INZ’s Opaque Rejections Are Failing Students

It's no secret New Zealand has seen an increase in visa rejections for overseas students from India. There’s no shortage of statistics and commentary on the matter. So, instead of reiterating the obvious, let’s cut to a fundamental question: can Immigration New Zealand (INZ) at least make its rejections more transparent? If a student visa is denied, shouldn’t the applicant receive a clear explanation for why they don’t meet the requirements? 

For too long, Immigration New Zealand’s rejection letters have been seen as confounding at best and unfairly vague at worst. This is not about whether a letter is issued upon rejection- INZ sends out denial letters all right. But does the content of these letters provide any real insight? In many cases, the answer is no.

To illustrate, consider a recent example of a prospective student from India. This individual applied for a Master’s in Digital Business at a work-ranked New Zealand university, armed with a robust educational background that includes a Bachelor’s in Business Studies and an MBA. Since graduating, he has accumulated impressive work experience with reputed companies that are perfectly credible and verifiable, all while recognising a gap in his knowledge and skills that was not allowing him to progress to the career he wanted. The gap he identified was around digital business technologies. As such, he sought out this specialised Master’s program in New Zealand, hoping it would provide him with the skills needed in today’s tech-driven landscape.

INZ rejected his application by giving multiple reasons, which now seems to be the new template as the industry is reporting this trend in many other recent rejection letters too. Are these the new templates that INZ has resorted to in its response to the objections on the previous templates?

So, coming back to the reason for the rejection in the case, the reasons mentioned are  -

“I am not satisfied you are a bona fide applicant because: 

• You have said that you are currently working. However, you have not provided sufficient evidence to support this statement. This means I can only place limited weight on this work history. As a result, I am not satisfied that you genuinely intend to study or that study is your primary purpose for coming to New Zealand.
• You have said that you previously studied. However, you have not provided sufficient evidence to support this statement. This means I can only place limited weight on this study history. As a result, I am not satisfied that you genuinely intend to study or that study is your primary purpose for coming to New Zealand.
• I have tried to but cannot independently verify some of the evidence you have provided to support your application.
• I attempted to ask you for more information to show you meet bona fides requirements and I have been unable to reach you to mitigate the identified concerns.”

The last argument is particularly concerning. INZ doesn’t specify if they ever cared to call back after the first unsuccessful call. What’s the protocol before declaring an applicant unreachable?

Cases like this make one wonder whether INZ takes into account NZ taxpayers’ money spent by government agencies like ENZ and the marketing department of universities in reaching out to prospective students and encouraging them to consider New Zealand over other international study destinations.

Let alone the taxpayer’s money. Does INZ even consider the investment these student applicants make in time, resources, and emotions? They pay significant fees, undergo rigorous documentation procedures, and place their trust in New Zealand as a fair arbiter of opportunities. When they are met with rejection letters that offer nothing but boilerplate language and ambiguities, it raises an uncomfortable question: how seriously does INZ take its responsibility to these individuals?

This opacity is more than just a bureaucratic inconvenience; it damages New Zealand’s standing as a desirable destination for international students. When decline letters are issued without concrete explanations, they give the impression of an arbitrary, opaque system where students are forced to guess what went wrong. This harms New Zealand’s credibility as a study destination, especially when the country is trying to rebuild its international student numbers after the significant downturn during Covid-19. Immigration Minister Erica Stanford has publicly stated her goal to revive student intakes to pre-pandemic levels, specifically targeting India as a key market. Yet, cases like these stand in direct contrast to that goal.

To be clear, INZ has a challenging job. It must sift through thousands of applications, assess authenticity, and ensure applicants meet specific requirements. But the current process of issuing templated rejection letters serves neither INZ nor the applicants. Immigration advisors have raised this concern repeatedly, urging INZ to improve transparency and provide clearer reasons for rejection as they have been in the past, to be specific, pre-Covid. 

The least INZ can do is offer explanations that are specific to the individual applicant’s circumstances. A template rejection letter doesn’t do justice to the unique factors of each application. For example, if an applicant’s educational history doesn’t align with their proposed course of study, INZ could clarify what aspects were insufficient. Or, if reaching out to the applicant for clarification was unsuccessful, INZ should provide details on the steps taken and offer alternative ways for applicants to supply missing information. 

Such clarity would not only improve the experience for prospective students but it would also enhance the credibility of New Zealand’s immigration system. For many young Indians who have gratefully selected NZ over other English-speaking countries and are at the cusp of the culmination of years of planning, studying, and hard work. Losing these talented individuals due to obscure and impersonal rejection letters is not just a missed opportunity for them; it’s a missed opportunity for New Zealand.