The Mexican married father-of-two was known only as “FG” in the tribunal decision and visited New Zealand several times between 2017 and 2022 on a visitor visa.
He also spent most of last year in this country.
And he lodged his Expression of Interest (EOI) more than four years ago under the “Business (Migrant Investment — Investor 2)” category.
He claimed 45 points for 15 years of business experience and told Immigration NZ his experience included work as a lawyer, manager and business partner at law firms.
“He indicated that he would invest $3 million ... made up of funds already invested in New Zealand and funds held in bank account deposits in New Zealand and Mexico,” tribunal member Dr Zoe Pearson said.
The tribunal heard the man was already a shareholder in his New Zealand-based brother’s restaurant, and that they had plans to further develop that business.
“Further, the appellant had bought land in Northland and a licence to grow red kiwifruit,” Pearson added.
“He had begun the development of this project in conjunction with his brother, to whom he had lent the money.”
His investments in those companies formed the basis of his $3 million investment in New Zealand required by the investor migrant category.
“The loan to his brother’s company was later converted into shares in that company, to satisfy the instructions,” Pearson added.
He provided personal tax returns from 2014 to 2019, financial statements and corporate tax returns from 2018 to 2020.
In January last year, Immigration NZ said it was concerned about his ownership of his nominated funds and whether he held sufficient funds to meet the minimum amount required.
The man had to show he’d owned or been an executive at a firm with at least five full-time employees or $1m annual turnover.
Immigration NZ asked for specific, independent, verifiable evidence for each of the 15 years he’d claimed business experience.
The man provided more information, including five employment contracts of employees.
The man’s then-lawyer Michelle Urquhart said Immigration NZ’s assessment was unfair.
Urquhart said it failed to properly take into account relevant and acceptable evidence of the man’s experience.
The tribunal heard further discussion about the man’s experience and documentation stretching back to 2010.
Urquhart said Immigration NZ was satisfied with some of the appellant’s business experience, and there was no fraud or intent to mislead about his business experience.
The aspiring migrant had to show 15 years of business experience, not the minimum three years, as that was the basis on which his EOI was accepted and drawn from the pool.
There was no dispute about the man’s English language ability or the health of him and his family.
Pearson said there was limited evidence about how the man’s expertise would benefit New Zealand, even though he had qualifications and skills to support his business expertise in general.
She said the appellant had very limited evidence of some business experience.
“The Tribunal notes that the appellant did not provide any independent or verifiable evidence that [it] was a lawful business.
“There was no business registration, company financial accounts, tax returns or tax records provided, or details of the ownership or share certificates provided, although Immigration New Zealand clearly asked for such documents from the appellant.”
The tribunal heard the man and his wife and children were no longer in New Zealand. The appeal was dismissed.
The Herald contacted Urquhart, who said she no longer acted for the man but would approach him about commenting on the case.
An immigration expert said the Investor 2 category had clear criteria and broadly speaking, Immigration NZ was tightening up processes.
“You have to be able to show you either own the business or are a senior manager,” said David Cooper, Malcolm Pacific chief executive.
“In any sort of visa application ... Immigration NZ aren’t interested in what you say, they’re only interested in what you can prove,” he told the Herald.
There was pent-up demand during lockdown, then border re-openings and a large migrant influx, and then allegations of migrant exploitation.
Greater scrutiny could be the result of those exploitation allegations, Cooper said.
