PPI/RFI Letters

• What to do when you receive an RFI or PPI letter from INZ?

You've submitted a visa application and are eagerly waiting for a decision. Then, you receive a letter from INZ. However, instead of a visa grant, the letter states:

• "We have identified issues that may negatively impact your application..."
• "After reviewing your application and documents, we have identified the following concerns..."
• "We would like to request the following further information and/or explanations..."

The letter concludes by stating that if you do not respond by the due date, INZ will make a decision based on the information they currently have, and it is unlikely a visa will be granted.

What you have received is either a Request for Further Information (RFI) or a Potentially Prejudicial Information (PPI) letter. An RFI can be a simple request for documents, while a PPI letter raises more serious concerns. These concerns might be about you, your partner, or your employer.

• How to Respond?

First, understand that INZ has not yet declined your application. However, they are not satisfied with certain aspects of it, and there is a real possibility of a decline if you fail to respond or if your response does not mitigate their concerns.

In some cases, it may be better to start a new application rather than respond. For example, if a job check application is based on an expired job advertisement that is found to have an unacceptably low salary, there is nothing to be done. It would be more practical to withdraw the application and re-submit a new one after a proper market test.

However, in many cases, you must respond. For example, if INZ has character concerns about you, these issues will continue to affect all future applications unless you provide a compelling response and evidence to address them. In such situations, you should seek professional advice if you are unsure how to proceed.

• How We Can Help

If you choose to have us respond on your behalf, we will:

1. Review the issues raised by INZ.
2. Interview you to gain a full understanding of your situation.
3. Review your immigration file if possible.
4. Work with you to gather the strongest evidence and draft a comprehensive response to address INZ’s concerns.

• Examples of Previous Successful Representations

Below are anonymized and generalized examples illustrating the types of complex issues we have successfully addressed through detailed RFI/PPI responses. We have altered specific identifying facts while retaining the core legal and strategic challenges to protect client confidentiality.

Example 1: Residence Visa - Medical Waiver Success

1. Residence Visa: Successfully Addressing Health Concerns

The Issue: A client applying for a residence visa failed to meet the health requirements due to a significant past medical condition (e.g., a serious heart or organ condition). INZ issued a letter raising concerns that the condition could require extensive treatment within the next five years, potentially imposing significant costs on New Zealand's health services. The client was asked to apply for a medical waiver.

Our Response Strategy: We did not simply argue for a waiver based on emotional circumstances. Instead, we performed a thorough review of the client's current health status, working with their specialist to provide current evidence. This included:

• Submitting recent, specialist medical reports demonstrating the condition was well-managed through current treatment, diet, and/or lifestyle changes.
• Providing a clear prognosis from the specialist confirming the likelihood of major surgery or extensive future public healthcare use was significantly reduced due to the client's excellent adherence to a maintenance plan.
• Highlighting compelling mitigating factors relating to the client's establishment and strong ties to New Zealand that outweighed the residual health risk.

The Outcome: INZ accepted that the client's well-maintained health and supporting evidence significantly mitigated the concern, granting the medical waiver and approving the residence visa.

Example 2: Residence Visa - Clarifying Family Composition

2. Residence Visa: Clarifying Family Composition and Past Applications

The Issue: A client applying for residence as a dependent child received a PPI letter. INZ believed the client was ineligible because they had not been declared on a previous residence registration or application form submitted by one of their parents years prior. The core concern was one of non-disclosure or potential misrepresentation of the complete family unit.

Our Response Strategy: This required a highly detailed review of the specific immigration forms used in the previous application. We identified a critical detail—the person who completed the previous form (the principal applicant) was not the client's legal parent. We successfully argued that:

• The instructions on the previous form only required the listing of the principal applicant's dependent children, and not those of a secondary applicant (the client's parent).
• The information was therefore correctly provided as per the form's instructions at the time, and the client was eligible to apply for residence in their own right.

The Outcome: By correcting INZ's interpretation of the previous application, we mitigated the non-disclosure concern, and the client's residence application was approved.

Example 3: Student Visa - Intent to Study

3. Student Visa: Successfully Addressing 'Purpose of Entry' Concerns

The Issue: A client entered New Zealand on a visitor visa, shortly after which they applied for a student visa. INZ issued a PPI letter suggesting the client had withheld material information by not disclosing their intent to study before they arrived, thus questioning the client's credibility and the true purpose of their visitor visa entry. INZ also questioned other stated intentions from the visitor visa application (e.g., travel plans).

Our Response Strategy: We established a clear, well-evidenced timeline of events to demonstrate a genuine, non-premeditated change of circumstances:

• We clarified the difference between a conditional offer (received before arrival, which is not an entitlement to study) and the unconditional acceptance (received only after entry to New Zealand).
• We argued that a client cannot form a concrete, actionable intent to study until they have the unconditional acceptance that guarantees their ability to enrol.
• We provided evidence that the client had fulfilled the genuine and primary purpose stated on their visitor visa (e.g., visiting a friend/family member) and clarified any minor changes in secondary travel plans.

The Outcome: INZ was satisfied that the client had not withheld material information and that the decision to study was genuinely formed only after arrival, leading to the grant of the student visa.

Contact Mathews & Associates if you have received a RFI/PPI letter for an initial, no-obligation, and confidential consultation.

Disclaimer:

The contents of this article are for general information only and does not constitute legal advice and should not be substituted for professional legal advice obtained from your lawyer. If you would like legal advice, please contact Mathews & Associates to discuss your legal matter.

About the Author:

Charn Tiebtienrat MMus, LLB (Canterbury)

Charn brings a unique blend of legal expertise and entrepreneurial experience to Mathews and Associates Lawyers Limited.

After immigrating to New Zealand in 1995, Charn earned his Bachelor of Laws (LLB) from the University of Canterbury. He was immersed in business from a young age, growing up in a family of successful entrepreneurs who owned and operated businesses in New Zealand and Thailand, including the highly regarded Suk Jai Thai Restaurant in Whangārei until late 2022. This experience gave him an invaluable, practical understanding of commercial contracts, commercial leases, employment agreements, and visa applications long before attending law school.

Charn has developed a strong specialisation in Immigration Law, training under top practitioners, including two years with prominent Wellington immigration and refugee lawyer Kamil Lakshman. Under her supervision, Charn managed visa applications as well as high-level immigration work, including successful residence and humanitarian appeals to the Immigration & Protection Tribunal, requests for Ministerial Interventions, and securing the cancellation or suspension of deportation liability for his clients. Charn is known for his thorough approach, carefully assessing a client's history and circumstances to devise the most suitable immigration strategy. He finds Immigration Law a uniquely fulfilling area, as every successful decision means helping his clients and their families settle or reunite in New Zealand.

Joining Mathews & Associates in July 2025, Charn practises commercial law while continuing to practise Immigration Law under the supervision of our director, Christopher Perry. Charn’s business acumen enables him to understand both the legal and commercial aspects when reviewing complex commercial agreements such as franchise and lease. As for his immigration cases, Charn retains his thorough approach and has already achieved successful outcomes for a number of clients.