Immigration Appeal: Special Circumstances Warrant Exception Recommendation

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207495 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 25 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a [NAME] whose application for residence under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined [NAME] residence application because it was not satisfied that she met the requirement under instructions to be totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support. The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application on that basis. [3] The [NAME] issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances, arising from her nexus to New Zealand, including her contribution to the [COMPANY], her and her immediate family members’ settlement in New Zealand and the circumstances of how she came to fail instructions, such that warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to instructions.

2 [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant was born in the Maldives in 2001. She is the oldest of three children born to her parents. Her siblings are aged 21- and 11-years-old. [6] In January 2010, the appellant and her family moved to New Zealand where her mother was studying in a master’s programme. Upon completion of the programme, the family returned to the Maldives in December 2012. [7] In May 2018, the appellant and her family returned to New Zealand so that her mother could begin her PhD studies. [8] The appellant completed her [NAME] 13 studies and enrolled as an international student in a Bachelor of Social Science programme at a [COMPANY] where she studied psychology. She and her mother both graduated from their university programmes in December 2023. [9] In December 2023, the [COMPANY] where the appellant was casually employed, offered her a full-time fixed term position for 12 months (covering maternity leave) starting January 2024 as a service lead. In February 2024, she was granted a three-[NAME] post-study work visa. The mother’s residence application [10] In April 2024, Immigration New Zealand issued [NAME] mother an invitation to apply for residence. She made a residence application under the Skilled Residence (Skilled Migrant) category of instructions in July 2024, on the basis that she held a PhD conferred by a [COMPANY] and a suitable job offer. She included the entire family in the application. [11] In September 2024, Immigration New Zealand, advised the mother that the appellant did not meet the immigration instructions for a dependent [APPELLANT] that she was totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support. A decision was made to remove the appellant from the residence application and the rest of the family was granted residence in November 2024.

3 Residence Application [12] On 27 March 2025, the appellant made an application under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category of residence instructions. In support of her application, the appellant provided a number of short, fixed-term individual employment agreements. [13] On 15 July 2025, Immigration New Zealand informed the appellant that her IRD income summary, bank statements and individual employment agreements demonstrated that she was not totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support as required by instructions F5.1.a.i and F5.1.e. [14] On 30 July 2025, counsel confirmed that no further submissions or evidence would be provided and requested that Immigration New Zealand proceed with finalising their assessment. [15] On 4 August 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant confirming that from April 2024 until March 2025 the appellant had been in full-time employment. In June 2025, the appellant was advised by her employer that her hours were being reduced to 11 hours per week. In light of this change of circumstances, the appellant was offered a final opportunity to provide evidence to demonstrate her dependency. However, counsel confirmed that there was no further comment. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [16] On 5 August 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined [NAME] application because it was not satisfied that the appellant was totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support. Between January and July 2025, the appellant held full-time fixed-term employment. Her updated fixed-term employment agreement from 28 July until December 2025 was for 11 hours per week. However, Immigration New Zealand, noted that the short period of time that the appellant had worked the reduced hours, and the lack of further information regarding [NAME] dependency meant that it was not satisfied that the appellant was either totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support.

4 STATUTORY GROUNDS [17] [NAME] 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. [18] 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. [NAME] [19] On 12 August 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. [20] Counsel submits that the appellant is well-settled in New Zealand having lived almost half her life here and where she has formed her social circles, completed her studies and developed her career. She is highly skilled, working to assist persons with disabilities. Further, her mother is a highly skilled individual whose expertise benefits the [NAME], and her father is also skilled and contributing to the economy. If she was required to leave New Zealand, it would have adverse impacts on her family and a return to the Maldives without her family or an established support network would be difficult. [21] In support of her appeal, the appellant provides the following documents: (a) Copies of the family’s birth certificates and passports. (b) [NAME] curriculum vitae, and copies of her present and past individual employment agreements. (c) Numerous support letters from [NAME] friends and colleagues (variously dated in 2025).

5 (d) The mother’s curriculum vitae, references and educational qualifications. (e) [NAME] parents’ individual employment agreements and IRD summary of earnings. (f) [NAME] and her sister’s educational awards (December 2023). (g) [NAME]’s school reports (2021−2024). (h) Country information on the situation for women in the Maldives, their labour force participation and the requirements for roles similar to [NAME] in that country. (i) Screenshots and emails (October 2024) with the family’s previous immigration advisor who represented the family in the residence application which show that the family provided [NAME] part-time and full-time employment agreement to him to submit to Immigration New Zealand. (j) Photographs of the appellant and her family between 2010 and 2012. [22] The Tribunal will consider the further information provided on appeal as necessary for its determination of whether the appellant has special circumstances in accordance with section 189(3)(b). ASSESSMENT [23] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to [NAME] residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [24] 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 [25] The application was made on 27 March 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because it was not satisfied that the appellant was totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME], as required by instructions. Relevant instructions [26] Under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category, instruction F5.1.a.i (effective 1 October 2024), a [NAME] must be totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support. Instruction F5.1.e then sets out the relevant factors Immigration New Zealand should consider when making that assessment, including whether the person has employment, an independent means of financial support, and whether they are living with parents or family members: F5.1 How do dependent children qualify for a resident visa? (01/10/2024) a. [NAME] meet [APPELLANT] if their parent(s) are eligible to support a residence class visa under the [APPELLANT] (F5.1.5) and the applicant is: i. aged 21 to 24, ○ with no [APPELLANT](ren) of their own, ○ single (see F5.5), and ○ totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] (whether their parent or not) for financial support, whether they live with them or not; or … e. When determining whether a [APPELLANT] of 21 to 24 years of age is totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] (whether their parent or not) for financial support, immigration officers must consider the whole application, taking into account all relevant factors including: ○ whether the [APPELLANT] is in paid employment, whether this is full time or part time, and its duration; ○ whether the [APPELLANT] has any other independent means of financial support; ○ whether the [APPELLANT] is living with its parents or another family member, and the extent to which other support is provided; ○ whether the [APPELLANT] is studying, and whether this is full time or part time.

7 [27] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline [NAME] application for residence was correct, for the following reasons. [28] The appellant graduated university in December 2023 and was offered a full-time fixed term position until January 2025 as a service lead at the [COMPANY] where she had been casually employed since 2021. Following the completion of the full-time fixed term contract, the appellant then continued to work casual hours until she was offered a further two-and-half month full-time fixed term position covering April to June 2025. She provided her IRD income summary from 1 April 2024 to 31 March 2025 which recorded earned wages of $57,826.58. For most of the [NAME] prior to her application, the appellant appeared to be in full-time employment. However, the appellant remained living at home with her family. Immigration New Zealand was not satisfied that the appellant was totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support. No further information was provided to respond to its concerns. [29] However, the week prior to when Immigration New Zealand made its decision in August 2025, the appellant had started on a fixed-term contract of 11 hours per week. Immigration New Zealand acknowledged that [NAME] new contract was a decrease not only in hours but also in the hourly wage being paid, which, the appellant had explained, was as a result of funding constraints by the organisation. In an abundance of fairness, it sought further evidence of [NAME] dependence on an [NAME]. However, none was forthcoming, and Immigration New Zealand’s concerns remained outstanding. [30] Therefore, on the evidence before it, the Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand was entitled to conclude that the appellant was not totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support (F5.1.a.iii) and was therefore correct to decline her application for residence as a dependent [APPELLANT]. Conclusion on correctness [31] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision was correct and that the appellant had not provided sufficient evidence to demonstrate that she was totally or substantially reliant on an [NAME] for financial support, as per F5.1.

8 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. [34] 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 [NAME]. [NAME] circumstances [35] The appellant is a 24-[NAME]-old single woman from the Maldives. She first arrived in New Zealand as an eight-[NAME]-old and spent three years here attending primary school. She then returned as a 16-[NAME]-old in 2018 and has not left. [36] Since returning, the appellant completed the last two years of [COMPANY] and then entered university with a [COMPANY] intended to attract high achieving international students who attended [COMPANY] in New Zealand to remain to attend university. She completed her degree in Social Sciences in 2023, majoring in Psychology. [37] She currently holds a three-[NAME] post-study work visa valid until February 2027. [NAME] settlement in and contribution to New Zealand [38] The appellant has spent 11 of the last 14 years in New Zealand and completed much of her education in this country. She has become accustomed to the New Zealand way of life and, her sister writes, no longer considers the Maldives a place which aligns with her values. Multiple letters provided on appeal from her friends demonstrate that she has developed long and enduring connections and friendships during the time she has lived here.

9 [39] In contrast, the Maldives is a small Muslim nation made up of islands in the Indian Ocean, with an economy heavily reliant on tourism and fisheries sectors. Counsel submits that returning without her family to a country with tight-knit cultural and familial networks will put the appellant a challenging position to navigate. The country information provided suggests that the disparity of women’s participation in the national formal workforce is a result of varied factors including the prevalence of sexual harassment and gender discrimination as society continues to hold strong patriarchal norms, further limiting young women’s ability to participate in the workforce. [40] While still a student in New Zealand, the appellant began as a part-time volunteer in 2021 at the [COMPANY] where she is currently employed. Following her graduation, the organisation offered her a fixed-term contract covering maternity leave, and on completion of that contract the appellant held short fixed-term and casual contracts for a number of different roles including support worker, community facilitator and service lead. As of January 2026, the appellant holds full-time employment as an assistant team manager with an annual salary of $64,000. [41] The appellant submitted over 20 letters of support from the parents of her clients who have all been diagnosed with autism spectrum disorder. The letters recount the different ways the appellant has been able to connect with the children and adolescents, creating a deep bond, providing them acceptance not found elsewhere and helping them build confidence and social skills. One parent describes in a letter (9 October 2025) how her teenager was lonely, self-harming and suicidal and the appellant made her feel “seen, known and valued” resulting in transformation of the [APPELLANT]. Numerous parents specifically record the difference the appellant has made in their lives. While each letter recounts the profound individual impact the appellant has had on the [APPELLANT] and their family through her work, it is clear from the letters that the appellant is in a role which suits her skills and personality. The support letters from colleagues mirror the sentiments expressed by her clients’ families, recounting [NAME] dedication, consistency, skill and compassion for both her colleagues and the children they serve. [42] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has spent the majority of her formative years in New Zealand. Through these 11 years, she has become familiar and comfortable with the New Zealand way of life is very well-settled, with established friendship networks. She has achieved academically and has been

10 able to establish herself in a career, progressing to a junior managerial position. Through her employment, she is currently making a valuable contribution in supporting vulnerable people. [NAME] family [43] The appellant continues to live with her parents and two younger sisters, aged 21- and 11-years-old. The family is well-settled in New Zealand, having originally come here for the mother’s tertiary studies in 2008 for three years, and returning in 2018 for her to complete PhD studies. The family have lived in the same part of New Zealand for the last eight years and purchased a home in 2025. Her parents’ letter (undated) to the Tribunal recalls how the family’s close bond has provided the appellant with a sense of belonging and emotional security. They recount that while she turns to her family for comfort, support and guidance, as the eldest daughter, her presence also supports her younger sisters serving as their role model, and provides stability for her parents as well, stepping in when they are away or busy. The appellant is an integral part of the family, and her departure would leave “a painful emptiness in their lives”. [44] [NAME] 21-[NAME]-old sister is currently studying at a [COMPANY]. She recounts in her letter to the Tribunal, the different ways the appellant has been a kind and generous elder sister, helping shape her into the young woman she is today. The sister has followed in [NAME] footsteps volunteering two hours a week at the [COMPANY] where the appellant works, as well as at the [NAME]. [45] [NAME] [NAME] sister is 11 years old and at primary school. 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 [APPELLANT]. [NAME] has always lived with the appellant and the rest of her family as a family unit. The sister writes in a letter to the Tribunal that she hopes the appellant can always live with her and her family. While acknowledging that the appellant plays an important role in the sister’s life, nothing before the Tribunal indicates that the sister’s best interests require a grant of residence to the appellant. [46] [NAME] father has been in the same role as a process operator since 2020 and serves as a health and safety representative. His employer states

11 in a letter (14 October 2025) that it would be difficult to find a replacement with the father’s operating and process experience. [47] The mother is a teacher and researcher on disability and inclusion studies working at a [COMPANY]. She completed her PhD there in December 2023 and was then awarded post-doctoral fellowships two years in a row. A reference letter was provided from the [NAME] who supervised both her master’s and PhD theses who praises her “exceptional scholarship”. [48] The mother has continued her research at the university as a research assistant to identify and promote inclusive and effective teaching strategies in a core subject which is intended to inform national policy and contribute to the realisation of the Ministry of Education’s objectives of inclusive and equitable education. In her role as a post-doctoral fellow, she has taken on greater leadership roles within the undergraduate and postgraduate courses and is highly valued in the programme. [49] The Tribunal accepts that the mother’s role in the university, both in educating future teachers as well as her ongoing research in inclusion and disability contributes to New Zealand’s education and disability sectors and that the family, as residents, are well-settled in New Zealand. The appellant is now 24 years old, and a capable and working [NAME]. However, she still lives with her family and together they form a functional and stable family unit. Reason for failing to meet instructions [50] The evidence indicates that prior to early 2024, the appellant had been financially reliant on her parents: she lived with them while she studied full-time at [COMPANY] and then at university. However, after graduating in December 2023 and being offered a role, the appellant began full-time employment. [51] Just a few months later, in April 2024, [NAME] mother was able to apply for residence, having received a job offer (which alongside her PhD, qualified her for residence under the [NAME]). In a somewhat unfortunate confluence of timing and events, [NAME] own success in gaining employment after graduation rendered her ineligible to be included in her mother’s residence application because in taking up that full-time employment, the

12 appellant could no longer demonstrate that she met the requirements of a dependent [APPELLANT] under instructions. [52] Further, appellant also does not appear to have a clear pathway to remain in New Zealand with her current employment after her current visa expires in February 2027. Her employer is not an [NAME] and therefore she would need to find a new employer if she were to apply for an [NAME] work visa. Employment with an [NAME] would also be required for [NAME], as would being paid 1.5 times the median wage. While the [NAME] has a pathway to residence, the appellant is no longer in a support worker role. As of January 2026, the appellant has taken an assistant managerial role where she mentors community facilitators working with clients in supported living. Therefore, despite already contributing to a sector which faces workplace shortages at an organisation where she has been building skills and knowledge, the appellant does not appear to have an avenue to remain in New Zealand. Health and character requirements [53] Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant met the health and character requirements for residence. She provided a clear police certificate from the Maldives (2 September 2024) and has not returned since then. The Tribunal obtained a clear Ministry of Justice conviction history check (22 May 2026). Discussion on special circumstances [54] The appellant is in a somewhat unusual situation. As a [NAME], she has spent her teen and young [NAME] years here in New Zealand. Throughout these years, she has developed a strong network of friends and continues to maintain an important role within her family and as a role model for her two sisters. Despite being 24 years old, she lives with her family who remain a close-knit unit. [55] [NAME] mother is a highly qualified and skilled educator and researcher. On this basis she and the other family members were granted residence. The appellant graduated at the same time and was immediately offered a full-time role at a [NAME] where she had initially volunteered and then been employed since 2021. Her enthusiasm to begin a

13 career in a role which she is wellsuited for meant that she was not able to demonstrate that she was totally or substantially financially reliant on an [NAME]. [56] While working in the [COMPANY], the appellant has succeeded in her role and progressed to a junior management position where she mentors and supervises community facilitators working in the organisation’s supported living team. She has been valued in her previous roles both by the children and families whose lives she has impacted, as well as by her colleagues and supervisors. However, a pathway to residence is uncertain and would require the appellant to change employers and either return to a support worker role or find a role at the median wage with an [NAME], disrupting the contribution she is already making to the [COMPANY]. Conclusion on special circumstances [57] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant and her family, the Tribunal finds that considered cumulatively, the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [58] Pursuant to section 188(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 2009, the Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions but considers that the special circumstances of the appellant are such as to warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions. [59] Pursuant to section 190(5) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration: (a) is requested to consider whether a residence class visa should be granted, as an exception to residence instructions, to the appellant; and (b) may, if granting a resident visa, impose conditions on the visa in accordance with section 50 of the Act.

14 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [60] Pursuant to section 190(6) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration is not obliged to give reasons in relation to any decision made as a result of a consideration of the Tribunal’s recommendation. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [61] 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 [NAME] name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant or her family members. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member