Recent changes to the online student visa application form have introduced a standalone question asking applicants:

“What are your family, financial, employment or other commitments in your home country?”

On its face, this may appear administratively innocuous. However, when assessed against the Immigration Instructions and the statutory framework governing temporary entry, this design choice raises significant legal and policy concerns.

The legal framework: E5.1 and E5.10

Under the Immigration Instructions:

E5.1 defines a “bona fide applicant” for temporary entry as a person who genuinely intends a temporary stay in New Zealand for a lawful purpose and, in the opinion of an immigration officer, is not likely to remain in New Zealand unlawfully, breach the conditions of any visa granted, or be unable to leave or be deported from New Zealand (see E5.10).

E5.10(a) provides that, when determining whether an applicant for temporary entry or entry permission is a bona fide applicant (see E5.1), immigration officers must take into account:

• any evidence of genuine intent and lawful purpose submitted by the applicant (E5.10(a)(i)); and
• the ability of the applicant to leave or be deported from New Zealand to their country of citizenship (E5.10(a)(ii)); and
• any relevant information held about previous applications (E5.10(a)(iii)); and
• the personal circumstances of the applicant, including (among other matters) the nature of
• any personal, financial, employment or other commitments in the home country and New Zealand (E5.10(a)(iv)).

E5.10(b) then requires that, having taken into account all matters in E5.10(a) that are relevant to the particular case, the type of temporary entry class visa applied for, and any other relevant information, an immigration officer must determine whether or not the applicant is a bona fide applicant.

Importantly, “home country commitments” is only one sub-factor within a broader, mandatory, holistic assessment. It is not a standalone test and is not determinative in law.

The problem with isolating “home country commitments”

By elevating “home country commitments” into a prominent, standalone question in the online student visa form, Immigration New Zealand risks:

• Signalling to applicants that “strong ties to home country” are a threshold requirement.
• Encouraging an over-weighting of a single sub-factor in the bona fide assessment.
• Creating the perception that absence of significant home ties may, in itself, justify decline.

This is inconsistent with the structure of E5.10. The Immigration Instructions require a balanced, multi-factor assessment. The form, however, places disproportionate emphasis on one element.

In practice, form design influences decision-making and applicant behaviour. A prominently framed question sends a normative message about what “matters most.” That is not a trivial administrative detail; it shapes both evidence gathering and assessment culture.

Risk of unlawful or distorted application

Where a single sub-factor is foregrounded in this manner, there is a real risk of:

• Predetermination or effective fettering of discretion;
• Unlawful weighting of one factor at the expense of others;
• Systemic drift away from the holistic assessment required by E5.10(b).

Across multiple temporary visa streams, practitioners have observed a pattern of over-emphasis on “return incentives” or “home ties” in bona fide assessments. Embedding this concept so explicitly into the student visa form risks entrenching that approach further.

Policy incoherence with international education objectives

New Zealand’s international education strategy depends on attracting genuine students and presenting New Zealand as a welcoming, high-quality study destination.

A form that prominently interrogates “home country commitments” sends a contradictory message:

• It implies suspicion rather than welcome.
• It frames the applicant primarily as a potential overstayer rather than as a student.
• It introduces psychological and evidential barriers at the very first stage of engagement.

Notably, earlier versions of the student visa application form (online and paper) did not isolate and foreground this question in this manner. The policy basis for this change is unclear and warrants scrutiny.

Ongoing engagement and lack of resolution

This concern has been raised for months, including at Immigration Reference Group (IRG) meetings. NZAMI is a party to those discussions. Despite repeated signalling of the issue, the form design remains unchanged.

The absence of resolution is troubling, given:

• The clear wording and structure of E5.1 and E5.10;
• The Government’s stated objectives to support international education; and
• The reputational and economic consequences of deterrent administrative design.

What should occur

If Immigration New Zealand considers it necessary to collect information relevant to E5.10(a)(iv), the question should:

• Be framed neutrally and accurately;
• Be contextualised within the full multi-factor bona fide assessment;
• Avoid implying that “home country ties” are determinative or threshold in nature.

Form design must reflect the Immigration Instructions. It must not distort them.

New Zealand’s immigration system depends not only on sound policy but also on the integrity of its administrative instruments. Where form design undermines legal structure or policy coherence, it must be corrected promptly.

In my capacity as the Policy Chair of the New Zealand Association for Migration and Investment (NZAMI), I consider it imperative that the online student visa application form be urgently reviewed to ensure it accurately reflects the Immigration Instructions, particularly the holistic assessment required by E5.1 and E5.10, and remains consistent with the Government’s wider objectives for international education and immigration.

This concern has already been raised with the Minister responsible for both education and immigration, Hon Erica Stanford, given the clear policy disconnect between the Government’s stated aims to promote international education and the deterrent effect created by the current form design.

Please contact the experts at Queen City Law for assistance. For more information about this article, you can contact Harris Gu.

Disclaimer:

This article is general information only and does not constitute legal advice. Every dispute is different and professional advice should be obtained before taking action.