do not give up, come and see Tda

Candy Huang applied for residence under the skilled migrant category.  

Unbelievably, her application was declined because INZ said she had completed her studies too  

quickly. INZ refused to award to Candy the bonus points that were awarded to an applicant if they  

studied and passed a New Zealand National Diploma two-year qualification.  

INZ had refused to award Candy the bonus points even though NZQA confirmed she had completed  

a two-year National Diploma qualification.  

So, what was the problem?  

Candy had wanted to complete her Diploma as quickly as possible. So, she enrolled in extra courses  

at night, and during the summer. Candy was a great student getting “A” passes and graduated after  

only 16 months. However, INZ refused to award Candy the bonus points as INZ claimed that the  

policy required her to study for at least 24 months. 

In desperation Candy asked TDA’s principal consultant, former Minister of Immigration, Tuariki  

Delamere if he could help. Stunned by what was an incredibly stupid and WRONG interpretation of  

the policy, Mr Delamere took on Candy’s case fighting, not just for Candy, but for the integrity of  

New Zealand’s immigration system. 

Formal complaints were made to the Minister of Immigration, to the Ombudsman and to the Human  

Rights Commissioner. The media published Candy’s story. And for a short time, Candy was a media  

star, in New Zealand and overseas. Her story was published in newspapers. She was interviewed by  

television stations. She was even the subject of a debate in Parliament. 

But most importantly the Minister of Immigration ordered that Candy’s residence application be 

approved. 

And even better, the Minister of Immigration changed the policy to make it clear that a person  

would qualify for the bonus points for their qualification even if the student completed the  

qualification less than the expected timeframe – just like Candy Huang.  

 Sometimes, even immigration officers need help to get a visa application approved. 

Jennifer, Richard and their daughter Mary (not their real names) were granted residence over 20  

years ago when Jennifer was a warranted INZ immigration officer in Beijing.  

However, Richard decided not to migrate to New Zealand and he and Jennifer divorced. She and  

Mary migrated to New Zealand without Richard. Jennifer continued her career with INZ. 

Several years ago, Jennifer and Richard remarried, and Richard applied for a residence visa under  

partnership. His application was declined on the grounds that Jennifer was not an eligible sponsor  

because she had previously sponsored Richard over 20 years ago. 

Jennifer was now a senior immigration officer. Mary was completing her PhD in science. 

And so, even though Jennifer had dedicated more than 20 years of her life to Immigration New  

Zealand, and there was no dispute about the genuineness and stability of her marriage, INZ  

management still refused to approve Richard’s application. 

Over the years TDA had had many dealings with Jennifer as she was often the assigned case officer  

for applicants applying under the business categories. She was a very competent immigration  

officer, even though we often had disagreements over policy interpretations. 

And so, we at TDA felt honoured and privileged that when her husband’s application was declined  

Jennifer approached TDA to represent Richard’s immigration interests with his appeal to the IPT.  

This was a difficult and complicated situation, because in terms of the law and the relevant policies  

for partnership, the INZ decision was correct. 

However, TDA accepted the challenge.  

And Jennifer’s vote of confidence in TDA was duly rewarded when the IPT agreed with our  

submissions and ruled the appeal decision in Richard’s favour.  

It was a great day when the Minister of Immigration confirmed that Richard had been granted a  

residence visa.  

Sophie Park was devastated when she received this decline decision from INZ.  

“Your LTBV – Entrepreneur application for a resident visa is declined because INZ consider there is no need for Opotiki to have a sushi shop when there are two sushi shops in Whakatane. “

Korean couple, Sophie and husband James had opened their Sushi Restaurant in the small town of Opotiki.  The restaurant had been a huge success and was very popular with locals.  They didn’t know what to do.  INZ had ordered them to leave New Zealand.  

One of their employees was a local Maori girl.  And not only was she upset at the prospect of losing her job, but she was also very angry that her employers were being treated this way.  They were great people who had taken a risk to establish their business in the remote Eastern Bay of Plenty town of Opotiki. 

And so, she contacted her cousin, who just happened to be principal consultant for TDA but also the former Minister of Immigration, Tuariki Delamere, the person who wrote the LTBV Entrepreneur policy.  And also, Mr. Delamere belonged to the local Maori tribe of Whakatohea, and had been the Chairman of the Whakatohea Trust Board.

Mr. Delamere knew the people of Opotiki would be angry at being told by INZ that they would have to drive to Whakatane, 44 kms away, to get some sushi.  He quickly released a press statement to the local Opotiki Newspaper. Next day the whole front page was devoted to the terrible decision of INZ to take away their sushi shop. And then the story was published across all media in New Zealand.

Opotiki has a population of less than 5,000.  But next day more than 1,000 Opotiki residents participated in a street march protesting against the INZ decision to close their sushi shop.  New Zealand’s main television stations sent reporters to televise the protest march.  The local mayor and the local Members of Parliament demanded an explanation from the government and from the Minister of Immigration.

A few days later Sophie Park and James received a letter from INZ admitting that a mistake had been made and that the decision to decline their resident visa application had been cancelled and that they had been granted resident visas.

And a very lucky Mr. Delamere sometimes gets free sushi whenever he goes back to Opotiki.

In May 2005, GG’s life took an unexpected turn when he became an overstayer in New Zealand. For 17 years, he lived in the shadows, facing uncertainty and limited opportunities. However, his story is one of resilience, love, and the power of expert guidance.

In May 2019, GG’s life began to change when he married his partner, marking the start of a new chapter. Their family grew in January 2020 with the birth of their daughter, a New Zealand citizen. Determined to secure a future for his family, GG sought the help of TDA Immigration.

In May 2020, TDA successfully obtained a 3-month visitor visa for GG under Section 61, a critical first step. Shortly after, TDA lodged a work visa partnership application, which was granted in July 2020, allowing GG to work legally for two years. 

However, the journey was far from over. In August 2020, GG lodged his own residence visa (RV) partnership application, but it was declined in June 2021. Immigration New Zealand (INZ) claimed his relationship was not genuine or stable. Undeterred, GG appealed the decision, but the Immigration Protection Tribunal (IPT) upheld INZ’s decline in December 2021.

At this critical juncture, GG re-engaged TDA to lodge a new RV partnership application. TDA’s expertise and persistence paid off when, in May 2022, the Minister of Immigration granted a new work visa partnership for GG. Finally, in January 2024, after years of challenges and perseverance, GG was granted his residence visa under the partnership category.

GG’s story is a testament to the importance of never giving up and having the right team by your side. At TDA Immigration, we are proud to have played a pivotal role in helping GG and his family achieve their dream of a secure future in New Zealand.

Chen (not her real name) used an agent to lodge her skills residence application.  

Her application was declined because INZ accused her of providing a false degree from Hubei University.  INZ refused to disclose to Chen any evidence that supported their accusation.

Her agent couldn’t help so she asked many other agents for help.  They all said it was impossible.  Desperate and facing deportation she came to TDA.

Chen told TDA her story, insisting her degree was genuine and it was not false.  TDA checked her evidence with officials at Hubei University.  They confirmed her degree was genuine, and so TDA agreed to take on her case. 

Our first job was to keep her in New Zealand while we fought to get the decision to decline her application reversed.  

TDA discovered that Chen’s problems started when the INZ office in Beijing received an anonymous letter claiming Chen’s degree was false.  

The processing INZ officer claimed that INZ had talked with officials at Hubei University who said that Chen had never attended Hubei University.   However, as TDA had already talked to Hubei University we knew that this claim by officer was not only wrong, but we also had proof that the INZ officer had lied. 

TDA also discovered that the anonymous letter was sent by the estranged husband of Chen’s older sister who was jealous of his sister-in-law Chen.  Despite all of the evidence TDA provided the INZ case officer refused to alter his decision.  

However, TDA did not give up.  We submitted written complaints to the Office of the Ombudsman, to the Privacy Commissioner, to the Human Right’s Commissioner, to the Minister of Immigration.  

After reviewing TDA’s submissions the INZ Chief Executive agreed to have Chen’s case re-opened. This time the new Beijing Branch Manager took charge of the case.  

After reviewing all the evidence, he went to Hubei University himself to check on Chen’s claims.  His investigation confirmed that Chen was telling the truth and that she did have a genuine degree from Hubei University.  He also discovered that the previous case officer had lied and had never actually bothered to check with Hubei University. 

And finally, a year later, INZ admitted a mistake had been made and that Chen’s degree was not false.  Chen was immediately approved for residence.  And a corrupt immigration officer was dismissed.

MT, a Mandarin-speaking tenant in Auckland’s Eastern Suburbs, found herself in a distressing situation. Her landlord’s husband, who claimed to be a registered NZ lawyer, made inappropriate sexual advances toward her. Unbeknownst to MT, he was actually a disgraced and de-registered lawyer. Feeling unsafe, MT immediately gave 28 days’ notice to terminate her periodic tenancy, as legally required.

However, the landlord retaliated by taking MT to the Tenancy Tribunal, demanding 4 months’ rent and compensation. The landlord falsely claimed the tenancy was fixed-term and could only end one month after MT’s asylum claim was decided—a condition MT had never agreed to.

TDA Immigration stepped in to represent MT. During the hearing, TDA exposed the landlord’s deceit:

- The original tenancy agreement was written in Chinese, but the landlord had altered it after signing, using a different pen to add terms in English.

- The landlord and her husband argued that translation wasn’t necessary because they were fluent in English, ignoring MT’s language barriers.

- TDA also revealed that the landlord had immediately re-tenanted the property, undermining her claim for lost rent.

The Tribunal also learned about the husband’s history. In a past ruling, Judge Adams had condemned him as “incompetent,” “woeful,” and “not a fit and proper person to practice law.”

In a resounding victory, the Tribunal ruled 100% in MT’s favour, dismissing all claims against her. This outcome not only protected MT’s rights but also exposed the landlord’s unethical behavior. For MT, it was a moment of justice and relief, thanks to TDA’s unwavering support and expertise.

 On August 18, AA, a mother from China, sought help from Agent H to apply for a student visa for her son and a guardian visa for herself. Agent H claimed to be licensed, and AA trusted their guidance.

On September 9, AA’s son received a placement offer from a top Auckland high school. Instead of applying for the correct visas, Agent H submitted visitor visa applications on September 23, omitting AA’s role as a guardian and the son's intent to study. The applications were approved for three months on October 7.

On November 2, Agent H lodged the student and guardian visas but again failed to disclose key information. On November 24, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) accused AA of misrepresenting her reasons for coming to New Zealand. When INZ declined their applications on December 8 and ordered them to leave, AA turned to a well-known law firm on December 10, only to be incorrectly advised that she had no right to appeal and should return to China.

On December 15, AA sought help from TDA, who identified crucial errors:

• Agent H was unlicensed.
• The lawyer was wrong—AA could appeal within 42 days.
• INZ’s decision lacked a valid basis.

TDA filed complaints against INZ on December 16 and against Agent H on December 24. On January 13, INZ admitted mistakes and reopened the applications. On January 22, IAA confirmed that Agent H would be prosecuted.

Finally, on February 4, INZ granted AA’s son a student visa and AA a guardian visa. Agent H was convicted of multiple fraud-related offenses.

AA’s case highlights the risks of unlicensed advisers. Thanks to her perseverance and TDA’s intervention, she secured her family's future and helped bring justice to a fraudulent agent.