
Immigration & Protection judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals, with a plain-English summary, the legal holding and frequently asked questions.
A person appealed a decision by a person Zealand denying their application for residency based on the Skilled Migrant category, arguing they had special circumstances despite not meeting the required a person proficiency level. However, the Tribunal found that the claimant did not meet the necessary language requirements and dismissed the appeal.
In this case, an individual appealed against a decision denying them refugee and a person status in New Zealand. The Immigration & Protection Tribunal dismissed the appeal, finding that the claim was manifestly unfounded due to insufficient evidence of a real risk of persecution or serious harm in their home country.
A person appealed to avoid being deported from New Zealand on humanitarian grounds but was unsuccessful. The Tribunal found that while conditions were difficult in their home country, there were no exceptional circumstances making deportation unjust or unduly harsh.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal dismissed an appeal by a visa holder who provided false documentation in support of their visa applications. Despite arguing that deportation would be unjust due to humanitarian factors such as employment and family ties, the Tribunal found no exceptional humanitarian circumstances warranting relief from deportation.
a person seeking refugee status in New Zealand lost their case at the Immigration & Protection Tribunal because they could not prove a real chance of being persecuted or harmed, nor show that moving within Nepal would be unsafe. The court found no need for an oral hearing and dismissed the appeal based on existing evidence.
a person seeking refuge in New Zealand must prove they face real danger if returned home. In this case, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal rejected an appeal for refugee status because there wasn't enough proof that returning would put them at risk of severe harm due to political activities or debt.
In this case, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal ruled that it is unjust to deport someone who has strong family connections and community ties in New Zealand. The decision was based on humanitarian grounds, considering the risk of harm if returned to a person Lanka.
In this case, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal rejected the claimant's appeal against deportation based on humanitarian grounds. The Tribunal determined that the claimant did not face exceptional circumstances in India and therefore it would not be unjust or unduly harsh to deport them.
a person seeking refugee status in New Zealand must provide credible evidence that they face a real threat of serious harm if returned home. In this case, the Immigration & Protection Tribunal dismissed the claimant's appeal because their story was not found to be believable and did not meet the required threshold.
A woman won her case in the Immigration & Protection Tribunal. She was facing deportation but the Tribunal allowed her appeal because she experienced family violence and her young daughter's best interests would be harmed if they returned home.
In this case, an individual appealed a decision to deny them refugee status in New Zealand. The Immigration & Protection Tribunal found that the appellant faced no significant threat of persecution or serious harm if they returned to India and that such risks could be avoided through internal relocation within their home country.
An elderly woman who had been living unlawfully in New Zealand for over 16 years won her humanitarian appeal against deportation. The Tribunal found that her strong familial ties to New Zealand, her daughter's inability to sponsor her due to income requirements, and her serious health conditions made it unjust and unduly harsh to deport her.