View Single Post
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 15-02-2008, 08:54 PM
MotherBear's Avatar
MotherBear MotherBear is online now
The missing link


Points: 30,600, Level: 100
Points: 30,600, Level: 100 Points: 30,600, Level: 100 Points: 30,600, Level: 100
Level up: 2%, 0 Points needed
Level up: 2% Level up: 2% Level up: 2%
Activity: 100%
Activity: 100% Activity: 100% Activity: 100%
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Oman ex Wales, UK
Posts: 8,352
Blog Entries: 1
MotherBear will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MotherBear View Post
IAs Taffy says, INZ is forever changing its rules so nothing is set in stone where immigration is concerned.
Of potential interest to Taffy (unless he is already aware) I was browsing through the relevant forms for sponsoring parents and, lo and behold, INZ has changed their form for the sponsor by adding another 4 pages .

What caught my eye and made me spit out my dummy was that it says the sponsor (who, I might add, needs to have been living in NZ for the past 3 years at least) now needs to apply for a police certificate (page 3). This requirement doesn't appear on the previous form (of which I have a hard copy).

I find it rather ridiculous to ask a NZ resident, who has already done the police certificate thing when applying for PR, to once more prove their lack of criminality in other countries that they may have lived in (but probably haven't) for 12 months or more during the last 10 years. If they did have a criminal record before their application was finalised, they wouldn't have been granted PR in the first place. Then, despite having lived in NZ for the last 3 years, they expect sponsors to go through the procedure all over again. I realise that not everyone stays the whole time in NZ, but most people do.

Say, for example, we weren't applying for residency and the question of sponsorship didn't arise, this potentially criminal element would still be residing happily in NZ and INZ would be none the wiser. I can understand their need to ascertain that we, as sponsored-persons-to-be are of good character but fail to understand why they need to drag the sponsor through this malarky all over again. Even if he was a hardened crim, we ourselves might be pure as the driven snow in character and not allowed in whilst he continues as if nothing has happened. Sorry, but I just don't see the logic.

I'm afraid to look at the rest of the form in case I don't like what I read.
__________________
Mother Bear
Reply With Quote