Application number: WV01341883

Client number: 79395809

10 December 2024

Kia ora Kumar Karri,

Application for a work visa for:

Applicant details

Name: Kumar Karri Date of birth: 31-May-1987

Gender: Male Passport number: U7332820
Nationality: India Client number: 79395809

Thank you for your application for a work visa. We received your application on 16-August-2024.

Our decision on your application

We have declined your application for a work visa because you do not meet the requirements set
out in the work visa immigration instructions.

Why your application was declined

Information provided with this application

Section 58(6) of the Immigration Act 2009 states that false, misleading or withheld information in an
application is sufficient ground for an immigration officer to decline to grant a visa. Section 58 of the
Immigration Act is set out in chapter A24 of the Immigration New Zealand Operational Manual.

Operational instruction A24.10(a) states that applications with false, misleading or withheld
information are to be normally declined. A24.10(a) applies to the circumstances of your application.
We gave you the opportunity to make comments or provide information about this. We have
assessed your response and determined that false information was provided.

Upon reviewing the documentations submitted with the application regarding your work
experience, we noted discrepancies between the contents of the documents submitted in the
current application and those in your previous application (Application No. WV00368614).

In the Work reference letter from V.S. Engineering submitted with your current application, it states
that “This is to certify that Mr. K. Kumar S/O K. ATCHILA NAIDU he is working in our organization as a
6G, TIG&ARC WELDER at our work site from 07-08-2019 TO 02-02-2022”, however in the same
reference letter submitted in your previous application (Application No. WV00368614), it states
“This is to certify that Mr. K. Kumar S/O K. ATCHILA NAIDU he is working in our organization as a 2G,
3G MIG/ MAG WELDER at our work site from 07-08-2019 TO STILL CON.”

Furthermore, the Service certificate from V.S. Engineering, dated 02 Nov 2009, it states “MR. KARRI
KUMAR S/O ACHILI NAIDU HAS BEEN WORKING AS A TIG & ARC WELDER...” in your current
application. However in the same document submitted in your previous application (Application No.
WV00368614), it states “MR. KARRI KUMAR S/O ACHILI NAIDU HAS BEEN WORKING AS A
WELDER…”.

Due to the discrepancies suggesting that the documentation may have been altered or manipulated,
we are unable to determine the credibility of the documentation and its contents regarding your
work experience.

On 31 October 2024, we wrote to you with our concerns and inviting you to provide comments and
information to help us decide if the surrounding circumstances of your application justified granting
a visa. We received your response on 06 November 2024, which included a letter from your advisor,
a letter from V.S Engineering, your father’s national ID and your father’s income tax number.

In your response, your advisor claimed the following:

- V.S. Engineering is a small business, and the discrepancies in the two letters are
unintentional, arising from a lack of oversight by the employer.
- One of the reference letters contain an incorrect name of your father’s, which was an
unintentional error.
- You have approximately 11 years of relevant work experience, including 5.5 years of
experience with V.S. Engineering.
- You hold a trade qualification as a fitter.

After considering your response, we made an assessment in accordance with operational instruction
A24.10(b). We have decided that it is appropriate to decline your application under section 58(6) of
the Immigration Act. The False and Misleading Information Assessment is attached for your
information.

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#80296.htm

Suitably qualified to do the job

Immigration instruction WA4.10(a)(iii) states that an Accredited Employer Work Visa may be granted
if you are suitably qualified to do the job you have been offered.

Instruction WA4.10.5(a) states that you are suitably qualified to do the job if you have the
qualifications, work experience, skills and other specifications that were listed by the employer, in
the job check application, as the minimum requirements for the job.

In the approved Employer’s Job check, the employer listed that minimum three years of relevant
work experience is required for the offered role. We acknowledge that you have listed your
employment history in the application and submitted various documentation as supporting
evidence, includes letters from V.S. Engineering.

However as mentioned above and the attached The False and Misleading Information Assessment,
you have not demonstrated that you meet the minimum requirements to be suitable for the offered
position due to the lack of credibility in your claims regarding offshore work experience including
your work experience claimed with V.S Engineering. Therefore we are not satisfied that you meet
the requirement to be suitably qualified, so you do not meet instruction WA4.10(a)(iii).

https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual
AEWV minimum skills requirements
Applicants for an Accredited Employer Work Visa (AEWV) must be suitably qualified and meet the
minimum skills threshold, as per immigration instruction WA4.10(a)(iii).

Instruction WA4.10.6(a) states that an applicant for an AEWV is suitably qualified to meet the
minimum skills threshold if an immigration officer is satisfied that they either:
- can demonstrate three or more years of relevant work experience with evidence from
documentation not written by the applicant, or
- have a relevant qualification at Level 4 or higher on the New Zealand Qualification and Credentials
Framework.

Immigration instruction WA4.10.6(b) states that a qualification or work experience can be

considered to be relevant if it is in the same field or industry as the job offered.

Instruction WA4.10.6(h) states that an applicant may be exempt from meeting the minimum skills
threshold if an immigration officer is satisfied that their occupation is listed under Appendix 14 of
the Operational Manual (exemptions to the median wage threshold) and the:
i. employment has been offered under the capped meat processing sector agreement for the
2024/25 season (WA4.10.10(c)); or
ii. employment has been offered under the capped seafood processing sector agreement for the
2024/2025 season (WA4.10.10(d)); or
iii. applicant holds a valid AEWV under the tourism and hospitality sector agreement (WA4.10.10(a))
that expires on or before 31 December 2024 and is applying for a further visa for the same role; or
iv. applicant holds a valid AEWV under the care workforce sector agreement (WA4.10.10(e)) that
was granted between 4 July 2022 and 23 November 2023 (inclusive) in a role that was paid at least
$26.16 per hour and is applying for a further one-year duration visa for the same role.

In your application form, you indicated that you meet the minimum skills requirement, as you have
at least three years of relevant work experience. Supporting evidence for your work experience
claim includes letters from V.S. Engineering.

However as mentioned above and the attached The False and Misleading Information Assessment,
you have not demonstrated you meet the minimum skills threshold due to the lack of credibility in
your claims regarding offshore work experience including your work experience claimed with V.S
Engineering, so you do not meet instruction WA4.10(a)(iii).

You are not eligible for an exemption to the minimum skills threshold, so you do not meet
instruction WA4.10.6 (h).
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#77195.htm

Future applications
Please note that we have not declined this application on character grounds. However, you may not
meet character requirements for any future visa application, because false information was provided
in this application. Therefore, immigration instruction A5.25.5(b) (if you apply for residence) or
A5.45.5(c) (if you apply for a visitor, work or student visa) may apply to you, and you would need to
be granted a character waiver before a visa could be granted.
Please see False and Misleading Information for further details on how false, misleading or withheld
information in an application has an impact on future applications, and what options you would
have.
https://www.immigration.govt.nz/opsmanual/#80296.htm

We have also considered if there are any special circumstances that would warrant an exception to
immigration instructions, but can find no reason to grant a visa as an exception.

Interim visa
You were granted an interim visa while awaiting a decision on your visa application.
Your interim visa will expire on 01 January 2025. The holder of an interim visa cannot apply for any
further visa. You should arrange to leave New Zealand before your interim visa expires.

Liability for deportation and appeal rights

If you remain in New Zealand after your visa expires, you will be unlawfully in New Zealand and will
be liable for deportation. If this happens, your unlawfulness and liability for deportation will begin
on the second day after the expiry date of your interim visa.

If you do not leave voluntarily before you are served with a deportation order, you may be
prohibited from returning to New Zealand in the future.

You may appeal against your liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds no later than 42 days
after first being unlawful in New Zealand.

More information on how to appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal is available at
www.justice.govt.nz/tribunals/immigration

You can ask us to reconsider our decision

You must be lawfully in New Zealand to request a reconsideration. You should only request a
reconsideration if you think we have incorrectly assessed your application. If your application was
declined because it was missing information or because you did not meet all the requirements for
your application, you can consider reapplying with further information to demonstrate that you
meet requirements. To reapply, you must submit a new visa application and pay any applicable fee.

To request a reconsideration, you will need to explain what parts of our decision you believe have
been incorrectly assessed and why. You will also need to pay the reconsideration fee. You can do this
by logging into your Immigration Online account.
https://apply.immigration.govt.nz

You must request a reconsideration within 14 days of your application being declined.

Our website has more information on the reconsideration process and fees.
www.immigration.govt.nz/temporary-visa-decision-reviewed

If you do not request reconsideration of our decision to decline you a visa, you may appeal against
your liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds no later than 42 days after first becoming
unlawful in New Zealand.
Contact us
If you have any questions, you can:
• call our Customer Service Centre on 0508 55 88 55 or 09 914 4100, or for those outside of
New Zealand +64 9 914 4100, or
• visit our website for more information.
www.immigration.govt.nz

Ngā mihi,

Eve Seo
Immigration Officer
Immigration New Zealand
 False & Misleading Information (FMI) Template
Summary table

Application number: WV01341883

ITA number (if applicable) N/A

Applicant Name(s) Kumar Karri

Client number(s) 79395809

Visa applied for Work Visa - Accredited Employer Work Visa

Circumstances of current • This is an application with suspected false,

application misleading or withheld information (and so section
58(6) of the Act is potentially engaged)

1. Initial assessment: Describe the suspected false, misleading or withheld information, including
the basis of your assessment. Why do you suspect it is false etc?

In current application, the applicant declared he worked for VS Engineering as a Welder from August
2019 to Feb 2022 and September 2006 to November 2009. In his prior Accredited Employer Work
Visa application(WV00368614), he declared he worked for V.S Engineering as a Fitter-welder from
August 2019 to Jan 2022 and September 2006 to November 2009.

In support of his claim, two letters from V.S. Engineering submitted with both the previous and
current applications. A significantly noticeable alternation in the content of these letters were
identified, including changes to specific parts emphasizing his skill level as a welder and the addition
or omission of entire statements.

Due to the discrepancies in the contents of the same documentations, suggesting the provided
documentations may have been altered or manipulated, we are unable to determine the credibility
of the documentation and its contents regarding the work experience claim.
2. What did the applicant say about it?

1. Does the applicant agree that false or No

misleading information was provided, or that
relevant information was withheld?

2. If they do not agree, provide a summary of their

-The applicant has no intention to provide
explanation as to why not. (Otherwise, type
misleading information to INZ about one of
‘n/a’)
his previous work experiences given that he
significantly exceeds the three years
requirement.

-V.S. Engineering is a small business, and the

discrepancies in the two letters are
unintentional, arising from a lack of
oversight by the employer.

3. What evidence (if any), have they provided to A letter from V.S Engineering dated 05
support their explanation? Is there any other November 2024.
independent evidence? (NB: If there is no such
evidence, that does not necessarily mean their
explanation is not plausible.)

3: Conclusion regarding false, misleading or withheld information: Was false or misleading

information provided or material information withheld?

Yes

The advisor claims that V.S. Engineering is a small business, and the discrepancies in the two
letters are unintentional, arising from a lack of oversight by the employer. A letter from V.S
Engineering dated 05 November 2024 also states that this was an oversight on their part.

We have considered the additional documentation provided in our assessment of the applicant’s
work experience, however the information provided does not credibly explain why the contents
of the same documentations were altered, aside from attributing it to oversight due to the size of
the business. This explanation fails to address the primary concern that the documents have been
modified from their original state. While it is crucial to prioritise the authenticity of all documents
submitted during the application process, any alternation to the content of a document raises
concerns that the original document was tampered with, either intentionally or unintentionally.

Therefore, considering all the information on hand, it is more likely than not that false information
was provided in relation to the applicant’s work experience.
4: Whether it is appropriate to decline the application.
4A. Summary of applicant’s submissions as to why the application should not be declined.

The advisor claims the following:

- V.S. Engineering is a small business, and the discrepancies in the two letters are
unintentional, arising from a lack of oversight by the employer.
- One of the reference letters contain an incorrect name of the applicant’s father’s, which
was an unintentional error.
- The applicant has approximately 11 years of relevant work experience, including 5.5 years
of experience with V.S. Engineering.
- The applicant holds a trade qualification as a fitter.

4B: Recording of factors considered

Circumstances considered Any further details, and your comments on these
circumstances
Significance of false information The false information relates to the applicant’s work
provided experience which directly impacts our assessment as to
whether he meets the Minimum skills threshold and the
minimum requirement listed by the employer in the Job
Check approval.
Responsibility of false information In line with A24.1(a), it is the responsibility of an applicant for
provided. a visa to ensure that all information, evidence, and
submissions that the applicant wishes to have considered in
support of the application are provided when the application
is made.
Employment in New Zealand. The applicant has an employment offer to work as a Welder
(Skill Level 3) at $30 per hour. In the Job Check approval, the
employer listed that minimum three years of relevant work
experience or NZQF Level 4 qualification in Welding is
required for the offered role.
Immigration history and ties to The applicant is currently onshore, having arrived in New
NZ. Zealand in May 2023. He has worked for various employers,
however there is no indication that the applicant has any
substantial ties to New Zealand.

5: Decision: Is it appropriate to decline the application on the grounds of FMWI?

Yes, it is appropriate to decline the application on FMWI grounds because...

Providing false information and withholding relevant information to INZ is a serious matter 4 FMI
Template as it impacts the integrity of the immigration system.

The provision of false information is significant as the discrepant information impacts our
assessment of his work experience which is required to meet the Minimum skills threshold as well
as the minimum requirement listed by the employer in their Job Check approval. Due to the lack
of reliability in his claims regarding offshore work experience including his work experience
claimed with V.S Engineering , the applicant’s potential contribution to New Zealand will be
limited, as the role requires skills gained from prior work.
There is no special circumstance that would justify granting the visa in spite of the false
information provided.

What instruction in the INZ Operational Manual is being A24.1(f) (section 58(6) of the Act)
used to decline the application?

Your name: Eve Seo

Your position: Immigration Officer

Date: 10 December 2024