
Immigration & Protection judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal ruled in favour of two teenagers who were denied residence visas because their adoptions by a a person were not recognised. The Tribunal determined that the overseas adoption orders had the same effect as New Zealand adoption orders, allowing the teenagers to reunite with their a person.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal dismissed a humanitarian appeal by an appellant seeking relief from deportation, finding that his circumstances do not qualify as exceptional or humanitarian. The Tribunal considered threats made against him in Nepal and economic conditions but concluded they were insufficient to prevent deportation under New Zealand law.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal upheld a decision by a person Zealand to refuse a skilled migrant visa. The claimant's employment was deemed insufficiently aligned with the nominated occupation of a person or a person Manager, as per ANZSCO criteria.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal rejected an appeal by someone who was involved in a person' protests in India, claiming they faced persecution due to their political activities. The Tribunal found that the appellant did not provide enough evidence to prove a real risk of being persecuted or harmed if returned to India.
Immigration New Zealand made a mistake when assessing someone's application for a residence visa. They didn't consider all the information available, leading to an incorrect decision. The Tribunal ordered Immigration New Zealand to reassess the application properly.
In this case, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal upheld Immigration New Zealand's rejection of an individual’s application for residency. The rejection was based on the applicant's failure to disclose previous criminal convictions and charges involving sexual offending while their residence application was being processed.
A person's application for residency in New Zealand through their partnership with a New Zealander was denied because her partner had been involved in family violence. Despite this, the Tribunal recommended that Immigration New Zealand consider making an exception to its rules based on the claimant’s special circumstances.
An a person Filipino citizen applied for residency in New Zealand under the Family (Parent) category but was rejected because her son and daughter-in-law did not meet income requirements. The Tribunal agreed with the rejection but recommended an exception due to unique family circumstances, including a a person's developmental needs.
The claimant applied for residence in New Zealand with her family. Her application was declined because her husband has end-stage kidney disease requiring ongoing dialysis treatment. The Tribunal found that the family's situation is unique and recommended the Minister of Immigration consider granting an exception based on these special circumstances.
The claimant's application for residence under the Family (a person Child) category was declined because she was not included in her mother’s a person registration. However, the Tribunal found that special circumstances exist due to the separation from her mother and lack of alternative pathways, recommending an exception.
A person appealed against Immigration New Zealand's refusal of their residence application due to their husband's involvement in multiple previous successful applications. Despite this, the Tribunal found that the marriage was genuine and stable, with compelling reasons for separation, leading them to recommend an exception to the rules.
The claimant, a Maldivian citizen and dependent child of someone who was granted residency in New Zealand, appealed Immigration New Zealand's refusal of her own application for residence due to not meeting financial dependency requirements. Although the Tribunal confirmed the decision, it recommended an exception to the instructions based on special circumstances.
A person appealed an immigration decision refusing their application for a parent retirement visa, but the Immigration and Protection Tribunal upheld the refusal. They determined no special circumstances existed to warrant an exception to the rules.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal allowed an exception to residence instructions despite initially rejecting a family’s application due to lack of eligible supporting partner. The decision recognised special circumstances, including long-term settlement and family ties in New Zealand.
A person’s residence application in New Zealand was initially denied because they were not registered as a a person at the time of applying. After obtaining the necessary registration later, the claimant appealed to have their case reconsidered. The Tribunal agreed that this new registration is significant and ordered Immigration New Zealand to reassess the application.
The claimant applied for residence in New Zealand but was denied because their job didn't fit the specified occupational requirements. They appealed, but the Tribunal agreed with Immigration New Zealand's assessment and upheld the rejection of the application.
In this case, the Tribunal upheld Immigration New Zealand’s initial rejection of a residence application for individuals affected by family violence. However, it recommended that the Minister consider granting an exception based on the applicant's deep ties to the a person community and substantial contributions through employment and caring roles.
A person’s residence application was denied because their a person partner had supported previous successful applications, violating immigration rules. Despite this, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal suggested that the Minister of Immigration consider a special case for granting residency based on unique personal and family ties.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal upheld Immigration New Zealand's decision to deny a residence visa application for an elderly Vietnamese couple due to concerns about their son’s acceptability as a a person. The Tribunal found that the financial irregularities and exploitation warning against the son were valid reasons for denying the application.