Master prompt
Partnership visa refusal — addressing "relationship not genuine and stable" finding
Most common refusal ground for partnership work + resident visas. Officer reasoning attacks one or more F2.20 indicia. Rebuttal strategy by indicium.
New ZealandPartnershipRefusalGenuine and StableF2.20
Partnership-based visa refusals citing "the partnership is not genuine and stable" are the most common partnership refusal type. Operational Manual F2.20 sets the four indicia:
(a) Duration of relationship
(b) Existence of common household
(c) Financial and emotional interdependence
(d) Recognition by family + community
The officer must find that, on balance, the evidence does not establish the partnership meets the genuine + stable standard. Typically the officer attacks 1-2 of the 4 indicia.
Recovery pathway depends on visa type:
• Partnership Work Visa refusal: Reconsideration under Immigration Act 2009 s.185 (temporary entry — IPT NOT available)
• Partnership Resident Visa refusal: Appeal to IPT under s.187 (residence-class)
Draft a 600-700 word strategy for [CLIENT_NAME] (refused [VISA_TYPE] on [REFUSAL_DATE]; strategic path: [STRATEGIC_PATH]).
§1 — PATHWAY DETERMINATION (100-120 words)
For [VISA_TYPE]:
If Partnership WORK Visa refused:
• s.185 Reconsideration available IF in NZ at time of refusal AND request made within 14 days
• IPT NOT available (temporary entry class)
• Fresh application also possible (no formal stand-down but officer will see prior refusal)
If Partnership RESIDENT Visa refused:
• IPT appeal under s.187 — 42 days from refusal
• Reconsideration s.185 NOT available for residence
• Fresh application possible but limited (Migrant Levy + fee, and same officer review pattern)
[STRATEGIC_PATH] confirmed: [reference the right path].
§2 — DECONSTRUCT OFFICER FINDINGS (200-250 words)
[OFFICER_FINDINGS] — analyse against each F2.20 indicium:
A. Duration of relationship:
• Did officer find duration insufficient?
• Was the 12-month living-together threshold met?
• Did officer mis-count? (e.g. excluded periods of physical separation that should have counted as continuous relationship)
• Strong response: detailed timeline showing continuous relationship even during separation
B. Common household:
• Did officer find evidence of joint household weak?
• Were the lease / utility bills only in one name? (joint name documents needed)
• Was the evidence concentrated in a narrow window? (longitudinal evidence needed)
• Did officer mistake joint-family living for non-couple-household? (couple-specific evidence needed)
• Strong response: corrected + supplementary household documentation
C. Financial / emotional interdependence:
• Did officer find financial flows insufficient?
• Are joint bank accounts available?
• Were inter-account transfers during separation documented?
• Strong response: joint accounts, transfers, joint commitments
D. Recognition by family + community:
• Did officer find statutory declarations only from immediate family?
• Were photos all from one event (wedding)?
• Was social-media / community evidence missing?
• Strong response: broader recognition evidence — friends, employers, religious community, festival photos
§3 — NEW EVIDENCE STRATEGY (180-220 words)
[NEW_EVIDENCE] organised against weak indicia:
A. Strengthening the weakest indicium first:
• Identify which indicium officer flagged hardest
• Address that gap with multiple evidence categories
• Don't dilute — depth on weak point beats breadth across already-strong points
B. Documentary evidence categories:
• Joint tenancy / lease over time (multiple addresses if moved)
• Joint utility bills (electricity, gas, internet) over 12+ months
• Joint bank account statements with sustained activity
• Communication logs (WhatsApp / Messenger spanning full relationship)
• Photographs with date metadata across years + life events
• Statutory declarations from 5-8 witnesses across family + non-family
• Travel together (shared bookings, joint tickets)
• Joint insurance / pension beneficiary nominations
• Children's birth certificates naming both parents
C. Cultural-context calibration (Indian applicants):
• Arranged marriages: do NOT defensive — present the cultural framing of arranged marriage as common + genuine (not for immigration purposes)
• Family ceremonies (engagement / mehendi / wedding stages) with photos + dates
• Joint-family-living evidence + couple-specific evidence (room photos, joint utility within larger household)
• Religious / community recognition (mandir / gurdwara involvement)
• Letters from family members on both sides written contemporaneously
D. Statutory declarations from witnesses:
• Family members on both sides (mother, father, siblings)
• Non-family witnesses (close friends, neighbours, employers, religious leaders)
• Each declaration:
- States the declarant's name, address, ID
- States knowledge of the relationship + duration
- Provides specific factual recollections (not generic praise)
- Confirms knowledge that this is a genuine relationship
- Signed before NZ JP / lawyer / commissioner
§4 — RECONSIDERATION (s.185) — IF PARTNERSHIP WORK VISA (100-130 words)
For [VISA_TYPE] = Partnership Work Visa, [STRATEGIC_PATH] = Reconsideration:
Section 185 Immigration Act 2009 allows reconsideration of temporary entry refusal IF:
(a) Applicant was lawfully in NZ at time of refusal, AND
(b) Request lodged within 14 days of refusal notification
Reconsideration package:
• INZ Reconsideration Request form
• Detailed submission addressing each refusal ground
• All new evidence (categorised against F2.20 indicia)
• Updated statutory declarations
• Cover letter from IAA-licensed adviser
• Fee NZD ~240 (verify current)
Reconsideration decision: same office, often same officer. Success rate ~25-35% with quality submission. If refused: fresh application or IPT (if eligible) remains.
§5 — IPT APPEAL (s.187) — IF PARTNERSHIP RESIDENT VISA (100-130 words)
For [VISA_TYPE] = Partnership Resident Visa, [STRATEGIC_PATH] = IPT appeal:
42 days from [REFUSAL_DATE] to file under s.187(1)(c). See the SMC IPT appeal prompt for procedural structure; for partnership specifically:
• Establish error of fact / failure to consider relevant material under s.188
• Cite officer's specific factual finding vs. record evidence
• Limited ability to introduce new evidence (s.190(2)) — focus on errors in original assessment
• Humanitarian appeal under s.187(4) if NZ children / settled life
• Fee NZD ~700, processing 9-18 months
IPT remedy: direction to reconsider — does NOT guarantee grant.
§6 — PARALLEL FRESH APPLICATION (40-60 words)
Consider in parallel:
• Strengthen evidence + file fresh Partnership Resident Visa application
• Caveats: prior refusal disclosed; some officer review pattern
• Cost: full residence fee again
• Useful when material new evidence has arisen (passage of time, marriage, children born) since original refusal
— DRAFT only. Licensed Immigration Adviser (IAA-licensed) or NZ lawyer review required. Strategic path selection is critical — wrong path forecloses options. The 14-day s.185 deadline (work visa) and 42-day s.187 IPT deadline (resident visa) are unforgiving. Unlicensed advice is a criminal offence under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007.Unlock the vault to see the full prompt