Five-Year Painter Work Visa Approved After Responding to an INZ RFI

Mr G submitted an application for an Accredited Employer Work Visa on 4 May 2026. He had been offered a full-time Painter position in Auckland and relied on his previous overseas painting experience to demonstrate that he was suitably qualified for the role. On 12 May 2026, Immigration New Zealand issued a Request for Further Information. The immigration officer raised concerns about the genuineness of Mr G’s declared work experience and whether he was suitably qualified for the position. One of the main concerns was that the business licence of his previous employer did not specifically list construction, painting or interior decoration activities. Immigration New Zealand therefore questioned whether the company was legally able to undertake the work described in Mr G’s employment evidence. The officer also raised concerns about the relationship between Mr G’s qualification and his claimed employment experience, the absence of recent employment evidence after 2018, the recruitment process followed by the New Zealand employer, and whether the job offer had been created specifically to facilitate his entry into New Zealand. Our team carefully analysed each concern raised in the RFI. We researched the relevant Chinese laws and regulations governing business registration and business scopes, including the Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on the Administration of Registration of Market Entities. We explained that a Chinese business licence records the registered business scope of the market entity, but it does not list the individual occupations or job titles of every employee. Therefore, the absence of the specific position title “Painter” from a company’s business licence did not, by itself, establish that the applicant had not genuinely performed painting work. We then supported this legal explanation with additional evidence relating to Mr G’s actual employment and painting duties. The response addressed his employment history, practical skills, suitability for the New Zealand role, and the genuine recruitment process undertaken by the accredited employer. Rather than relying on a general explanation, the submission directly responded to each concern and connected the relevant Chinese regulatory framework with the applicant’s supporting employment documents. Following its assessment of the RFI response and additional evidence, Immigration New Zealand accepted that Mr G had the required work experience and was suitably qualified for the offered position. His Accredited Employer Work Visa was approved on 29 May 2026. The visa allows him to work full-time as a Painter in Auckland and is valid for 60 months from the date of his first arrival in New Zealand. This case demonstrates that differences between Chinese business registration documents and New Zealand immigration assessment practices can sometimes lead to questions about overseas employment. A successful response requires more than a general employment certificate. It may also require a clear explanation of the relevant foreign legal framework, supported by consistent and credible evidence of the applicant’s actual work.