.'
12. Take into account the remuneration offered as an indicator of the applicant’s level of responsibility. In a past appeal, it was noted that if a salary offered is well below that offered for the nominated position in the industry generally, it could indicate that the position itself is not a skilled one as claimed, but one requiring a lower level of skills (RRB 15789).
The ‘substantial match’ must be proportionate
13. A substantial match must be proportionate, e.g. consider whether a person with an offer of employment as a Retail Manager who spends the majority of their time serving customers or supervising staff is a substantial match to the ANZSCO description for Retail Manager (General). While an applicant’s job might incorporate some aspects of retail management, that does not necessarily mean it meets the ANZSCO description for Retail Manager (General).
14. If business intelligence is available concerning the applicant’s occupation or employer, ensure that it is considered when assessing whether there is a ‘substantial match’.
Verification reports
15. Verification reports regarding employment should provide a clear assessment as to whether employment is a ‘substantial match’ and whether it meets the requirements of skilled employment under the SMC, as well as recording details of the verification work undertaken.
Potentially prejudicial information
16. A verification report that finds an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment does not substantially match the ANZSCO description for the occupation must be carefully considered. This potentially prejudicial information (PPI) must be put to the applicant in writing and in plain English. Do not simply ‘cut and paste’ text from the verification report in a letter to the applicant (although it may be useful to provide this separately). Consider recording in the PPI letter
whether you are satisfied that the applicant performs or will perform each core task listed in the ANZSCO description for the occupation, although this does not change the need to consider the employment ‘holistically’.
Making the final decision
17. If comments or submissions are received that contest your or the verification officer’s assessment of whether the employment is a ‘substantial match’, do not accept them at face value. Consider the comments and assess whether they adequately address all the concerns put to the applicant, remembering that the applicant is required to demonstrate that the employment substantially matches the ANZSCO description.
18. If the PPI letter was based on a verification report, immigration officers should consult with the verification officer who completed the report before proceeding to a final decision. The verification officer may be able to provide advice on the
Credibility of the comments.
19. Having considered the comments, record whether you are satisfied that the applicant’s offer of employment or current employment substantially matches the description for that occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO.
20. If the employment is assessed as a ‘substantial match’, despite the verification report finding it not to be, the reasons for this must be clearly recorded in notes.
21. If the employment is not found to be a substantial match, ensure that the decline letter provides detailed reasons explaining why the comments received have not adequately addressed INZ’s concerns. Make sure that all comments are considered against INZ’s initial concerns.
The points threshold for EOI selection has increased from 140 to 160. The evidence for English language has also changed. For more information, please visit here.
Skilled employment must be matched with ANZSCO.
How does your Immigration Officer determine skilled employment?
Under the SMC, skilled employment is defined as employment that requires specialist, technical or management expertise.
1. An offer of employment or current employment in New Zealand will be assessed as skilled whether employment is skilled, and is primarily based on the ANZSCO which associates skill levels with each occupation.
2. The applicant’s offer of employment or current employment must be assessed to determine whether it substantially matches the description for that occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO.
3. There has been some inconsistency in the assessment of whether applicants’ offers of employment or current employment substantially match the description for the occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO. The following occupations have been identified in particular:
141111 Café or Restaurant Manager, 142111 Retail Manager (General) and 512111 Office Manager.
4. Careful consideration must be given when dealing with any SMC applications based on an offer of employment or current employment in the above occupations, including undertaking verification where appropriate.
5. Inconsistent and inadequate assessment of whether employment substantially matches the ANZSCO description for an occupation is contrary to the purposes of the SMC and may result in decision-making that is not correct in terms of Government residence instructions. It may also lead to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) returning applications to Immigration New Zealand (INZ) for re-assessment.
6. Any application under the SMC must be assessed on its own merits. Although a previous application based on similar employment may have been approved, whether the employment is a ‘substantial match’ must be assessed on a case-by-case basis. Further verification and information that may not have been known at the time of a previous decision may mean that similar employment is later not found to be a ‘substantial match’. An application must not be approved simply because a previous decision found similar employment to be a ‘substantial match’.
Assessment of a ‘substantial match’
7. Assessing whether an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment is a ‘substantial match’ requires careful consideration of a range of factors, remembering that skilled employment requires a specialist, technical or management expertise. Immigration officers must pay close attention to the factors outlined below, which have been noted in recent IPT decisions.
Whether there are other similar ANZSCO occupations
8. Look for the relevant range of ANZSCO occupations with varying titles and listed specialisations. An applicant’s occupation title may differ to that described in the ANZSCO, but the core tasks will be consistent. This assessment should include a comparison of similar ANZSCO positions, including whether the role substantially matches a lower skilled occupation than the one nominated, e.g. Retail Supervisor instead of Retail Manager.
‘Management’ will have a specific meaning depending on the occupation
9. ‘Management’ is a generic term, but it must be assessed narrowly when considering whether an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment substantially matches a management position as described in the ANZSCO. E.g. does the applicant “organise and control the operations” of the retail/café/restaurant establishment? Although the job title may contain ‘manager’, this does not necessarily mean the applicant holds the managerial responsibility for organising and controlling the operations of the business.
Consider whether the employment is a substantial match ‘as a whole.'
10. The IPT has made it clear that INZ should consider the offer of employment or current employment ‘holistically’. What this means is taking into account the core tasks as set out in the ANZSCO and the specific characteristics of the applicant’s employment as a whole, not focusing solely on whether the applicant performs certain tasks.
11. In practice, this means considering the scope and scale of the employer’s organisation and operation. This may include factors such as the size of the operation, the number of staff and managers, and whether management functions are centralised at a head office or undertaken by other managers. Centralisation of many core managerial functions, specifically about planning, purchasing, financial and overall responsibility for decision-making, may result in a downgrading of the managerial responsibility held by a manager. For example, in the case of a takeaway pizza franchise, the IPT found that due to this centralisation of many core managerial functions, the franchisee rather than the ‘manager’ was in the ANZSCO position of Restaurant Manager (IPT 200150).
The salary may indicate whether the position is a ‘substantial match.'
12. Take into account the remuneration offered as an indicator of the applicant’s level of responsibility. In a past appeal, it was noted that if a salary offered is well below that offered for the nominated position in the industry generally, it could indicate that the position itself is not a skilled one as claimed, but one requiring a lower level of skills (RRB 15789).
The ‘substantial match’ must be proportionate
13. A substantial match must be proportionate, e.g. consider whether a person with an offer of employment as a Retail Manager who spends the majority of their time serving customers or supervising staff is a substantial match to the ANZSCO description for Retail Manager (General). While an applicant’s job might incorporate some aspects of retail management, that does not necessarily mean it meets the ANZSCO description for Retail Manager (General).
14. If business intelligence is available concerning the applicant’s occupation or employer, ensure that it is considered when assessing whether there is a ‘substantial match’.
Verification reports
15. Verification reports regarding employment should provide a clear assessment as to whether employment is a ‘substantial match’ and whether it meets the requirements of skilled employment under the SMC, as well as recording details of the verification work undertaken.
Potentially prejudicial information
16. A verification report that finds an applicant’s offer of employment or current employment does not substantially match the ANZSCO description for the occupation must be carefully considered. This potentially prejudicial information (PPI) must be put to the applicant in writing and in plain English. Do not simply ‘cut and paste’ text from the verification report in a letter to the applicant (although it may be useful to provide this separately). Consider recording in the PPI letter
whether you are satisfied that the applicant performs or will perform each core task listed in the ANZSCO description for the occupation, although this does not change the need to consider the employment ‘holistically’.
Making the final decision
17. If comments or submissions are received that contest your or the verification officer’s assessment of whether the employment is a ‘substantial match’, do not accept them at face value. Consider the comments and assess whether they adequately address all the concerns put to the applicant, remembering that the applicant is required to demonstrate that the employment substantially matches the ANZSCO description.
18. If the PPI letter was based on a verification report, immigration officers should consult with the verification officer who completed the report before proceeding to a final decision. The verification officer may be able to provide advice on the
Credibility of the comments.
19. Having considered the comments, record whether you are satisfied that the applicant’s offer of employment or current employment substantially matches the description for that occupation (including core tasks) as set out in the ANZSCO.
20. If the employment is assessed as a ‘substantial match’, despite the verification report finding it not to be, the reasons for this must be clearly recorded in notes.
21. If the employment is not found to be a substantial match, ensure that the decline letter provides detailed reasons explaining why the comments received have not adequately addressed INZ’s concerns. Make sure that all comments are considered against INZ’s initial concerns.
New English requirements for Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa and Invitation to Apply.
If a potential SMC applicant has completed their Expression of Interest (“EOI”) stating that they ‘otherwise meet the minimum requirement’ and then, in the notes field indicate that they are planning to do an English language test, Immigration New Zealand will not be issuing Invitations to Apply (“ITA”) for residence.
At the time of expressing their interest, a person needs to confirm that they:
· meet the minimum standard because they have completed a test and obtained the required score; or
· meet the other requirements relating to country of citizenship and residence or qualifications obtained in the specified countries
At the time of expressing their interest, a person needs to confirm that they:
· meet the minimum standard because they have completed a test and obtained the required score; or
· meet the other requirements relating to country of citizenship and residence or qualifications obtained in the specified countries
Skill shortage list checker
Check your occupation to see if we need your skills in New Zealand. If you're offered a job that's on one of the lists, and you've got the qualifications and experience to match, getting a work or residence visa may be easier.
Are you looking for anything in particular?
Copyright © 2018 Immigration Trust.
All rights reserved.
Immigration Law Experts
Licensed Immigration Advisers
Disclaimer/Privacy Policy
All rights reserved.
Immigration Law Experts
Licensed Immigration Advisers
Disclaimer/Privacy Policy
View Simon Park QSM JP's profile