Character concern over an undisclosed prior visa refusal

[Applicant A] had lived in New Zealand since 2017, completed her studies, and built a career as an engineer in a role on the Green List. She was granted residence in 2023 and later applied for permanent residence. While preparing that application, it became clear that her earlier residence application had answered a character question incorrectly, and Immigration New Zealand raised the issue with her.

We responded in writing, accepting the answer was wrong but explaining it came from the previous adviser who had made the error. We showed she had a consistent history of disclosing the refusals herself, including in an earlier application that Immigration New Zealand had already assessed and approved. We then asked for the requirement to be set aside, going through each factor, including the minor nature of the error, her long residence and steady employment, her valued skilled work, and the fairness of reaching the same conclusion as before on the same facts.

Immigration New Zealand accepted the response and granted the residence.

Where an omission comes from the adviser’s own mistake rather than the client, establishing the same protects the client’s credibility and keeps attention on intent, which is what really matters in this kind of assessment. A record of having disclosed the same facts in other applications, including to Immigration New Zealand itself, is strong evidence that there was never any intent to mislead. And a request to set aside a character concern works best when it addresses every relevant factor and asks the officer for a properly reasoned decision rather than a simple tally.