Accredited Employer Work Visa Assistance — New Zealand

Either a New Zealand lawyer or a licensed immigration adviser may assist with an AEWV matter. The choice often depends on what else is going on around the visa. Where the matter also touches employment law, a workplace change, or other questions that interact with visa status, having both perspectives in the same engagement avoids the risk of advice on one side contradicting advice on the other. As lawyers, we can cover both the immigration and employment-law dimensions in a single relationship. During an initial discussion we will be direct about what the engagement would involve for your situation.

A typical engagement starts with a scoping conversation, followed by a written engagement letter setting out what is included, who is involved, and how fees are structured. From there, the work generally moves through eligibility review, evidence preparation, agreement review where relevant, lodgement, and any follow-up with INZ. The shape of each stage depends on the complexity of the file — a well-documented single application looks quite different from a matter that spans an employment dispute, a variation of conditions, and a forward residence plan.

For most AEWV matters, fees are structured as a scoped engagement with either a fixed-fee component for defined stages (for example, evidence review or agreement review) or hourly billing where the work is less predictable. The engagement letter identifies which approach applies to which part of the work, and any assumptions on which a fixed fee relies. It is always reasonable to ask — before signing — how additional requests from INZ, a change of employer mid-process, or the emergence of a related issue would be treated. We prefer clients to raise scope questions early rather than absorb surprises later.

INZ may request further information or issue what is known as a potentially prejudicial information letter before deciding an application. Both invite a response, and both benefit from a considered one. We review the request against the file, identify the specific point being raised and the standard it is being measured against, and prepare a response that addresses the concern directly rather than restating the original application. The time available to respond is set by INZ and tends to be tight, so engaging early tends to leave more options open.

A decline is a setback, not necessarily the end of the matter. Depending on the reasons given and the visa type, options may include a reconsideration request, a section 61 request, further engagement with INZ on specific points, or an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal where an appeal right exists. We review the decline reasons against the record before recommending a next step, and we do not promise outcomes on any review pathway — each has its own threshold and its own risks.

Yes. These features are common enough that we have a structured way of working through them — clear disclosure to INZ, supporting material organised to the specific concern, and a submission that meets the issue on its own terms rather than around it. None of these items decides the application on its own, but each generally calls for more care in presentation than a standard form supplies. Where a character waiver may be relevant, we can advise on that pathway. Before taking instructions, we will give a candid view on what appears workable on the facts and on what may not be.

This is where the employment side and the immigration side most visibly pull on each other, and where the order of decisions matters. On the employment side, we can advise on the process leading to the end of the role — including consultation, notice, and any entitlements on exit — and on whether a dispute pathway is appropriate. On the immigration side, we can advise on the visa consequences, whether an interim visa is likely to be available, and how a job change application should be sequenced against a new offer. Treating the two lines together, early, is usually what keeps the most doors open.

Several AEWV settings — occupation classification, skill banding, stand-down treatment, and related residence pathways — are subject to periodic review and change. We prepare applications around current settings while noting the general direction of travel, rather than relying on any one threshold being permanent. Where a change lands during a live engagement, we assess whether transition arrangements apply, whether the application strategy needs to be reshaped, and whether any new evidence is required. We do not use policy uncertainty as a reason to rush clients; we use it as a reason to keep the file in a shape that can adapt.

Yes. We work with employers across a range of sizes — from single-hire accreditation reviews through to ongoing compliance programmes for employers with larger migrant workforces. Because we handle immigration and employment law together, employer clients get accreditation review, employment-agreement compliance, and visa support within a single relationship rather than coordinating across separate firms. The scope of the engagement is set during an initial discussion and reflected in the engagement letter, so both sides are clear on what is included.