What Management Experience is Required to get LTBV

Jamie Smith

(This topic has been split from its original thread because its discussion of how the NZIS implements rules not disclosed in the Operations Manual merits its own thread - JCM)

I agree that paid employment does not qualify for LTBV unless it's at CEO/Director level.

Best of luck looking in other directions.

JCM · Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 10:29 am Post subject:

Hi Jamie,

Since it's how you earn your crust, I'm sure you know more about this than I do, but I thought that supervisory/management experience was sufficient to count as business experience for a paid employee. I base this on the operations manual:

BB3.5.1 Business experience
Business experience means a minimum of 2 years of either:
a. owning a lawful business enterprise; or
b. management* or supervisory* experience in a lawful business
enterprise.

BB3.5.10 Management experience
Management experience means experience in the planning, organisation
and control of the activities of a business.

BB3.5.15 Supervisory experience
Supervisory experience means having line management responsibilities in
a business where such responsibilities involve the planning, organisation
and control of the activities of that business.

BB3.10.5 Evidence of the principal applicant's* business experience
as an employee

a. Documents submitted as evidence of the principal applicant's*
business experience as an employee must show the employer's name,
the position held and the period involved.

b. Evidence of the principal applicant's* business experience as an
employee includes original or certified copies of such of the
following documents as are necessary to allow the business
immigration specialist to make an appropriate decision:
i references from employers,
§ on company letterhead, and
§ stating the occupation and dates of employment, and
§ giving the contact phone number and address of the employer
ii letters of appointment
iii certificates of service
iv pay slips
v job specifications
vi tax records
vii job assessments

c. The business immigration specialist may require such other
photographs, documents, evidence and information as the business
immigration specialist considers necessary to determine the
application.

d. Evidence of part-time work experience includes that listed in para.
(b), but must show actual weekly hours worked.

Jamie Smith · Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 2:41 pm Post subject:

Nearly right, but the section you've quoted is relevant to Investor Category, not LTBV category.

LTBV section is in BC3 not BB3.

NZIS want to know you have earned your investment money through business and not necessarily in control of one, and you do not have to work or have a business once approved.

For LTBV, you need to be able to make decisions about leasing premises, hiring staff, planning your finances, developing and executing marketing, so they expect to see management experience at that level.

They are currently bouncing a lot of pre November 2002 cases for people who have been section or area managers, and only approving ones where the PA has been in control of the business, specifically in HR, finance, marketing and operations, and NZIS also say it's not sufficient to have only been in control of part of the business.

It's being debated by NZAMI with NZIS that NZIS are asking for people who can show 100% control of a business ( perhaps to the exclusion of other family owners, business partners etc), whereas policy allows company directors to come through (and not just CEOs.)

The formula we work to for LTBV is "if you own or control a business, you can migrate..." so being area manager, branch manager etc is still questionable.

Personally, I've met a bunch of high level CEOs who delegate so much they couldn't succeed if they had to do it for themselves, and I've met real up and comers who could succeed but haven't got the full CV yet. But policy is presently being interpreted otherwise, although some exceptions do get through.

I'd speculate that "near miss" managers in the growth industries in NZ (IT training etc) would stand a better chance of getting through than say retail chain HR manager going into his/her own gift shop.

[quote="JCM"].........but I thought that supervisory/management experience was sufficient to count as business experience for a paid employee. I base this on the operations manual:

BB3.5.1 Business experience
BB3.5.10 Management experience
BB3.5.15 Supervisory experience
BB3.10.5 Evidence of the principal applicant's* business experience
as an employee

JCM · Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 4:16 pm Post subject:

Hi Jamie,

This interpretation must be a source of frustration to prospective business migrants because nowhere, apart from the sections I've highlighted above in BB, can I find NZIS's definition of relevant business experience. They only seem to define business experience in the BB section and many people (myself included) will believe that this is the true definition of business experience. Hmmm

So the NZIS appears to be using a definition which is not available in the public domain for applicants . Hmmm

Jamie Smith · Posted: Thu Jan 22, 2004 7:21 pm Post subject:

Spot on.

NZIS had a change of CEO at same time the adjustments to LTBV policy/English language came into effect, November 2002.

After that, it was strongly rumoured (sources inside NZIS) that NZIS officers had been instructed to decline cases that didn't meet a new interpretation of policy, even though a few hundred LTBV cases had been lodged under an accepted definition. Two officers resigned in protest, including the manager of the Business Branch.

Result was retrospective application of policy and interpretation, and NZAMI went to Court in early 2003 about this and changes to the JSV.

The case was won in most part by NZAMI, and appealed by the Crown, but killed by Minister introducing new laws that superceded the policy issue. End result is a large award of costs is expected in favour of NZIS (we won the case before Govt legislated the Govt's own appeal out of existence - cos Govt would have known they would lose that too)

The English langauage changes killed the inflow from Korea and China, and most of India, then they wanted to kill the backlog too.

So here we stand with definition of management skill that only surfaced in March 03 after NZAMI had pressed for disclosure. It's different and tighter than the Investor Category, otherwise NZIS would not have been able to shut off the numbers of non-English speaking LTBVs getting approved.

A few thousand LTBVs are slowly being nailed shut by the Business Migration branch by using a tighter interpretation that they themselves had publicised in seminars months earlier when the cases were lodged.

The Investor category was also nailed shut in Asia by not allowing transfer other than through the bank - Chinese people never transfer through the bank else the Chinese Govt want back taxes paid. They carry cash to Hong Kong bank and export it from there. NZIS say that carrying cash in a suiotcase is not acceptable!.... as it's untraceable.

The present definition of management skill for LTBV is flawed, I agree, but without the LTBV having right of legal appeal, it will take few more months of lobbying before a more credible definition is introduced.

Did you know that not a single business branch case officer has ever been in control of a business, or managed one? It begs the question about their ability to understand a proposal doesn't it?

But there is a safe way forward if one knows the rules and interpretations, and how they fit together.

Very disingenuous, most unfair. Unkiwi. Very political.

Greater NZIS transparency is on my wish list for 2004.

We've raised it with the Minister and CEO and COO of NZIS, they're still focused on SMC. Same thing applies there too - "how many points might be enough, and should I bother applying when I don't know the pass mark..."

JCM · Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 4:29 pm Post subject:

Thanks for that Jamie - my confidence in the NZIS's fairness has been somewhat shaken by what you've said above. Sad

Jamie Smith · Posted: Fri Jan 23, 2004 5:29 pm Post subject: