Appellant’s Appeal Dismissed: Failure to Provide Valid Travel Documents

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207470 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

Respondent: [redacted] Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 30 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 56-year-old citizen of Malaysia whose application for residence under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included her three children, aged 22, 25 and 28 years old, who are also citizens of Malaysia. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because, after the appellant’s visa had been approved in principle, she did not provide acceptable travel documents for [NAME] or her three children in order for Immigration New Zealand to grant the visa. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application and, if so, whether the appellant has special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application and that the appellant does not have special circumstances. The appeal is declined.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is a citizen of Malaysia. She has visited New Zealand twice, in June 1997 for seven days and in November 2011 for one day. She is currently residing in Australia. [6] The appellant has three children, now aged 22, 25 and 28 years old, who were included in her application. They are all Malaysian citizens. None of the children have travelled to New Zealand. They are currently living in Australia with the appellant. [7] In 2018, the appellant met her husband who is a citizen of Iran and New Zealand. The couple met in Australia and were married there on 28 January 2023. They live together with the appellant’s three children. Residence Application [8] On 20 March 2023, the appellant lodged an application under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category of residence instructions. [9] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied the appellant had provided sufficient evidence that she and her New Zealand citizen husband had been living together for 12 months or more in a [APPELLANT] that was genuine and stable. It was also satisfied that the appellant’s three children (all under 25 years old at the time of the application) were single and were totally or substantially reliant on the appellant for financial support. [10] With their application, the appellant had provided copies of hers and her children’s Malaysian passports. The appellant’s passport was valid until 30 April 2024. The children’s passports expired in 2020 and 2021. The appellant provided copies of emergency certificates issued by the [NAME] for the children confirming their citizenship. The children’s emergency certificates stated they could be used for travel to Australia and/or Malaysia only and were valid until 20 January 2024. The appellant also provided copies of “bridging class” visas the Australian government had issued to the appellant and her children. The bridging

3 class visas were granted for a period of one month and permitted each member of the family to remain in Australia for the period stated in the visa. [11] On 10 June 2024, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant advising her that her application for a resident visa had been approved in principle. It stated her resident visa would be granted if she sent Immigration New Zealand valid passports for [NAME] and her three children by 10 December 2024. Extension of Time to Provide Travel Documents [12] On 1 December 2024, the appellant wrote to Immigration New Zealand stating she had been unable to provide valid passports due to “strict renewal rules” imposed by the [NAME] in Melbourne. She also stated she was awaiting the confirmation of her and her children’s “visa status” in Australia but said, once that was received, they could renew their passports promptly. The appellant requested an extension of three months to provide valid passports. [13] On 4 December 2024, the appellant sent Immigration New Zealand copies of the bridging class visas the Australian government had issued to the appellant and her children on 16 November 2024 which were valid until 14 February 2025. [14] Immigration New Zealand granted an extension to 15 January 2025. Further extensions were granted to 16 February 2025, 28 February 2025, and 4 April 2025. [15] On 16 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant advising her that she had not met the outstanding requirements set out in the approval in principle letter sent to her on 10 June 2024. Under instruction R5.45.d, the application must be declined if the outstanding requirements have not been fulfilled in the time specified. Immigration New Zealand provided the appellant with one further opportunity to provide the requested passports by 30 May 2025. [16] On 17 May 2025, the appellant provided further copies of the previously provided expired Malaysian passports and expired Malaysian emergency certificates. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [17] On 6 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant advising her that her application for residence had been declined because she had not met the requirement to provide valid passports within the time specified in the approval

4 in principle letter (10 June 2024) and the subsequent extensions (instruction R5.45.e). STATUTORY GROUNDS [18] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 187(4) of the Act provides: (4) The grounds for an appeal under this section are that— (a) the relevant decision was not correct in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the relevant application for the visa was made; or (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [19] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [20] On 17 July 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that her circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. [21] In the appeal form, the appellant states she and her children are currently living in Australia pursuant to bridging class visas which do not meet the eligibility criteria for the [NAME] to issue them with new passports while they remain in Australia. [22] In support of her appeal, the appellant provided copies of hers and her children’s bridging class visas valid until 12 August 2025, and an email to Immigration New Zealand dated 12 July 2025 in which the appellant states she “expects to receive our new passports from the [NAME] in Melbourne very soon”. [23] On 9 September 2025 and 13 March 2026, the Tribunal wrote to the appellant by email seeking any submissions and/or any updating information. There was no response.

5 [24] On 8 April 2026, the Tribunal wrote to the appellant again to advise her that her appeal was currently being considered. It noted that in, July 2025, she had stated she expected to receive new passports shortly. The Tribunal asked her to confirm by 13 April 2026 whether the appellant and children held valid passports or other acceptable travel documents, and if they did, to provide the Tribunal with a copy showing their issue and expiry date. There was no response. Further information provided on appeal [25] The Tribunal cannot consider new material provided by an appellant with her appeal if it was not before Immigration New Zealand at the time that it made its decision to decline the application (section 189(1) of the Act). The most recent bridging class visas (valid until 12 August 2025), and the appellant’s email to Immigration New Zealand dated 12 July 2025 were not before Immigration New Zealand at the time it made its decision. [26] There is a relevant exception to section 189(1) where, as in this case, the Tribunal considers that the further information provided by the appellant on appeal may be necessary for its determination of whether the appellant has special circumstances (section 189(3)(b)). The Tribunal considers the further information provided, to the extent it is relevant, in its assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances. ASSESSMENT [27] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records for the appellant, her husband and her children. [28] Although the appellant appeals only on the ground of having special circumstances, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. This is set out below and is followed by an assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration of an exception by the Minister of Immigration.

6 Whether the Decision is Correct [29] The application was made on 20 March 2023 and the relevant criteria are those in the residence instructions at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because the appellant had not met the outstanding requirement to provide valid passports within the time periods specified in Immigration New Zealand’s approval in principle letter (10 June 2024) and subsequent extensions granted (instruction R5.45.e). [30] Under instruction R5.45 (effective 1 December 2021), an application for a residence class visa may be approved in principle when an immigration officer is satisfied that all requirements necessary to demonstrate eligibility under the relevant instructions have been met. Once the application has been approved in principle, a period of time must be given to applicants to fulfil any outstanding requirements such as to provide acceptable travel documents: R5.45 Approval in principle a. An application for a residence class visa is approved in principle at such time as an immigration officer is satisfied that all requirements necessary to demonstrate eligibility under the relevant instructions have been met with the exception of: i. the payment of any ESOL tuition fee; or ii. transfer and/or investment of funds, as required under the relevant category of residence. iii. the payment of any total fee owing for a 2021 Resident Visa (see S6.20 and c(ii) below) … c. An initial period of time must be given to applicant(s) to fulfil outstanding requirements, which may include: i. the provision of an acceptable travel document for the [NAME] applicant required to grant a residence class visa. … d. If the outstanding requirements have not been fulfilled within the period specified, the application must be declined unless an immigration officer is satisfied that circumstances warrant extending that period, as outlined in paragraphs (e)–(f) below. e. Immigration officers must consider any relevant circumstances in deciding whether or not to decline an application approved in principle in terms of (d) above, including but not limited to: i. the death of a family member; ii. illness; iii. loss or theft of documentation.

7 f. Following consideration of the relevant circumstances in (e) above, an immigration officer may, if appropriate, extend the initial approval in principle period. … [31] Instructions state that acceptable travel documents are standard passports that have not expired or a certificate of identity; which is a document other than a passport issued by the government of any country to any person for the purposes of facilitating [NAME]'s entry into or exit from any country. A certificate of identity confers on [NAME] a right to enter the country whose government has issued the document and includes an emergency travel document. [32] Instructions A2.1 (effective 29 November 2010) and A2.5 (effective 21 May 2018) are set out below: A2.1 Types of acceptable travel document Acceptable travel documents are standard passports or certificates of identity that: a. come within the definitions in A2.1.1 and A2.1.5 below; and b. meet the criteria set out in A2.5 to A2.10. A2.1.1 Definition of 'passport' See also Immigration Act 2009 s 4 A passport is a document that: a. is issued by or on behalf of the government of any country; and b. is recognised by the New Zealand government as a passport; and c. purports to establish the identity and nationality of the [NAME]; and d. confers on the [NAME] the right to enter the country of the government of which has issued the document; and e. has not expired. A2.1.5 Definition of 'certificate of identity' See also Immigration Act 2009 s 4 a. A certificate of identity is a document (other than a passport) issued by the government of any country to any person for the purposes of facilitating [NAME]'s entry into or exit from any country. b. A certificate of identity: i. purports to establish the identity but not the nationality of a person; and ii. confers on [NAME] a right to enter the country whose government has issued the document. c. A certificate of identity includes:

8 i. any emergency travel document or refugee travel document issued under the Passports Act 1992; and … A2.5 Criteria for acceptable travel documents Acceptable travel documents must be: … c. valid in the country of issue; and … e. valid for travel to and from New Zealand; and … Failure to provide acceptable travel documents [33] On 10 June 2024, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant advising her that her application for a resident visa for [NAME] and her three children had been approved in principle. However, the travel documents provided with the application had all expired; the appellant’s passport on 30 April 2024; her sons’ passports on 30 September 2021; her daughter’s passport on 29 July 2020; and the children’s emergency certificates on 20 January 2024. Immigration New Zealand advised the appellant that the resident visas would be granted if she sent Immigration New Zealand valid passports for [NAME] and her children by 10 December 2024. [34] On 4 December 2024, the appellant sent Immigration New Zealand copies of the bridging class visas the Australian government had issued to the appellant and her children on 16 November 2024 which were valid until 14 February 2025. The bridging class visas permitted each member of the family to remain in Australia for the period stated in the visa. The bridging class visas were not acceptable travel documents as they were not issued for the purposes of facilitating the appellant and her children’s entry into or exit from Australia. They only permitted the appellant and her children to remain in Australia. [35] Immigration New Zealand granted the appellant three further extensions to provide acceptable travel documents. [36] On 16 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant advising her that she had not met the outstanding requirements set out in the approval in principle letter sent to her on 10 June 2024. It gave her one final opportunity to provide valid passports by 30 May 2025.

9 [37] On 17 May 2025, the appellant responded to Immigration New Zealand and provided copies of the same expired Malaysian passports and expired Malaysian emergency travel passports. [38] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. After issuing its letter of 10 June 2024 advising the appellant her application for residence had been approved in principle, it provided the appellant with several extensions of time to fulfil the outstanding requirement to provide acceptable travel documents for [NAME] and her children. [39] The bridging class visas issued by the Australian government to the appellant and her children were not acceptable travel documents because they only permitted them to remain in Australia, and did not facilitate their entry into or exit from any country (A2.1.5.a) and they were not valid for travel to and from New Zealand (A2.5.e). The Malaysian passports and emergency certificates provided by the appellant were not acceptable travel documents because they had expired (instruction A2.1.1.e). Conclusion on correctness [40] For the above reasons, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. Whether there are Special Circumstances [41] Where the Tribunal found the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct, it has the power to consider whether the circumstances of the appellant are special, such that they warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to the residence instructions. [42] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. [43] Whether an appellant has special circumstances will depend on the particular facts of each case. The Tribunal balances all relevant factors in each case to determine whether the appellant's circumstances, when considered cumulatively, are special.

10 Personal and family circumstances [44] The appellant was born in Malaysia. She has three children, two sons now aged 25 and 28 years old and a daughter aged 22 years old. They are all Malaysian citizens. The appellant has visited New Zealand as the [NAME] of a visitor visa for seven days in 1997, and for one day in 2011. The children have never travelled to New Zealand. [45] In 2018, the appellant met her husband in Australia. They were married there on 28 January 2023. [46] The husband was born in Iran. He first arrived in New Zealand in 2004 and was granted a resident visa in 2006. He was previously married in New Zealand, but that marriage was dissolved in 2012. The longest period the husband spent in New Zealand continuously was from August 2004 (when he first arrived) to February 2012. Between 2012 and 2017, he made several trips overseas. In January 2017, he departed New Zealand for Australia and, while he has returned to New Zealand on several occasions, each return stay has been for 12 days or less. He last departed New Zealand for Australia on 30 March 2026. Settlement in Australia [47] The appellant and her husband live together with the appellant’s three children in a rental home in Australia. [48] In January 2023, the couple were married. The appeal is supported by a statement from a church pastor that the appellant and her husband are committed members of their [NAME]. [49] It appears to the Tribunal that the couple and the appellant’s children are well-settled in Australia and have been for at least the past eight years. Health and character requirements [50] Immigration New Zealand found the appellant and her children were of an acceptable standard of health for residence and that the appellant met the character requirements. The appellant provided a clear Malaysian police certificate (20 March 2023) and clear Australian police certificate (28 September 2023).

11 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Discussion on special circumstances [51] The appellant, her children and husband appear to be well-settled in their community in Australia, where they have lived for several years. They have limited connections to New Zealand. The appellant has spent a total of eight days in New Zealand and her children have never visited here. Although her husband is a citizen of New Zealand, he has only visited here for brief stays since he departed in January 2017. Conclusion on special circumstances [52] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant and her family the Tribunal finds that she does not have special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [53] This appeal is determined pursuant to section 188(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009. The Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to decline the appellant's application for residence as correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. The Tribunal does not consider that the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions under section 188(1)(f) of the Act. [54] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [55] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the research copy of this decision is to be depersonalised by removal of the appellant’s name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or her family members. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member