Immigration Appeal Dismissed: No Exceptional Humanitarian Circumstances Found

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507521 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 29 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 26-year-old citizen of India, against his liability for deportation, which arose when his application for reconsideration of a decision to decline his application for a further temporary visa was declined. THE ISSUE [2] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant’s circumstances, including his settlement in New Zealand and his family’s circumstances in India, meet the statutory test of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional humanitarian circumstances in the appellant’s case. His appeal is declined.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in India, where his parents remain living. His older sister is currently in New Zealand as the holder of a temporary visa, having arrived here on 26 August 2023. [5] The appellant first arrived in New Zealand as the holder of a six-month visitor visa on 3 August 2023. [6] The appellant then held an interim visa before a six-month supplementary seasonal employment work visa was granted in March 2024. From September 2024, he held a student visa to undertake English language studies, valid until April 2025. [7] The appellant made a subsequent application for a student visa to undertake English language studies in April 2025. He was granted an interim visa valid until 3 October 2025. On 12 September 2025, the appellant’s application for a student visa was declined because he did not meet the character requirements of instructions. Immigration New Zealand found that he had provided false and misleading information relating to details of his work experience in his initial visitor visa application. [8] The appellant made a request to have the decline of his student visa application reconsidered on 26 September 2025. Immigration New Zealand considered this request but declined to change its decision on his student visa application on 28 October 2025. [9] The appellant became unlawfully present in New Zealand on 30 October 2025 after his application for reconsideration of a decision to decline his application for a further temporary visa was declined. [10] On 3 December 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal with the Tribunal. STATUTORY GROUNDS [11] The grounds for determining a humanitarian appeal are set out in section 207 of the Act: (1) The Tribunal must allow an appeal against liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds only where it is satisfied that—

3 (a) there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and (b) it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. [12] The Supreme Court stated that three ingredients had to be established in the first limb of section 47(3) of the former Immigration Act 1987, the almost identical predecessor to section 207(1): (i) exceptional circumstances; (ii) of a humanitarian nature; (iii) that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the person to be removed from New Zealand: Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [34]. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] The appellant’s case is set out in counsel’s submissions (21 January 2026) and can be summarised as follows: (a) Immigration New Zealand took an undue length of time to process the appellant’s student visa application, during which time the appellant was able to enrol and continue study. The decline of his application has created hardship for the appellant, who is not able to recover the financial investment he made in his studies. He has completed half of his Level 4 programme and is committed to completing this qualification. Requiring him to leave would render his studies to date futile and result in irreversible educational and financial loss. (b) The appellant has worked hard to structure his life, financial and future around his lawful stay in New Zealand. He is the sole financial provider for his family in India, which depend heavily on his being able to complete his education. If he has to depart, this will cause financial and emotional hardship to his family members. His father is suffering from mental health difficulties, which cause strain on the family that would be exacerbated by the appellant not being able to remain in New Zealand to provide financial security to his family. (c) The appellant has not remained connected to the [NAME] while in New Zealand. Requiring him to leave New Zealand would place him at a significant disadvantage.

4 (d) The appellant’s sister is in New Zealand, and they provide mutual care and support for each other. The appellant has struggled with his own mental health since the decline of his student visa. He is remorseful about the documentation submitted with his visitor visa application, which was prepared by an agent, and deeply regrets the situation. He is otherwise of good character and is a diligent student. (e) It would not be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain in New Zealand to finish his studies. Materials and Documents [14] In support of the appellant’s appeal, the representative provides the following documents: (a) a statement (20 January 2026) from the appellant explaining his circumstances; (b) a letter (12 January 2026) from the appellant’s [NAME] outlining his depression as a result of his immigration difficulties; (c) letters (August 2025, September 2025 and January 2026) from the [NAME] the appellant attended and his course teacher, along with an academic progress report (24 September 2025) for the appellant; (d) copies of medical records (October 2025 to January 2026) for the [NAME] and a letter (January 2026) from the manager of the treatment facility he attends; and (e) letters (variously dated January 2026) from the appellant’s sister, from his [NAME], and from members of the [NAME], friends, employer and colleagues, confirming their support for the appellant. ASSESSMENT [15] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by the appellant. It has also considered the appellant’s Immigration New Zealand file

5 in relation to his temporary visa applications, and its relevant electronic records for him and his family members. [16] The Tribunal notes the appellant’s submissions that Immigration New Zealand acted unfairly and procedurally incorrectly in taking so long to process his student visa application, causing him hardship. However, the Tribunal does not have jurisdiction on a humanitarian appeal against deportation liability to review, consider the merits of, or overturn visa decisions by Immigration New Zealand. This was affirmed by the High Court in [NAME] v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2017] NZHC 2977, [2018] NZAR 265 at [13] and [19]. [17] Where an appellant asserts that deportation liability or the decline of a temporary visa is grounded upon an error or wrong decision by Immigration New Zealand, the proper forum for disputing that error or decision is not the Tribunal by way of an appeal on humanitarian grounds but the High Court, by way of judicial review. The Tribunal’s focus must be on the consequences or effects of deportation and whether these are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [18] Exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature “must be well outside the normal run of circumstances” and, while they do not need to be unique or very rare, they do have to be “truly an exception rather than the rule”: [APPELLANT] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. The appellant’s circumstances in New Zealand [19] The appellant has lived in New Zealand for just over two-and-a-half years. He has worked in the [NAME] at times while here and has completed some of a Level 4 course in English language studies. [20] The appellant explains on appeal that he would like a few more months on a student visa to be able to finish his studies. He says that he worked hard on the course and maintained full attendance, which enabled him to pass five of the eleven assessments. The academic information presented on appeal indicates that he had good support from his educational institute and that, while he was some way off completing his qualification, he felt he had learned a lot and wanted to attempt to complete it if permitted to re-enrol.

6 [21] That the appellant has been stressed and depressed about his situation is confirmed by his [NAME], although there is nothing in the [NAME]’s letter to indicate that the appellant required any treatment to assist him to cope. The appellant worries that he will not have the resources to continue his education in India or rebuild his career there, which would cause him considerable distress. It is acknowledged that the appellant would like to complete the qualification he has started, and that returning to India without having completed his qualification will be upsetting and distressing for the appellant. However, this, in itself, is not a circumstance that is unusual; many temporary migrants face having to depart New Zealand without having been able to accomplish what they had hoped to, which causes them distress. [22] The appellant’s sister has lived in New Zealand with her husband since shortly after the appellant arrived in August 2023. She has held successive student visas; her most recent application for a student visa was made on 16 April 2026 and is still to be determined by Immigration New Zealand. It is accepted that she and the appellant have provided each other with mutual support while in New Zealand, that the appellant has strongly valued that support and worries about being separated from her. However, it is noted that, as the holder of a temporary visa, the sister does not have a permanent right to remain in New Zealand. [23] The appellant’s employer and his friends have written in support of him on appeal, attesting to his good character and his hard-working nature. It is accepted that the appellant has settled here and made friends and other connections through his studies, employment and the [NAME] to which he has contributed, including the [NAME]. However, there is nothing to indicate that his level of settlement or his circumstances in New Zealand are well outside the normal run of circumstances in temporary migrants. The appellant’s circumstances in India [24] The appellant’s family nexus remains to India, where his parents reside and where his sister’s nexus also is given her temporary visa status in New Zealand. [25] Information submitted with his temporary visa applications indicates that the appellant holds a Bachelor of Arts degree granted by an [COMPANY] in 2018. The information previously submitted to Immigration New Zealand also indicates that the [NAME] owns land in India and the appellant ran a small

7 company in the dairy farming industry in India between 2020 and 2023, so he has some work experience in India and previously had a self-employed source of income. [26] The appellant has been absent from India for a relatively brief period. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant could not return to India and draw upon his previous contacts and experience to again find employment and resume the life he previously had there. It is not argued that his parents would be unable to accommodate him while he gets resettled. [27] It is submitted that the appellant has been financially supporting his parents from New Zealand; however, no evidence of remittances that he has made has been provided. The Tribunal notes that he has been able to work only to a limited degree here. Further, information submitted with his visitor visa application indicates that his parents had assets and annual income with which to support his visit to New Zealand. It is therefore not established that his family would suffer financial hardship should he return there. [28] Information on appeal indicates that the [NAME] presently suffers from an unspecified mental health difficulty, for which he takes medication and attends a [COMPANY] for treatment. The appellant’s sister says that their father needs ongoing support and the appellant is the only one in the family who is able to provide consistent help and care for the father. The appellant states that the doctor has advised that the father should not receive stressful or shocking news. Counsel states that the stability of treatment and financial certainty are critical to the father’s ongoing treatment and recovery, for which the appellant bears the burden. However, given the limited degree to which the appellant has been able to work in New Zealand, and the lack of evidence to establish that he regularly sends money to financially support his father’s treatment, it is not established that the appellant’s return to India would compromise his father’s well-being. He and his family will be able to makes plans about how to best break the news of the appellant’s return to the father so as not to unduly stress him. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [29] The appellant has lived in New Zealand for just over two-and-a-half years. He has studied and worked here briefly and has been a part of the [NAME] in New Zealand. The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has become settled here, made friends, and that he hoped to be able to remain here to

8 complete his qualification. However, while acknowledging the disappointment and distress that he will no doubt feel as a result of his situation, there is nothing about his level of settlement here that is well outside the normal run of circumstances in migrants who have lived in New Zealand for relatively brief periods. [30] The appellant has lived most of his life in India and retains a strong family nexus there through his parents and his sister. A return to India will be a return to a country with which he remains familiar and retains close cultural and family ties. He is able to return to his parents’ house and land to live with them while he gets re-established. He has an Indian qualification and previous experience of being self-employed there. It is not established that the appellant could not once again find employment or self-employment there to support his family. [31] The Tribunal finds that the appellant has not established that exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature arise in his case. DETERMINATION [32] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in terms of the statutory test. [33] An appeal must fail if there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. The Tribunal’s finding that there are none in this case makes it unnecessary to consider either the “unjust or unduly harsh” or “public interest” stages of the inquiry under the statutory test. [34] The appellant has failed to meet the requirements of section 207(1) of the Act and his appeal is declined. No Exercise of Discretion to Reduce or Remove Period of Prohibited Entry Under Deportation Order (Section 215) or to Delay Deportation or Grant a Temporary Visa (Section 216) [35] Having declined the appeal, the Tribunal turns its mind to: (a) its absolute discretion under section 215(1) of the Act to order the reduction or removal of any period of prohibition on re-entry to New Zealand that might otherwise apply under section 179; and

9 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member (b) its discretion under section 216(1), to delay deportation or order the grant of a temporary visa where it considers it necessary to enable the appellant to remain in New Zealand for the purposes of getting his affairs in order. [36] The appellant will not be subject to a period of prohibition on re-entry if he departs New Zealand voluntarily before the date on which he may be served with a deportation order (sections 10, 175A and 179(2) of the Act). Therefore, an order under section 215(1) of the Act is unnecessary. [37] The Tribunal has considered whether to exercise its discretion under section 216(1) of the Act, to delay deportation or order the grant of a temporary visa to the appellant for the purposes of getting his affairs in order. [38] The High Court has held that the phrase “getting affairs in order” means “organising those personal, legal or financial matters that, by reason of personal need or obligation (legal or moral) must be attended to so that deportation will not leave the [NAME], or those associated with him or her, disadvantaged”; see Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v [APPELLANT] [2018] NZHC 272, [2018] NZAR 434 at [20]. [39] The Tribunal is not satisfied that remaining in New Zealand to complete his studies falls within the scope of “getting affairs in order” in the appellant’s case. He has a considerable part of his studies to complete, and it has not been demonstrated that a failure to complete his Level 4 qualification would leave him disadvantaged in the sense intended by the High Court. [40] Neither order is made. [41] The appeal is declined in the above terms. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member