Dishonesty in Visa Application Process

Tuesday, October 17, 2017

Every New Zealand Visa Application has a set of prescribed criteria which the applicant has to meet in order to be eligible to apply under the specific category.  One of the general criteria is the applicant's character.  Applicants for all visas must be of good character and not pose a potential security risk to New Zealand1.

Character Checks

Character checks must be carried out for:

  1. applicants who are aged 17 and over applying for a residence class visa or temporary entry class visa, if they intend to stay in New Zealand for 24 months and longer2; or
  2. other applicants if the immigration officer decides it is necessary.

Residence visa applicants must obtain a police or similar certificate from their country of citizenship and each country they lived in for 12 months or more in the last 10 years.  Temporary entry class visa applicants must obtain a police or similar certificate from their country of citizenship and each country they lived in for five years or more since attaining the age of 17 years.3

Most applicants assume that they sufficiently prove their character and meet the criteria by providing the required police or similar certificate showing no conviction.  However, the character criteria goes deeper than that.

False, Misleading, Forged Information

Under Immigration Instructions A5.25(i) and A5.45(b) a residence or temporary entry class visa will not be granted to an applicant who, in the course of applying for a New Zealand Visa, has made any statement or provided any information, evidence or submission that was false, misleading or forged, or withheld material information.

It is a common occurrence, especially in the family category visas, that applicants who are preparing their application without any professional advice provide untrue information or withhold information because they fear their application might be declined if they reveal the complete truth.  These applicants usually believe that if their application is declined on the basis of withholding information or providing untrue information they will be able to apply for the same visa in due course again.

What they do not realise is that if their application is declined on the basis of Instructions A5.25(i), A5.45(b) or other similar instructions4, Immigration New Zealand will hold a record of their "dishonesty" and will assess this record against the applicant's character requirements.

A Real Life Example

Two holders of a temporary entry class visa ("Adam" and "Eve") started their romantic relationship while in New Zealand.  After a very short period of time, out of practicality rather than intention to make their relationship more serious, they decided to move in together.  At this time Adam was applying for a Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa.  Neither Adam nor Eve believed their relationship would last and they decided not to include Eve in Adam's application as his partner.  Adam stated that he is "single".  The couple continued living together and soon discovered that Eve is pregnant.  This changed their perspective of seriousness of their relationship.  They decided they wanted to stay in New Zealand as a family.  Adam was expecting to receive his Resident Visa soon and did not want to "complicate the application" by including Eve as his partner at this point in time.  He soon received his Resident Visa and Eve immediately applied for a Partnership-Based Work Visa claiming that she and Adam had been in a 'genuine and stable' relationship ever since they moved in together.  Eve was granted the work visa in due course and had the baby a few months after.  After one year of Adam's and Eve's relationship commencing Eve applied for a Partnership-Based Resident Visa claiming again that she had been in a genuine and stable relationship with Adam ever since they moved in together.

Adam and Eve were surprised to receive a letter from Immigration New Zealand alleging that Eve had intentionally provided misleading information about her relationship. The immigration officer was prepared to decline Eve's application under Immigration Instruction F2.5(e). Eve was given an opportunity to explain why she was not included in Adam's Application for Skilled Migrant Category Resident Visa as Adam's partner.

If Immigration New Zealand concluded that Eve had an intention to mislead, not only Eve's resident visa application would have been declined, she would have from then on been considered to be dishonest in her application process and she would not be likely to ever succeed with any future Resident Visa application.  Adam would likely encounter problems with his Permanent Resident Visa Application because he too would be marked as 'dishonest' since he applied for his Resident Visa as being "single" and then he supported Eve's Resident Visa Application claiming that he was in a relationship with Eve at the same time as he was "single" for the purpose of his own application.

Luckily for Adam and Eve, Immigration New Zealand accepted their argument.  However, Immigration New Zealand did not grant Eve a resident visa based on her application, it rather retrospectively included Eve in Adam's already approved Skilled Migrant Resident Visa Application.  Eve had to newly prove her level of English by providing test scores, or pre-purchase an English tuition course, as required from partners of Skilled Migrant Category Principal Applicants, but not required from partners of holders of a Resident Visa.

Please direct any enquiries to:

Anet Tarabova on (09) 966 3604 ( from our Albany Office.

© McVeagh Fleming 2017

This article is published for general information purposes only.  Legal content in this article is necessarily of a general nature and should not be relied upon as legal advice.  If you require specific legal advice in respect of any legal issue, you should always engage a lawyer to provide that advice. 


1    Immigration Instruction A5.1
The 24 months include time already spent in New Zealand prior to the application
Immigration Instruction A5.5
such as F2.5(e)


Recent Posts


Wills Unfair contract terms Health and Safety Reform Bill Trusts Bill Trustee Duties Hawkes Bay Trustee Company Limited v Judd Zero Hour Contracts Landlord Lump sum Twelve years Broadbent v Ministry of Social Development Gifts Acknowledgment of Debt Trust busting Civil union Testamentary capacity Directors' Duties Erceg v Erceg Financial Markets Conduct Act 2013 (FMCA) Compensation Due Diligence Will that do Residential Section 182 Family Proceedings Act 1980 Offending De facto Eviction Resident Constructive trusts Verbal abuse Litigation Interpretation of documents Family Trusts Tenants Validity of Wills Pattern of offending Trust Check Up Document Disclosure Charities Work and Income Estate Administration Testamentary writing Anti-money laundering (AML) Lease Titles Immigration Psychological abuse Lease Economic disadvantage Domestic violence Partnership based work visa Limitation period Contract and Commercial Law Act 2017 Shareholders' Agreement Blackwell v Hollings SMC Part payment Recovery of money Abuse Changes Mortgage Companies Act 1993 Repayment Limitation defence Auckland Office ''Best Endeavours'' Tamarapa v Byerley Six years Physical abuse Violence KiwiSaver Limitation Act 1950 Company Law Testamentary Promises Charity Trust Confidentiality Albany Office Elder Law Protector Fair Trading Act 1986 Lankow v Rose Consumer credit contracts Terms of Trade Testamentary freedom Gifting Income Temper Charity begins at home Fair share Administrators duty Body Corporate Claims against estates Contract Law Clayton case Re Estate of Feron Case Study Financial Advisers Act 2008 Invalid wills Business Limitation Act 2010 Mortgagee Relationship Property Subsidies Wills Act 2007 Section 14 Deceased's wishes Seperation Personal Employment Financial services provider (FSP) Murrell v Hamilton Re Estate of Campbell Frustration Legislation update Protection Order White v White Break up Commercial Property Expression of interest Loss of income Interpretation Act 1999 Section 29 Reckless Trading Sale of Goods WINZ Ministry of Social Development Division of Functions Ministry Creating Trusts Family Protection Act 1955 Grey Power Section 15 Commercial Beneficiary Rights Character requirements Financial products Commercial Law SN v MN [2017] NZCA 289 Credit Contracts and Consumer Finance Act 2003 (CCCFA) Property Ilott v Mitson 2017 UKSC 17 Executors duty Visa application Privacy Act 1993 Duress Immigration New Zealand Wills Act 2007 Section 8 Undue influence Principal Living standards Property (Relationships) Act 1976 Skilled migrant points Tenant Domestic Violence Act 1995 Mortgagor Interpretation Act 1999 Personal Properties and Securities Act 1999 Wilson v Donnellan Marriage Acknowledgment Partner of resident Trusts Interest Section 15A Valid wills Rest Home Subsidies Wills Act 2007 Section 11 Skilled migrant Will Financial services Amundson v Raos Wills Act 2007 Resident Visa Asset Protection Intellectual Property