Immigration & Protection Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal Against Deportation

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507300 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: K Lash (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 23 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 25-year-old citizen of Vietnam, against her liability for deportation which arose when she became unlawfully in New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] The primary issue on appeal is whether there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, due to the psychological trauma associated with the physical beating of her mother, that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that there are at this time such circumstances, and as such allows the appeal to the extent that it directs the grant of a 12-month work visa to the appellant.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born and raised in Vietnam. Her father passed away when she was in secondary school and her mother raised her since. She has an elder half-brother who is married with a young family. [5] In July 2022, the appellant applied for a student visa which was declined for concerns as to funds and bona fides. She subsequently obtained, with the assistance of [NAME_2], an accredited employer work visa (July 2023). The employment had been secured by the broker and the appellant had paid approximately VND700,000,00 (NZD45,000) for the process. [6] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in August 2023 to find the employment she had been promised did not exist. The employer directed her to make fortnightly payments with the threat that if she did not, her work visa would be cancelled, and she would be deported. [7] The appellant made the payments for approximately a year before she reported the exploitation in August 2024. She was granted a migrant exploitation protection work visa and found employment for the six months of the visa. Subsequently, although supported by her employer, she was advised she could not apply for a further accredited employer work visa. Therefore, before the expiry of her work visa, she applied for a student visa to study English followed by beauty therapy. [8] The appellant’s student visa was declined on 10 June 2025 due to concerns regarding evidence of funds and bona fides. She lodged a reconsideration request which was declined on 17 July 2025. [9] On 27 August 2025, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal. STATUTORY GROUNDS [10] The grounds for determining a humanitarian appeal are set out in section 207 of the Immigration Act 2009 (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

3 (b) it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the [NAME_9] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. [11] 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]. [12] To determine whether it would be unjust or unduly harsh for an appellant to be deported from New Zealand, the Supreme Court stated, in Ye, at [35], that an appellant must show a level of harshness more than a “generic concern” and “beyond the level of harshness that must be regarded as acceptable in order to preserve the integrity of New Zealand’s immigration system”. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] The appellant’s case is set out in her representative’s submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 18 September 2025, and her statements, and can be summarised as follows: (a) Since the appellant’s father passed away in 2012, the family’s financial situation has been difficult. The appellant forwent further education to gain an income for the family. This caused her mother immense grief, and therefore in 2022, she supported the appellant to apply for a student visa for New Zealand to better her future. (b) The decline of the student visa only increased the mother’s sense of guilt, and as such she employed [NAME_2] to secure the appellant employment and a work visa for New Zealand. Employment as a car detailer was ostensibly obtained with a [NAME_3] by the broker who also instructed a [NAME_4] to apply for a work visa on the appellant’s behalf. (c) The appellant and her mother were charged approximately VND700,000,00 (NZD45,000) for the service which she was told she would be able to earn back in the first year. The parties had no written formal agreement. The [NAME_5] paid the fee with

4 her savings (NZD20,000) and borrowed the remainder signing a money loan agreement for repayment within 18 months and with an interest rate of 18 per cent per annum. (d) It was not until the appellant arrived in New Zealand that she realised that her and her mother were the victims of a scam. There was no employment waiting for her, and she was required to pay NZD2,070 in cash every fortnight, purportedly to cover her salary and tax payments to the Inland Revenue Department (IRD). She was paid NZD1,468.17 fortnightly to make this payment, but she had to source the shortfall. (e) The appellant was joined to a [COMPANY_6] including 10 others, where each member was required to pay what was called “two weeks’ wages and taxes” in cash to the company’s intermediatory at varying locations. She was told that if she did not make these payments, her visa would be cancelled, and she would be deported. (f) The appellant subsequently realised tax was not being paid to the IRD on her behalf, and it was only after she threatened to report the company, that her taxes were paid in a lump sum. She then got the strength to report the exploitation. (g) The appellant is a victim of unethical behaviour on the part of an agent in Vietnam, a [COMPANY_8] and the New Zealand representative who submitted her application. She is young and naïve, and her and her mother, being vulnerable to such corruption, are typical victims of such exploitation. (h) The appellant was granted a migrant exploitation protection work visa in September 2024 when Immigration New Zealand accepted that exploitation may have occurred. She then worked as a nail technician for two different employers. She retains the strong support of these employers, one in particular who is willing to offer her permanent employment if she can secure a work visa. (i) In June 2025, the appellant applied for a student visa in order that she could study English and pursue a beauty therapy course in New Zealand. She initially relied on sponsorship from a friend in

5 New Zealand and then an uncle in Vietnam. Immigration New Zealand declined her application in July 2025 because it was not convinced of the genuine nature of the purported support funds. It additionally recorded that as the application was declined on this ground, an assessment of the appellant’s bona fides was not completed. (j) Despite this decision, the appellant was a genuine applicant. She wants to improve her English as due to her limited proficiency she was vulnerable to misunderstandings and workplace exploitation. She does not want a similar situation to occur again and only wishes to better her and her mother’s future. (k) The appellant and her mother are struggling under the financial burden of the debt. The appellant was not able to make a significant contribution to it in the six months she was working in New Zealand, and her mother is unemployed. Her mother is 62 years old, in poor health and under constant pressure from lenders. (l) On 16 January 2025, following the maturity of the loan, the [NAME_5] was physically assaulted by a lender who struck her with a hoe on both arms and her right thigh. She was admitted to hospital for 10 days following which her son had to move in to look after her. Along with her physical injuries, the [NAME_5] is experiencing high levels of worry and stress regarding the appellant which results in her often falling ill. (m) The situation has caused the appellant considerable mental distress. She has sought professional counselling from a psychologist to address her anxiety, stress and trauma. She is desperate to earn sufficient funds to repay the debt and support her family. (n) If forced to leave New Zealand, the appellant considers she will lose everything: the chance to establish her future, the money her family borrowed and protection of her and her mother’s well-being. (o) It is in the [NAME_9] to allow the appellant a work visa as she has employment opportunities, a strong work ethic and is willing and able to contribute to the New Zealand economy. She will not be a burden on the health system and is of good character.

6 Materials and Documents [14] In support of her appeal, the appellant provides the following documents: (a) Identification documents. (b) Statements (24 and 30 August 2025) of the appellant. (c) A statement (20 August 2025) of the [NAME_5] explaining their circumstances and saying that all her hopes are with her daughter. All she wants is for her daughter to have a path to legitimate study and work to escape poverty. She fears that if her daughter returns home empty-handed, all her sacrifices and savings over the years will be meaningless. (d) A psychological report (4 September 2025) stating that the appellant is exhibiting severe anxiety and depression. The scam she endured has created strong feelings of shame and as such she has withdrawn socially. Her obsessive thoughts and emotional instability have disrupted her daily life, in particular her sleep and her appetite, she has lost weight, lost interest in daily activities and has difficulty concentrating. Her psychological condition is directly related to her legal status, as such, a decline in her appeal or having to return to Vietnam “poses a risk of financial deadlock and more severe mental health conditions”. (e) [NAME_7] messaging screenshots (September 2023 to July 2024). (f) Confirmation of payments to a [NAME_10] (18 July 2023 and 13 December 2023). (g) A money loan agreement (20 April 2023) recording that the [NAME_5] borrowed VND350,000,000 with a loan term of 18 months and an interest rate of 18 per cent per annum. The loan term was to 21 October 2024. (h) Medical documentation recording that the [NAME_5] was admitted to the medical centre on 17 January 2025 and discharged from the hospital on 27 January 2025 with a fracture of the upper end of the ulnar, contusion of the elbow and contusion of the thigh due to a beating.

7 (i) Letters from the appellant’s employers (20 and 26 August 2025) stating the appellant was hard-working, reliable, professional and would be rehired. (j) Two statements from the appellant’s colleagues saying that she was hard-working honest and reliable. (k) Nine statements from previous customers of the appellant (18, 19, 21, 22, 24 and 25 August 2025) attesting to her professionalism and work ethic and supporting her to remain in New Zealand. (l) Photos of the appellant working. (m) IRD statements. (n) Evidence of educational qualifications. (o) A death certificate of the appellant’s father. 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 in relation to her temporary visa applications, and its relevant electronic records. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [16] 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”; Ye v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. Migrant exploitation [17] The appellant submits that she is the victim of migrant exploitation by a [NAME_10], a New Zealand representative and a [NAME_11]. Migrant exploitation is a broad umbrella term that encompasses harm to a migrant’s economic, social, physical or emotional wellbeing. The Tribunal accepts the appellant’s evidence of this at face value but also notes that Immigration New Zealand assessed her claims and granted her a

8 migrant exploitation protection work visa. The Tribunal is aware of similar claims of exploitation made by other appellants to the Tribunal. Many migrants, often from Vietnam, have reported paying large sums of money in illegal premiums for visas and employment that often does not exist, see BP (Vietnam) [2025] NZIPT 506880 at [24] to [28]. [18] However, whilst the Tribunal acknowledges the appellant’s claims, its focus, when assessing whether there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances, is on the consequences or effects of deportation. The reason that a person is made liable for deportation is not a consequence of deportation, see the Court of Appeal decision in Minister of Immigration v Q [2020] NZCA 288, at [33]: We agree… that absence of fault is similarly incapable of amounting to an exceptional circumstance of a humanitarian nature, because it is not a consequence or effect of the deportation. Rather, it is a relevant consideration at the next two stages of the inquiry… [19] Specifically, the issue of whether the appellant was the victim of migrant exploitation is not a consequence or effect of deportation and as such is not, by itself, an exceptional circumstance of a humanitarian nature, see EM (Bangladesh) [2025] NZIPT 506922 at [33]. [20] Additionally, as noted in EM (Bangladesh), if an appellant has previously been granted a migrant exploitation protection work visa before the appeal had been lodged, as the appellant has, they are deemed to have already been given the opportunity to rectify the exploitative situation in which they found themselves. As follows: [25] The Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant’s time with the [COMPANY_8] left him feeling exploited, distressed and vulnerable. However, he was able to receive the benefit of two migrant exploitation protection work visas, which allowed him to work in New Zealand for approximately one year. The migrant exploitation protection work visa category of instructions (which now allows for the grant of one, not two, work visas) is the remedy provided by the immigration system for exploited migrants in New Zealand. The evidence before the Tribunal shows that, while the appellant may not have been able to find ongoing work in his areas of expertise while holding his migrant exploitation protection work visas, he was able to find work, including at an orchard. Due to these visas, the Tribunal finds that the appellant was afforded a reasonable opportunity to take steps to put himself in the position he would otherwise have been in had he not had the negative experiences that he had while working for the [COMPANY_8]. The appellant’s circumstances in New Zealand [21] The appellant is a single, 25-year-old citizen of Vietnam who arrived in New Zealand in August 2023. She has therefore been in this country for a relatively short time and has no family here. The Tribunal acknowledges she was

9 successful in the six-month employment that she held and was valued by her employers. [22] The Tribunal additionally recognises the appellant’s attempt to strengthen her position against future exploitation by seeking to study English. However, when viewed holistically, there is nothing about the appellant’s level of settlement in, or nexus to, New Zealand that is out of the ordinary for a temporary migrant who is living in New Zealand. [23] The Tribunal does however acknowledge the appellant’s mental distress, as recorded by the psychologist (4 September 2025). Usually, stress and anxiety created by the appellant’s exploitation is not considered by the Tribunal, on its own, to amount to exceptional circumstances. However, in this instance, there is evidence of psychological harm that has significantly affected the appellant’s functioning and may persist into “more severe mental health conditions” should she be deported. This is largely because her mother has suffered physical harm due to being unable to discharge a debt she obtained to support the appellant. The appellant’s circumstances in Vietnam [24] The appellant has a strong nexus to Vietnam where her family live. She grew up there and has only been away for a little over two years. [25] The Tribunal accepts, for the purposes of this appeal, that the appellant’s documents demonstrate that her mother incurred considerable debt to pay an agent in Vietnam to obtain the appellant employment (which did not eventuate) and an accredited employer work visa. The loan has now matured, and it is due and payable. Also, that her mother has been physically harmed, leading to her 10-day hospitalisation, because of her inability to repay the loan. [26] The [NAME_5] is in her 60s and unemployed. The debt therefore weighs heavily on the appellant and her mother. As a result of the stress associated with the situation, her mother’s health has additionally suffered, as has the appellant’s. [27] The Tribunal acknowledges the unfortunate and upsetting situation the appellant and her mother are in. It must also however be cognisant that the appellant came to New Zealand as the holder of a three-year temporary visa to undertake relatively low paid employment (just under NZD30 per hour). There was always the prospect, for many reasons (such as the end of, or changes to, her

10 employment), that she could not remain working in New Zealand nor that the loan could be repaid within its term. This is a common, albeit challenging, situation amongst migrant workers who arrive in New Zealand with a significant debt to pay. [28] The Tribunal is however satisfied that the scam the appellant fell victim to, disadvantaged her significantly in her repayment plans, although she was likely able to make a modest contribution during her six-month work visa. This was not however enough to prevent her mother from being beaten and, as such, the debt weighs heavily on her. This makes her situation out of the ordinary. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [29] The appellant has spent a modest period of time in New Zealand and has no family or enduring ties to the country. She does have strong family and cultural links to Vietnam, which is her country of citizenship and where her mother and brother reside. [30] The appellant arrived here with an accredited employer work visa to work for a specific employer, but that employment did not eventuate. The appellant was not at fault for these events, however, as explained above, these were not consequences of deportation and as such are not exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. Additionally, the appellant has been afforded the opportunity of a migrant exploitation protection work visa which provided her with a remedy under the immigration system and a period to re-establish herself. [31] However, what sets the appellant’s situation apart from other migrant exploitation cases, is the psychological evidence regarding the appellant, and the evidence as to the attack and hospitalisation of her mother arising from the debt she incurred with the agent in Vietnam. As noted earlier, the psychological report establishes that the appellant’s functioning has been compromised by the anxiety and depression she has experienced. The Tribunal has accepted that this would be aggravated by her deportation. [32] In these circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant’s deportation to Vietnam, without giving her a further opportunity to work to repay her mother’s creditors, would give rise to exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature.

11 Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [33] Whether deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh must be assessed in light of the reasons why the appellant is liable for deportation and involves a balancing of those considerations against the consequences of deportation; [NAME_12] v Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 132, [2016] 1 NZLR 248, at [9]. [34] The appellant is liable for deportation because her temporary visa to remain in New Zealand expired. This raises an issue in regard to the integrity of the New Zealand immigration system which relies on migrants complying with the terms of their visas, including their obligation to depart prior to their visa’s expiry. Nonetheless, the Tribunal does not consider that the appellant’s actions are especially harmful to the immigration system when seen in the context of her youth, inexperience and fear for her mother upon further loan default. [35] The consequences of deportation are that the appellant would have to return to Vietnam without the ability to repay, or at least make a meaningful contribution to her mother’s debt. It is likely that in Vietnam it would take her a significantly longer period of time to discharge the debt than it would working in New Zealand which may endanger the appellant or her mother further. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [36] Weighing the reasons why the appellant is liable for deportation against the exceptional humanitarian circumstances discussed above, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand at this time. [NAME_9] [37] Where the Tribunal has determined that there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported, it must also be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the [NAME_9] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. This involves the weighing of those factors which would make it in the [NAME_9] for the appellant to remain against those which make it in the [NAME_9] that he leaves; [NAME_13] v Chief Executive of Department of Labour ([NAME_14], CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41].

12 [38] Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant had an acceptable standard of health for the purposes of her previous visa applications. The Tribunal has obtained a clear conviction history report (17 April 2026) for the appellant from the New Zealand Police and the appellant provided a clear criminal record certificate from Vietnam (11 January 2023). [39] The Tribunal has found that the deportation of the appellant would be unjust or unduly harsh because of the exceptional humanitarian circumstances that have been found to exist. There is a [NAME_9] in avoiding outcomes that are unjust or unduly harsh; [NAME_15] v Immigration and Protection Tribunal and Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 28, [2016] 1 NZLR 298 at [169]. It is accordingly appropriate that the young appellant, who has found herself the victim of exploitative conduct that has resulted in physical harm to her mother, be treated compassionately. [40] Accordingly, other than the countervailing [NAME_9] in maintaining the integrity of the immigration system discussed above, there are no other [NAME_9] issues that arise from the grant of a temporary visa to the appellant, which the Tribunal intends to order. Conclusion on [NAME_9] [41] Weighing the considerations which would make it in the [NAME_9] that the appellant leave the country (the expiry of her temporary visa) against the considerations which would make it in the [NAME_9] for her to remain (the opportunity for the appellant to earn funds to repay her mother’s debt to the extent that her physical safety will be protected), the Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the [NAME_9] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. DETERMINATION [42] 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 and it would not, in all the circumstances, be contrary to the [NAME_9] for her to remain in New Zealand on a temporary basis.

13 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

K Lash Member Order for Grant of a Temporary Visa [43] Pursuant to section 210(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted an open work visa for a period of 12 months. This will enable the appellant to generate funds for application towards her mother’s debt. [44] The appeal is allowed on those terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [45] 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 the appellant’s name and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of the appellant. This is because the decision contains health information in respect of which the appellant is entitled to privacy. “K Lash” K Lash Member