Appellant’s Residence Application Declined by Tribunal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207394 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME_1] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted] capacity only)

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 6 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 49-year-old citizen of Tuvalu whose application for residence under the [NAME_3]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. The application included his partner, aged 44 and his three children (aged 14, 12 and 4 years), also citizens of Tuvalu. The 14 and 12-year-old children are also citizens of Fiji. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because he did not meet the requirements of the [NAME_3]) category or any other category of residence instructions. The Tribunal finds that the decision to decline the application was correct. [3] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant, and his family members, have special circumstances arising from their nexus to New Zealand through the wife’s New Zealand-citizen mother and their children’s best interests,

2 such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to government resident instructions. [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does not have special circumstances such as to warrant Ministerial consideration.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant and his wife married in Tuvalu, in 2011. They have three children together: two sons (aged 12 and 4 years) and a daughter aged 14 years. Prior to travelling to New Zealand, both the appellant and his wife held employment in the [NAME_4]. [6] The appellant has three siblings. His father and one of his brothers live in Tuvalu, another brother lives in the United States of America and his sister lives in New Zealand. The wife also has three siblings. Her mother and one of her sisters are New Zealand citizens, another sister lives in Tuvalu and her brother is in New Zealand but does not have permanent status here and the Tribunal (differently constituted) has recently upheld his deportation liability (see Maumau [2026] NZIPT 507108). Her mother (referred to as “the [NAME_5]” and “the mother-in-law” throughout this decision) became a [NAME_6] in 2019 alongside her husband, who has since died, and has lived in New Zealand since 2020. [7] The appellant made short visits to New Zealand in 2001 and 2016. He made unsuccessful registrations under the [NAME_7] in 2012, 2023 and 2024. The wife made unsuccessful registrations under the [NAME_7] in 2015, 2017, 2022 and 2023. She was granted a business visitor visa in December 2022, but did not travel to New Zealand at this time. [8] In January 2023, the appellant arrived in New Zealand with his wife and their three children as the holders of one-month visitor visas. They travelled so that the wife could attend a conference here. [9] In February 2023, the appellant and his family members applied for further visitor visas, which were granted in May 2023. However, their subsequent applications for further visitor visas, made in June 2023, were declined in August 2023.

3 [10] The appellant and his family members became unlawfully in New Zealand in September 2023, after the interim visas granted while their visitor visa applications were processed expired. They appealed against their deportation liability in September 2023. [11] In May 2024, the Tribunal (differently constituted) declined the appellant and his family members’ humanitarian appeal against their deportation liability. However, it ordered the grant of 12-month work, student and visitor visas to the family so that they could get their affairs in order prior to returning to Tuvalu (see BL (Tuvalu) [2024] NZIPT 506193–194). Residence Application [12] On 27 September 2024, the appellant made an application for residence. He selected the “other” category of residence instructions on the application form and wrote “humanitarian” as the basis for his application. His wife and three children were included in the application. [13] The appellant’s former counsel advised Immigration New Zealand that the residence application was being made on humanitarian grounds and provided evidence in support of the application. Immigration New Zealand elected to lodge and to assess the application under the [NAME_3]) category of residence instructions. Immigration New Zealand considered that the application was lodged to facilitate an avenue to appeal to the Tribunal on humanitarian grounds. It therefore did not write to the appellant to raise its concerns that he did not meet the requirements of the relevant instructions prior to declining the application. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [14] By letter dated 7 April 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application on the ground that his application had not been supported by an eligible supporting partner, as required by the [NAME_3]) category instructions. It also advised that, based on the information provided, the appellant did not appear to meet the requirements of any other residence category. [15] The Tribunal records that Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records show that the appellant’s resident visa application was declined on 2 April 2025. In the present appeal, nothing hinges on the date on which the application was declined, whether it be 2 or 7 April 2025.

4 After the Residence Application [16] In May 2025, the appellant and his family applied for visitor visas. Their applications were declined later the same month, and the family became unlawfully in New Zealand in June 2025. [17] In July 2025, the Minister of Immigration (or a delegated decision-maker therefore) declined to consider the appellant’s request for visas under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). [18] On 23 July 2025, the appellant and his family members departed New Zealand. A subsequent application for an accredited employer work visa was declined in September 2025. The appellant and his family remain offshore, in Fiji. STATUTORY GROUNDS [19] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of 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. [20] 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 [21] On 15 May 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that his circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered.

5 [22] The appellant has not provided submissions but his and his family’s circumstances are set out in four letters (dated 13 September 2024, 2 May 2025, 14 May 2025 and 13 June 2025) from himself, his wife and his sister-in-law. His case can be summarised as follows: (a) The [NAME_5], a [NAME_6], is unable to live independently. Her previous living arrangements did not meet her care and support needs, and her daughter ([NAME_8]) is best placed to provide her with the care she requires, including accommodation, access to medical care, transportation and other essential needs. While the mother-in-law has one New Zealand- citizen daughter (the sister-in-law), she is in New Zealand only to secure her own children’s immigration status and intends to depart in June 2026 for Australia. (b) The family will have difficulty re-establishing themselves in Tuvalu. Both the husband and wife resigned from their government employment there, and no longer have access to government- subsidised accommodation. They have transferred their savings to New Zealand and used them to support themselves and the mother-in-law. The family are well settled in New Zealand, the husband and wife contribute through their employment and their support of the mother-in-law, and the children are attending school here. [23] In support of his appeal, and in addition to Immigration New Zealand documents (and the four letters referenced above), the appellant provided the following: (a) Two letters from the appellant’s daughter and a letter from the mother-in-law. (b) Two letters from the mother-in-law’s general practitioner. (c) Various letters of support from members of the appellant’s church, community and his landlord in New Zealand. (d) A bundle of documents relating to the appellant’s daughter and older son’s education and their educational and extracurricular achievements in New Zealand, including approval from the Ministry

6 of Education for them both to attend school in New Zealand as domestic students. (e) Documents relating to the appellant and his wife’s employment in New Zealand and in Tuvalu. (f) Documents relating to the appellant’s tenancy in New Zealand, vehicle registration and copies of his bank statements between 1 February 2023 and 16 June 2025. (g) Clear police certificates from Tuvalu for the appellant, his wife, daughter and older son. (h) The family’s passport biodata pages, the husband, wife and daughter’s birth certificates, and the husband and wife’s marriage certificate. [24] On 20 February 2026, after receiving Immigration New Zealand electronic records which indicated that the appellant and his family had departed New Zealand on 23 July 2025, the Tribunal sought updated information regarding his circumstances and those of the mother-in-law. [25] On 26 February 2026, the appellant provided an update on his family’s special circumstances and a bundle of evidence comprising a letter from his daughter, various support letters, Fijian citizenship certificates for his two oldest children and a 2025 school report for the daughter. [26] The new evidence presented on appeal will be considered as part of the assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances, as per section 189(3)(b) of the Act. ASSESSMENT [27] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the files provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence and temporary visa applications, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records.

7 [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. Whether the Decision is Correct [29] The application was made on 27 September 2024 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. [30] Immigration New Zealand treated the application, made under the “other category” and on humanitarian grounds, as being nominally lodged under the [NAME_3]) category of residence instructions. It then correctly declined the application on the basis that it was not supported by a New Zealand-citizen or resident partner, a requirement of residence instruction F2.5.d.i (effective 8 May 2017). [NAME_8] was not a [NAME_6] or resident (and was, in fact, included in the application was a secondary applicant), she could not support the husband’s application. Immigration New Zealand was, in the absence of an eligible supporting partner, required to decline the application. Conclusion on correctness [31] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. Whether there are Special Circumstances [32] 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. [33] 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.

8 [34] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME_9] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. Personal and family circumstances [35] The appellant is married and has three children aged 14, 12 and 4 with his wife. The family are currently in Fiji. [36] The appellant’s father and one of his brothers live in Tuvalu. His remaining brother lives in the United States of America and his sister lives in New Zealand. [37] The [NAME_5] obtained New Zealand citizenship in 2019, as did her husband, and the couple relocated here in 2020. She was widowed in 2022. One of the wife’s sisters lives in New Zealand and is a [NAME_6]. Her brother is in New Zealand on a temporary visa and her remaining sister lives in Tuvalu. [38] Prior to travelling to New Zealand, both the husband and wife held positions in the [NAME_4]. They resigned their positions after deciding to remain in New Zealand to care for the mother-in-law. Immigration history [39] The appellant, his wife and their children arrived in New Zealand in January 2023, as the holders of visitor visas granted to allow the wife to attend an employment-related conference here. [40] During this visit, the appellant and his wife became aware that the wife’s mother’s care needs were not being met in her then living arrangements and determined to remain here to care for her. To that end, the family applied for general visitor visas in February 2023. These were granted in May 2023 and were valid to July 2023. [41] In June 2023, the family again applied for visitor visas on the basis that they wished to remain in New Zealand to care for the wife’s mother. However, Immigration New Zealand declined their application in August 2023, and the family became unlawfully in New Zealand in September 2023, following the expiry of their interim visas.

9 [42] The appellant and his wife then lodged appeals against their deportation liability. In May 2024, the Tribunal declined the appeals but ordered the grant of 12-month work, student and visitor visas to them under section 216 of the Act (see BL (Tuvalu) at [55]–[57]). The purpose of these visas was to allow the husband and wife to finance their family’s return to Tuvalu through employment here. The visas were also intended to give them time to arrange accommodation in Tuvalu and appropriate support and living arrangements for the wife’s mother. It was while they held the visas ordered by the Tribunal that the family made their residence application, the decline of which has given rise to the present appeal. [43] In May 2025, prior to the expiry of the visas directed by the Tribunal, the family unsuccessfully made a further application for visitor visas. They lodged the present appeal later the same month and, in July 2025, requested the grant of a visas under section 61 of the Act. However, the Minister refused to consider their request. [44] The appellant and his family left New Zealand on 23 July 2025. Shortly thereafter, in late July 2025, the appellant applied for an accredited employer work visa from Fiji. His application was declined in September 2025. [45] The appellant explains that, prior to his open work visa expiring, he was seeking to obtain an accredited employer work visa. However, the company with which he intended to work ran into delays during its job check.

Accordingly, he and his family applied for visitor visas to allow them to remain in New Zealand. While on interim visas, their visitor visa application having been declined, a job token was issued and the appellant attempted to apply for an accredited employer work visa. However, he considers Immigration New Zealand’s system failed and he was unable to make an application. When he spoke to Immigration New Zealand a few days later, he was advised that he was unable to make an application while on an interim visa, a requirement he was unaware of, and was also advised that he was in New Zealand unlawfully. Immigration New Zealand advised him to request a visa under section 61 of the Act, which he did, but his request was refused. [46] The appellant then elected to depart New Zealand with his family, and to apply for an accredited employer work visa from offshore. Immigration New Zealand declined his application. The appellant has been unable to fund any subsequent visa applications, and the family remain in Fiji awaiting the outcome of the present appeal.

10 Circumstances in Fiji [47] The appellant explains that he and his family are living in Fiji, having travelled there from New Zealand in July 2025. [NAME_5] joined them there later on, before travelling to Tuvalu to stay with her brother for Christmas and the New Year holidays. She travelled to Fiji thereafter, before returning to New Zealand to live with her eldest daughter here. [48] Initially, the appellant and his family lived with the wife’s younger sister, a university student, and her family in Fiji. They planned to return to New Zealand once the appellant was granted an accredited employer work visa. However, in October 2025, the wife’s sister returned to Tuvalu with her family members after she completed her studies, and the appellant and his wife took over her rental home. [49] At this point, the appellant and his wife began to experience financial hardship, as neither have the right to work in Fiji. When they could no longer afford rent payments, the family moved in with relatives in Fiji. It appears that they have since moved between several different families. The appellant states that they have transferred their savings from New Zealand to Fiji and have sold and donated their belongings in New Zealand. They are currently living on donations from families they know in Fiji, some financial assistance from the [NAME_5] and financial support from the husband’s siblings, who help when they are able. [50] To mitigate some of their financial burdens, the appellant and his wife applied for Fijian citizenship for their two older children (who were born in Fiji). This allows them to avoid paying international school fees. Circumstances in Tuvalu [51] The appellant and his family members are Tuvaluan citizens. They therefore have the right to return there in the future. As such, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to consider their prospective circumstances in Tuvalu in its assessment of their special circumstances. [52] Both the appellant and his wife held long-standing employment in the public service there in the past and that the appellant, in particular, held senior leadership positions. The family lived in government-subsidised housing, which they gave up after they moved to New Zealand.

11 [53] The appellant states that he considers a return to Tuvalu would be challenging. There are limited employment opportunities there and both his and his wife’s previous positions have since been filled. However, he has not demonstrated that the challenges he and his wife face in Tuvalu are such that they, and their children, cannot return there. The appellant and his wife held long-standing roles in the public service and it has not been demonstrated that they will be unable to find employment there in the future, notwithstanding that employment opportunities are limited (see, for example, Sikiga [2025] NZIPT 506937 at [39]–[46]). [54] Further, although the appellant and his wife gave up their rental accommodation, it has not been demonstrated that they will be without accommodation in Tuvalu, should they return. Both the appellant and his wife have family members there, including the wife’s sister, with whom they may be able to stay while they find their own accommodation. They have been receiving financial support from their siblings and the evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest this support would end, were the appellant and his family to return to Tuvalu. The [NAME_5] [55] The [NAME_5] is in her 70s. She became a [NAME_6] in 2019, with her husband, and moved here in 2020. She became a widow in 2022. [56] The appellant explained to Immigration New Zealand that, after travelling to New Zealand in 2023, he and his wife realised [NAME_5] “was not in a good situation” and she required her daughter’s (the wife) help on a permanent basis. At the time, she was living with a niece who was overwhelmed with taking care of her disabled son and brother. The appellant and his wife took over her care, first moving her to their hotel then, after deciding to try to remain here, sharing their rental home with her. [57] While the family were in New Zealand, the wife became her mother’s primary caregiver. This entailed reminding her to take medication, assisting her with food preparation and household chores, taking her to medical and social services appointments and driving her to church.

12 [58] A 2024 letter from the mother-in-law’s general practitioner records that she has hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and cognitive decline. An updated letter, from 2025, from the general practitioner records that she also has pre-diabetes. She takes medication for her conditions and manages them with the assistance of her family. The general practitioner records that the wife’s support is “vital for the health of her mother”. [59] It is apparent that the mother-in-law valued the support given to her by her daughter and son-in-law. However, the appellant and his family have not been in New Zealand since July 2025, a period of approximately ten months. During that period, the mother-in-law has spent time in Fiji and Tuvalu, as well as in New Zealand. The appellant reports that [NAME_5] currently lives with her New Zealand-citizen daughter, and she also appears to have recently spent time living with her son, who is in New Zealand on a temporary visa (see Maumau at [18]). [60] The appellant’s sister-in-law, who is a [NAME_6], has explained to Immigration New Zealand and the Tribunal that she and her family intend to be in New Zealand on a temporary basis only. They are here so that her younger two children (whose ages are not disclosed to the Tribunal) can obtain permanent resident visas. The sister-in-law intends, in approximately June 2026, to depart New Zealand for Australia (according to her letter to the Tribunal) or Tuvalu (according to her letter to Immigration New Zealand). Regardless, she does not consider herself to be a suitable caregiver for her mother. This is because her husband has familial responsibilities in Tuvalu and her family intends to relocate to Australia, she and her husband are unemployed and she does not have the time, emotional, financial or logistical ability to care for her. [61] While it may be that the mother-in-law wishes to live with the wife and the appellant, and their children, in New Zealand, she does not have the right, at law, to be cared for by a for by a family member who does not have the right to remain here (see Chief Executive of the Department of Labour v Taito [2006] NZAR 420 (CA)). As a [NAME_6], she is entitled to state assistance and social support, and she has the emotional and practical support of her New Zealand-citizen daughter and son (for the remainder of his temporary visa which will expire in August 2026) and other extended family members in New Zealand, such as the niece with whom she lived for approximately three years. It may be that the sister-in-law is required to reconsider her plans to depart. Alternately, it is open to the mother-in-law to return to Tuvalu to live with

13 the appellant, his wife and their children although it is acknowledged that this is unlikely to occur. That the mother-in-law would prefer that the wife and the appellant care for her here is not, of itself, a special circumstance. Qualifications and work experience [62] The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant and his wife are well-qualified individuals who bring valuable work experience in the [NAME_4] to New Zealand. [63] According to the appellant’s curriculum vitae, he holds a Bachelor of Commerce and has worked in various roles in a [NAME_4] department. He has also held two roles with a non-governmental organisation: president of volunteers and board director. [64] In New Zealand, the appellant has completed “medication competency” and workplace first aid training. [65] The wife worked in roles supporting the [NAME_10]. Settlement in, and contribution to, New Zealand [66] The appellant and his family spent more than two years in New Zealand, between January 2023 and July 2025. While here, their principal contribution to New Zealand appears to have been through the care that they provided to the mother-in-law. However, it is evident that they also built other connections here, through both their community involvement and their employment, particularly the appellant’s employment. [67] Letters from various members of the [NAME_11], the appellant’s family and his former colleagues in New Zealand write in support of his appeal and describe his standing as a member and leader of his extended family and community, and of his reputation as a colleague. He is consistently described as a hardworking, thoughtful and principled individual who is an active participant in both church and community activities and who has built lasting relationships. The Tribunal is left in no doubt that his supporters overwhelmingly consider that he, and his wife and children, would make a positive contribution to New Zealand.

14 [68] While in New Zealand, the appellant and his wife held the right to work for one year. From May 2024 to May 2025, he was employed in a recruitment agency that supplied staff to other companies. In November 2024, the wife began casual employment as a packer and general process assistant. [69] The recruitment agency offered the appellant a role as a mental health support worker in April 2025 but, according to a letter (19 May 2025) from its human resources (HR) manager to Immigration New Zealand, ran into issues supporting the appellant to apply for an accredited employer work visa. It seems they had not finalised their assessment of local candidates before the appellant’s work visa expired and only obtained a job token (which would allow them to employ someone under the accredited employer instructions) after he held an interim visa and was ineligible to apply for a further visa. [70] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant previously held an offer of employment and sought to obtain an accredited employer work visa. It also acknowledges that the appellant was not responsible for any delays in his employer obtaining the right to employ migrants under the accredited employer instructions. Nevertheless, the appellant’s inability to satisfy the requirements of temporary visa instructions is not, of itself, a special circumstance. In this regard, the Tribunal notes that the appellant was declined an accredited employer visa while offshore, despite a job token being available for his role with the recruitment agency. [71] The recruitment agency HR manager makes clear that the appellant was a highly valued team member who they did not want to lose. They considered that the appellant “thrived” in his role and was an asset to the agency. The agency struggled to attract candidates of the appellant’s calibre who intended to remain with it on a long-term basis. [72] It is evident that the [COMPANY_12] in which the appellant was placed by the recruitment agency shares the same high opinion of him. The group’s mental health and aged care general manager writes of her ongoing support for the appellant. She explains that a series of misunderstandings led to him being required to leave New Zealand and describes him as a reliable and dependable worker, with a natural ability to calm dangerous patients, and who works well as part of a team and is respectful of both his colleagues and clients. While working for the [COMPANY_12], the appellant had been a support worker, cleaner and a health care assistant and the general manager writes that she has “no hesitation”

15 in stating that he would contribute positively to New Zealand. Further, she is “sure we could find a role for him … if we knew he was available”. [73] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant and his family have made connections to their community while in New Zealand, commensurate to the time they spent here. It also accepts that the appellant, in particular, was a valued employee and that his skills and work ethic are such that the [COMPANY_12] (and, it seems likely, the recruitment agency) would employ him in the future, if he was able to work in New Zealand, notwithstanding that he does not currently have an offer of employment. [74] However, it is not uncommon for temporary migrants to be valued by their employers. In this respect, the evidence before the Tribunal does not demonstrate that either the appellant’s or his family members’ contribution to New Zealand is out of the ordinary for migrants who hold or have held temporary visas and wish to remain here on a permanent basis. Health and character requirements [75] Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellants meet the requirements of health instructions. It was also satisfied that the husband and the wife met the requirements of character instructions. Best interests of the children [76] The Tribunal has an obligation to have regard to the best interests of any children affected by the outcome of the appeal, under Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of the child(ren) are a primary consideration and must be afforded substantial weight; [NAME_13] v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 at [49]. The best interests of the child(ren) are not the paramount consideration, as per Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [24] per Tipping J. [77] The children are aged 14, 12 and 4 years old. The older two children were born in Fiji and are now Fijian (as well as Tuvaluan) citizens. The younger son was born in Tuvalu but has spent much of his short life outside Tuvalu, in New Zealand and, more recently, Fiji. In Fiji, the children live with their parents, moving between relatives’ homes since leaving their rental home. The children’s maternal grandmother has also spent time living with them in Fiji, although she is currently in New Zealand.

16 [78] The evidence before the Tribunal demonstrates that the children’s parents are dedicated to their care and best interests. In a letter to the Tribunal, the [NAME_14] described him as a devoted father, whose focus is on “creating a secure and promising future for his family”. The [NAME_14] writes that the appellant’s decision-making centres on his children’s religious, education and moral wellbeing and that his conduct reflects his personal values and commitment to setting an example for others. Another [NAME_14], in her letter to the Tribunal, describes the appellant as a “family man … who works hard to provide for his children and beloved wife”. [79] The daughter writes that she misses her friends in New Zealand as well as her family members here. She wants to reunite with her grandmother (the [NAME_5]) and friends in New Zealand. It is evident that she is close to her grandmother and valued the time she spent in New Zealand with her. [80] It is evident that the family’s move to Fiji and their current financial situation has disrupted the older children’s education. The appellant explains that children are not permitted to begin school at any time during the school year in Fiji. As such, although the daughter was able to start school in Term 3, 2025, her brother (aged 12 years) was not able to begin school in Fiji until Term 1, 2026. This was both because he was not permitted to enrol and because international school fees were too expensive for his parents. [81] In 2026, both the older children attend school as Fijian citizens. The younger son attends preschool two or three days most weeks. He is not a Fijian citizen, and his parents’ finances are presently insufficient to cover the weekly FJD50 fee. [82] A 2024 New Zealand school report for the daughter records that she was making excellent progress in reading and mathematics and positive progress in writing. She had settled into her class well and formed strong friendships and was described as hardworking, determined and proactive. Term 1 and 2 2025 New Zealand school reports record that, in her first year of high school, the daughter was making good progress in most of her subjects, although she was achieving at a foundational level in mathematics and “beginning” in physical education. The daughter’s educational achievements in New Zealand came despite a period in which she (and her brother) was not enrolled at school when she first moved to New Zealand.

17 [83] In contrast, a 2025 Fijian school report for the daughter shows that, while she has done “exceptionally well” in English, she has struggled with her other subjects. The daughter writes that lessons are taught “mostly” in the Fijian language, which hampers her ability to catch up or understand and that her teachers are very strict, which she does not enjoy. She had understood her English-speaking teachers in New Zealand and found their style of teaching to suit her. She wishes to return to school in New Zealand, where she can pass “with good marks and graduate … to make my parents proud”. [84] There is no Fijian school report for the older son. However, the appellant writes that, during a conversation with the older son’s teacher, he was informed that the son is “academically weak” although trying his best. In this regard, the appellant considers the [NAME_15] a better fit for the son because, where Fiji focuses solely on academic performance, New Zealand offers practical pathways for children whose strengths lie outside academia. [85] A letter of reference from the son’s former teacher in New Zealand records that the son was a quiet, kind and caring student. While he enjoyed all areas of learning, he thrived in art and had a strong interest in drawing. The letter records that he also enjoyed being challenged in maths and that he was able to pick up new concepts quickly. Twice-weekly sessions with an English as a Second Language teacher assisted him in his English language skills, which in turn built up his confidence and class participation. [86] [NAME_8] writes that she and her husband are increasingly aware of the impact of climate change on Tuvalu and that she considers a return to Tuvalu will endanger her children’s future. In Tuvalu, the children experienced skin ailments due to drought. In contrast, in New Zealand, the children enjoyed access to clean water, which positively impacted their health, and access to educational resources that are not available in Tuvalu. [87] The Tribunal’s jurisprudence has recognised that country conditions in Tuvalu are generally challenging, including due to climate change (see, for example, Limoni [2023] NZIPT 505874 at [25]–[35], in which the Tribunal’s assessment traversed information on the general environment in Tuvalu, population changes, the agricultural environment, prevailing social issues, the impact of climate change, food scarcity and potable water sources, sanitation challenges, poverty levels, housing availability and employment levels). In terms of education, the Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport states that there are 10 primary schools in Tuvalu—one on every main island—and two secondary

18 schools (Tuvalu Ministry of Education, Youth and Sport Schools at www.meys.govt.tv). [88] The Tribunal accepts that the children’s parents wish for them to grow up in New Zealand and access the opportunities available here. It also accepts that the children’s employment and education opportunities will be more limited in Tuvalu than in New Zealand. [89] At this time, the Tribunal is satisfied that the children’s best interests are not being served by their time in Fiji, given the disruption to the older children’s education and the ongoing financial instability and uncertainty the family is experiencing there. [90] However, the Tribunal is not satisfied that the children’s best interests require a grant of residence in New Zealand. Rather, the younger son’s best interests will be met by remaining in the stable care of his parents, wherever they reside. The older children’s best interests will be served by returning to either Tuvalu, where they will be familiar with the language, culture and education system or New Zealand, where they had more recently settled and where the older children were adjusting well to the educational environment and opportunities. In either case, the care and support of their parents, which they will have in both Tuvalu and New Zealand, will be instrumental to their ongoing wellbeing. Importantly, either option will remove the children from the limbo which they are experiencing in Fiji. Further, the two older children are Fijian citizens and it will, as adults, be open to them to build their lives there. Discussion on special circumstances [91] The appellant and his family spent approximately two and a half years in New Zealand between January 2023 and July 2025. They have been in Fiji since July 2025. The family have a familial nexus to both New Zealand and Tuvalu, and desire to live in New Zealand to care for the [NAME_5]. [92] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant and his wife are skilled individuals. It also acknowledged that they felt settled during their time in New Zealand, that the appellant, in particular, was valued in his employment, and that they had strong community connections here. However, neither the appellant nor his wife have not demonstrated that their level of settlement or contribution to New Zealand was out of the ordinary for temporary migrants who wish to make New Zealand their home on a permanent basis. The appellant’s inability to obtain

19 an accredited employer work visa, while undoubtedly disappointing, is not, of itself a special circumstance. [93] The [NAME_5] is aging and requires support. As a [NAME_6], she has the right to access state support. She also has the support of one of her daughters (a [NAME_6]) and her son (who is in New Zealand on a temporary visa), and extended family. While she may prefer to live with the appellant, his wife and their children, she does not have the right, at law, to be cared for by them, because they do not have the right to remain in New Zealand permanently. However, it is open to her to travel to Tuvalu to visit or to live with them there. [94] The Tribunal has found that the appellant’s children’s best interests do not necessitate a grant of residence. While their best interests are not currently being met in Fiji, they have the care and support of their parents, and the Tribunal has found that their best interests can be met in either Tuvalu, where they will be returning to a familiar environment, or New Zealand. The older children have the option of relocating to Fiji in the future, if they so choose. Conclusion on special circumstances [95] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant, his wife and their children, the Tribunal finds that, considered both individually and cumulatively, they do not have special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [96] 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. [97] The appeal is unsuccessful.

20 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME_1] Member Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [98] 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 his family members. “[NAME_1]” [NAME_1] Member