Man's residency declined after he allegedly used 'imposter' to cheat on English test

Thursday, 15 August 2019

A man's bid for residency has been declined for the second time after he allegedly cheated on an English test and then worked illegally.

Immigration New Zealand (INZ) denied the 26-year-old from India's application on the basis he did not meet the good character requirement for residency.

It alleged the man may have used an 'imposter' during a phone interview to assess his fluency in English and had worked while on an interim visa and then lied about this to INZ.

The man appealed the decision to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in May 2018. It found in favour of Immigration New Zealand.

**READ MORE:

* Wife-beater saved from deportation for the sake of 'family's welfare'

* Auckland man gains residency despite never filing application

* Czech drug smuggler Karel Sroubek lodges new residency application

* Immigration NZ accused of ageism after noting 33-year age gap**

The man, who returned to India in September 2017, had a New Zealand-resident partner who he wanted to build a life with in New Zealand.

He claimed he had no knowledge of a stranger sitting an English test for him in July 2014 when he applied for a student visa. 

His lawyer argued the man's education agent must have used the imposter without his knowledge and that the man should not be held responsible for the agent's actions.

The man said he only worked when he was not allowed to for a brief period while his partner was unemployed. He stopped when she got a job.

His excuse for lying to INZ during an interview with INZ in August 2017 about working illegally was that he was nervous.

The man said he and his partner did not want to be separated and his partner did not want to move to India to be with him because she would not have the same opportunities there as she did in New Zealand.

The tribunal found INZ was correct that the man 'was not of good character' and should therefore not be granted residency.

'It is clear to the Tribunal that [the man] knew it was wrong to work in breach of his visa conditions, which was why he withheld that fact in a later interview. Being in difficult financial circumstances did not excuse the later withholding of that information,' it said in its decision.

The man, not his agent, was responsible for ensuring the information to support his visa application was accurate.

'Without this deception, the appellant would not have been granted his first student visa,' the decision said.