Immigration & Protection Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal Against Deportation

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 506571 [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] 15 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a citizen of [NAME] [APPELLANT] aged in his late-20s. His appeal was lodged at the same time as his refugee and protected person appeal. Having declined the refugee and protected person appeal, the Tribunal must now consider the humanitarian appeal. THE ISSUE [2] The appellant advanced his refugee and protected person appeal on the ground that he was at risk of harm in [NAME] [APPELLANT] because events that occurred in connection with his father’s [NAME] in Z city put him at risk of being seriously harmed by, or at the instigation of, an influential political figure. While not repeating his claim in this appeal, the appellant relies on the Tribunal’s findings that he was, prior to the death of the [NAME], at risk of being seriously harmed by, or at the instigation of, the [NAME]. He does so in the sense that it relates to the resulting stress and anxiety living anywhere in [NAME] [APPELLANT] would cause to him. In addition, the appellant relies upon the degree of his settlement in New Zealand

2 and the fact that his parents and sister, with whom the appellant is close, are now New Zealand permanent residents. [3] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh to be deported from New Zealand. [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has exceptional humanitarian circumstances and that his deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh. It orders that the appellant be granted a resident visa.

BACKGROUND [5] The Tribunal set out in the refugee and protected person appeal a summary of the evidence given by the appellant and his witness; see KH ([NAME] [APPELLANT]) [2026] NZIPT 802564 at [6] to [37]. Because it remains of some relevance to the present appeal, a slightly condensed version of that summary is repeated here: (a) The appellant is now aged in his late 20s and was the second child born to his parents. He has an older brother and a younger sister. [NAME] formerly owned an [NAME] in Z city. (b) In late 2016, after completing his schooling, the appellant started working at his father’s [NAME]. One of the customers of the [NAME] was an influential [NAME]. (c) When invoices for work done on the vehicles of the [NAME] and his associates went unpaid, a refusal by [NAME] to undertake further work without payment saw the [NAME] threaten [NAME] with a handgun. Under threat, [NAME] agreed to repair the vehicles of the [NAME] and his associates without charge. At this time, his father decided that he and his family would need to leave [NAME] [APPELLANT] for their safety. (d) A group of youths connected to a [NAME] parked their vehicles near the [NAME]. They congregated outside the [NAME] and would talk to the [NAME] manager and the appellant

3 about politics and current events. They also brought their cars in for a carwash, service or repair. (e) In September 2016, [NAME] arrived in New Zealand as the holder of a three-year work visa. He left the [NAME] manager in charge of running the [NAME]. (f) In October 2016, a group of the [NAME]’s associates came to the [NAME] and told the appellant and the [NAME] employees not to associate with the youths or let them park their vehicles near the [NAME]. This was because the youths were from a [NAME] than the [NAME]. (g) In January 2017, [NAME] returned to [NAME] [APPELLANT] to visit his family. (h) In early February 2017, five or six police officers came to the [NAME] where they arrested the appellant and his father and took them to the police station. The [NAME]’s vehicle was parked outside the [NAME] during the police visit. (i) At the station, the police accused the appellant of working against the government and he was shown photographs of other young men and told that he was known to associate with these people. The appellant responded that he did not know the persons shown in the photographs and he was then hit with a baton twice in the stomach. He was forced to admit that he was part of a group planning a youth uprising (even though this was not true). (j) Held in a separate room, [NAME] told the police that he wanted to see a lawyer, but the police silenced him by putting a gun to his head. (k) The following day, the police agreed to release the appellant and his father on two conditions. First, that they pay LKR1 million to the police and, second, that the appellant and his father each sign a written statement that they did not write or have a chance to read. (l) In late February 2017, [NAME] returned to New Zealand. The appellant returned to work at the [NAME] after

4 spending a couple of days resting at home, but he no longer went to work there every day. Because of what had occurred with the police, the appellant, his mother and sister were all eager to get to New Zealand. (m) In late July 2017, following approval of their New Zealand visa applications, the appellant and his mother and sister arrived in New Zealand. (n) In November 2017, and again in October 2019, [NAME] again travelled to [NAME] [APPELLANT] in order to sell his house. He stayed in Y city. Men he sent to the property reported that the [NAME]’s associates were occupying the house and were saying it was “their house”. He also learnt that the [NAME]’s men had taken over the [NAME] business. On each occasion, he returned to New Zealand. (o) In June 2021, and without an apparent pathway to residency in New Zealand, [NAME] sought to obtain some form of protection from the [NAME] and his thugs by telephoning the Z city police headquarters and explaining his predicament. The response he received from the police over the telephone was hostile. He subsequently lodged a complaint on the [NAME] National Police Commission website and gave his former [NAME] manager’s name as the local contact person. A few days later, the police asked the [NAME] manager to visit the police station. The [NAME] manager was later found dead at the side of a road. [6] In the refugee and protected person appeal, the Tribunal accepted that, prior to his death, the [NAME] could have posed a real threat to the safety of the appellant in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. However, it found that the death of the [NAME] meant that the risk of serious harm for the appellant did not rise above the speculative or remote and that the former events connected to the [NAME] and [NAME]’s [NAME] no longer give rise to a real chance of the appellant being persecuted in [NAME] [APPELLANT].

5 STATUTORY GROUNDS [7] This appeal is brought under subsections 194(5) and (6) of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”) and was lodged at the same time as the appellant’s refugee and protected person status appeal. 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— (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. [8] 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. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [9] The appellant’s case is set out in submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 3 February 2026. It is submitted by counsel that the appellant’s circumstances are exceptional because: (a) His immediate family are New Zealand permanent residents, and he now has no family members or other meaningful support remaining in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. (b) He has lived in New Zealand for most of his adult life and has established strong roots here. (c) His fear of return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] and past mistreatment there by the police will cause significant psychological harm upon return. (d) The factors that gave rise to his refugee and protected person claim will make his reintegration into [NAME] [APPELLANT] more challenging than that faced by the “average failed asylum claimant”.

6 [10] In support of the present appeal, counsel provides a written statement (27 January 2026) and copies of photographs and documents pertaining to the appellant’s life and work in New Zealand. ASSESSMENT [11] The Tribunal has considered the submissions provided by the appellant. It has also considered Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records and the refugee and protected person status appeal file. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [12] 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”; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. Extent of settlement in, and nexus to, New Zealand [13] The appellant has lived in New Zealand since July 2017 and has now spent most of his adult life here. He is well settled and considers New Zealand to be his home. In his written statement, he describes his community here as comprising his family, friends, work colleagues and fellow gym attendees. [14] [Withheld]. [15] The appellant’s immediate family (other than his elder brother who lives in Japan) live in New Zealand and are permanent residents. He describes his family as “close-knit”, seeing each other regularly and spending time together through shared meals and other events. The appellant states that his family in New Zealand support each other both emotionally and practically. Produced on appeal are a number of photographs showing the appellant with his other family members. [16] In his spare time, the appellant socialises with a [NAME] and pursues structured fitness training which includes competing in fitness-related events. He states that his involvement in the [NAME] has provided support and a positive structure for his life. Additionally, the appellant states that he contributes to the wider community in New Zealand by being a

7 regular blood and plasma donor and he has provided a document recording his activities as a donor. The appellant’s circumstances in [NAME] [APPELLANT] [17] The appellant states that he is deeply distressed at the thought of having to return to [NAME] [APPELLANT]. He genuinely fears that he will be killed or seriously harmed there. Before leaving [NAME] [APPELLANT], he was targeted and assaulted by the police and such action was deliberate and was intended to intimidate and silence him. He considers that his presence in [NAME] [APPELLANT] will be perceived as threatening by the [NAME] who have seized control over his father’s property and business. The appellant states that he does not believe that the danger he faces ended with the death of the influential [NAME]. Regardless, he says, at a local level the power structures have not meaningfully changed, and the same individuals remain in place. Living in hiding in [NAME] [APPELLANT] or under an assumed identity, without family support or employment, would not be living “a real life”. [18] Under section 231(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal is entitled to rely on the findings of credibility and fact made in respect of the appellant’s refugee and protected person appeal. The Tribunal finds no reason to depart from the findings of credibility and fact made in relation to the appellant’s refugee and protected person appeals. Those findings are relied on in this decision. However, the Tribunal reminds itself that, in this appeal, the focus is on whether 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. [19] Counsel submits that, given that the Tribunal accepted the appellant’s evidence as credible and accepted that he was previously detained and mistreated by the police in [NAME] [APPELLANT], the appellant’s adverse experiences have caused him to develop a deep-seated fear of returning to [NAME] [APPELLANT]. Notwithstanding the Tribunal’s finding that there is no objective risk of harm on return, it is submitted, a return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] will cause significant psychological harm to the appellant due to his past persecution and subjective fears. [20] It is to be noted that the Tribunal’s findings in the refugee and protected person appeal did not amount to a finding of no risk whatsoever, simply that the former events connected to the (now deceased) [NAME] and [NAME]’s [NAME] were found to no longer give rise to a real chance of the appellant being persecuted in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. Having regard to the appellant’s credible

8 evidence of his mistreatment by the [NAME] police, and having had the benefit of observing the appellant during the refugee and protected person appeal, the Tribunal accepts that his subjective fears of harm are reasonably held and need to be given weight in the assessment of whether he has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. [21] Counsel also submits that there are further challenges for the appellant on a return to [NAME] [APPELLANT], beyond his lack of any family support or realistic employment prospects there, in that he no longer has a national identity card as his former card was seized by the police when he was detained. His [NAME] passport has also expired, and he is concerned that, as a failed refugee claimant, he has been unable to access [COMPANY] to renew his passport and will encounter difficulties at the airport arriving on a New Zealand identity document. [22] In his written statement, the appellant notes that it is impossible to get by in [NAME] [APPELLANT] without identity documents which are needed to obtain employment, to rent accommodation and for other day-to-day purposes. He says that he would be required to obtain certification from the [NAME] (village secretariat) and this process requires police clearance. The certification process would expose his presence and location to the local police, many of whom are believed to have connections to the [NAME] occupying [NAME]’s property and business. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [23] Viewed cumulatively, the extent of the appellant’s settlement in New Zealand, his family connections here and lack of family support in [NAME] [APPELLANT], his past experiences with the [NAME] police and his genuine, subjective fear of further harm and the challenges he would face on reintegration in [NAME] [APPELLANT], satisfy the Tribunal that there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances in the present case. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [24] Whether deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh must be assessed in light of the reasons why an appellant is liable for deportation and involves a balancing of those considerations against the consequences of deportation; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 132, [2016] 1 NZLR 248, at [9].

9 [25] The appellant is lawfully in New Zealand and is not currently liable for deportation. As required by section 194(6) of the Act, he was able to lodge a humanitarian appeal in anticipation of some later point in time at which he may become liable for deportation. [26] While the Tribunal is required to consider the extent to which the integrity of the [NAME] would be undermined if the appellant was permitted to remain in New Zealand, the reality is that he has not breached any immigration law. Further, his refugee and protected person claim was validly made and was not without merit. His account was found to be wholly credible. Any challenge to the integrity of the [NAME] is no more than at a very modest level only. [27] The exceptional humanitarian circumstances to be weighed against this turn principally on the mental health of the appellant and his prospects on return to a country where, as the Tribunal has accepted, he was wrongfully detained and mistreated by the police. To require the appellant to return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] to live in constant fear of further harm based on his past lived experiences would be unjust or unduly harsh. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [28] For the foregoing reasons, when weighing the exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature against the considerations favouring deportation, the Tribunal finds that it would be unjust or unduly harsh to deport the appellant. Public Interest [29] The Tribunal must also be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. That involves the weighing of the factors which would make it in the public interest for him to remain against those which make it in the public interest that he leave; [NAME] v Chief Executive of Department of [NAME] (HC Auckland, CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41]. [30] This part of the enquiry can be addressed shortly. The only adverse consideration is the very modest harm to the integrity of the [NAME] identified above. [31] The appellant produced a clear [NAME] police certificate when he came to New Zealand. In addition, he has provided a statutory declaration (8 April 2026)

10 deposing that he has never been convicted, or found guilty of, or charged with, any offences against the law in [NAME] [APPELLANT] or in any other country. A New Zealand conviction history check (9 April 2026) for the appellant, obtained by the Tribunal, is also clear. The appellant has been found by Immigration New Zealand to be of an acceptable standard of heath for the purpose of being issued with temporary visas and, taking into account the appellant’s age, current employment and fitness pursuits, there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest otherwise. [32] There is a public interest in family unity given the circumstances of the appellant’s immediate family in New Zealand. Finally, there is a positive public interest in New Zealand respecting its international obligations by not returning a person to a place in which he has experienced wrongful detention and mistreatment by a government police force. Conclusion on public interest [33] Weighing the above consideration, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain permanently in New Zealand. DETERMINATION [34] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand. [35] The Tribunal also finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest for him to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. Order for Grant of a Visa [36] The appeal is allowed. Pursuant to section 210(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a resident visa. Order as to Depersonalised and Abridged Research Copy [37] The disclosure of parts of this decision beyond the parties (and those to whom disclosure is permitted by section 151(2)) would tend to identify the appellant and/or be likely to endanger the safety of the appellant or others.

11 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [38] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Act, the Tribunal orders that, until further order, the indicated parts of the decision are to be redacted by removal of names and particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant from the research copy of this decision. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member