Immigration & Protection Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal Due to Exceptional Circumstances

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 506992 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] 30 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a married woman in her 50s. She is a citizen of [NAME] [APPELLANT] and appeals on humanitarian grounds against her liability for deportation. [2] The appellant’s husband (the husband) is also a citizen of [NAME] [APPELLANT]. Together they applied to be recognised as refugees or protected persons. Their claims were declined by the Refugee Status Unit. Their appeals to the Tribunal were determined in a decision issued at the same time as this decision: see KP ([NAME] [APPELLANT]) [2026] NZIPT 802854−855. [3] The Tribunal allowed the appeal of the husband, who was found to be at risk of serious harm in [NAME] [APPELLANT] and therefore in need of protection. It also found that the appellant was not at risk of serious harm in [NAME] [APPELLANT] and declined her appeal.

2 [4] As a result, the appellant’s humanitarian appeal, lodged under section 194(5) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act), must now be considered by the Tribunal – see section 194(6)(b). That same provision also requires that, because the husband’s refugee and protected person appeal was successful, his humanitarian appeal must be dispensed with. [5] For the reasons set out below, the Tribunal allows the humanitarian appeal and grants the appellant a 12-month temporary visa. THE ISSUE [6] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature because of the combined impact of deportation given the long, genuine and stable relationship between the appellant and her husband; her psychological vulnerability should she be deported and return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] alone; and the risk of harm faced by the husband should he opt to return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] with her to ameliorate the impact of deportation upon her. [7] Where the Tribunal finds there to be exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, it must then consider whether it would be unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand, and then whether it would not be contrary to the [NAME] to allow her to remain in New Zealand.

BACKGROUND [8] The circumstances in which the appellant and her husband left [NAME] [APPELLANT] are set out in KP ([NAME] [APPELLANT]) and need not be recited here in full. Under section 231 of the Act, the Tribunal is entitled to rely on the findings of credibility or fact made in respect of those refugee and protection appeals, and it opts to do so for the purposes of this appeal. [9] In short, the appellant and the husband are nationals of [NAME] [APPELLANT], where they had lived all their lives until coming to New Zealand on visitor visas in 2023. They have two adult children. One is resident in New Zealand. The other is living in a third country, outside [NAME] [APPELLANT].

3 [10] In September 2022 the appellant and her husband applied for visitor visas to visit their son in New Zealand. Visas were granted in November 2022, valid for six months from the date of their arrival in New Zealand in December 2022. In April 2023 their son helped them to obtain legal advice, leading them to lodge claims for refugee and protected person status in mid-May 2023. [11] After interviewing the appellants in early 2024, a refugee and protection officer issued a decision dated 12 March 2025, declining their claims. [12] The appeals were disposed of by the Tribunal in KP ([NAME] [APPELLANT]), in which the Tribunal accepted that the evidence provided by the appellant and her husband was credible. The husband’s appeal was allowed, the appellant’s declined. STATUTORY GROUNDS [13] As stated above, this appeal is brought under subsections 194(5) and (6) of the Immigration Act 2009 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 [NAME] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. [14] 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.

4 THE APPELLANT’S CASE [15] During the hearing of the refugee and protected person appeals, counsel confirmed that the evidence provided for that hearing also forms the basis for their humanitarian appeals, should it be necessary to consider them. The Tribunal relies on the submissions, material and evidence provided in KP ([NAME] [APPELLANT]). [16] The husband was the proprietor of successful businesses in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. From 2008, he was the target of extortionate demands for money. He was abducted in December 2009, detained, threatened and seriously assaulted. He was then the subject of protracted and ultimately unsuccessful criminal prosecutions likely influenced by the men behind the extortion. He has been subjected to further demands for money, elected to shut down his primary business at financial and emotional cost and has been subjected to periodic threats and assaults. [17] If the appellant were to be deported, the husband would be presented with a choice between returning to [NAME] [APPELLANT] with her, where he is at risk of serious harm, or to be separated from his wife for an indeterminate time while he applies for residence and, if successful, seeks to bring the appellant to New Zealand. [18] The appellant is also psychologically vulnerable. She provided evidence from Dr [NAME], a psychiatrist who met with her in 2024. He noted that not long before they met, she had been assessed in New Zealand under the Mental Health Act, having had an acute stress reaction, possibly triggered by the decline decision of the RSU. She also disclosed that she had received psychiatric help in hospital in [NAME] [APPELLANT] around 2010, following the husband’s kidnapping ordeal. ASSESSMENT [19] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by the appellant in connection with this appeal and her refugee and protected person appeal. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [20] 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

5 rare, they do have to be “truly an exception rather than the rule”: [APPELLANT] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. [21] The appellant and her husband have known each other since they were children and have been married for more than three decades. It would be unlawful to require the husband to return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] because the Tribunal has found him to be at risk of being seriously harmed there. However, if the appellant were to be deported, the husband would be presented with a difficult choice. He would have to decide whether to return with her and face the risk of harm, or to be separated from his wife for a significant period while he applies for residence and, if successful, while he applied to bring her back to New Zealand. [22] Dr [APPELLANT] recorded the appellant’s brief encounter with [COMPANY] in New Zealand in 2024, and her similar experience in [NAME] [APPELLANT] in 2010, after her husband's abduction. In his opinion, the appellant is prone to mental distress. He described her as relatively socially isolated, with limited personal support. He hypothesized, and the Tribunal accepts, that this was also probably the case when she was in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. Neither of her adult children live there and social isolation would be consistent with the experience she recounted of having lived for a protracted period faced with threats to her husband, his resulting depression and his trauma response to his earlier experiences. Dr [APPELLANT] believed that the appellant may be less resilient than most people and may be more likely than most to experience further serious mental distress if she were to face deportation. [23] When giving evidence orally in support of her refugee and protected person appeal, the wife described the impact upon the husband of his experiences since the 2009 abduction, during which he believed he was going to be executed. Over the years he has experienced traumatic reactions including night sweats and nightmares. After he closed his tea business in 2017, he faced depression and grief for the loss of the business he had built, and which had provided employment for many local people. He was confronted with trauma, grief, fear and the stress of the protracted criminal justice process to which he found himself subjected. [24] It is apparent that the appellant also experienced significant mental distress after the husband’s abduction. The Tribunal accepts the assessment of Dr [NAME] that she and the husband remain psychologically vulnerable in light of their past experiences.

6 [25] Having heard from both the appellant and her husband, the Tribunal finds that the husband would not allow his wife to return to [NAME] [APPELLANT] alone. It is more likely that he would opt, or feel compelled, to accompany her. They have been married for more than 30 years and the Tribunal finds that he would be unlikely to subject her to the level of distress that would follow from their separation were she to be deported. In saying that, the Tribunal does not doubt that separation would also cause the husband significant mental distress, given the length and nature of their relationship and their importance to each other. She has been as important to his resilience and mental health in the past, as he has been to hers. In returning, the husband would accordingly expose himself to the risk of harm identified by the Tribunal. His right to be protected would be effectively undermined. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [26] In conclusion, the possibility that deportation would fundamentally interfere with a long, stable and loving marital relationship of more than 30 years, the impact of deportation upon the appellant’s psychological vulnerability and the likelihood that her deportation would compromise the husband's right to be protected, in combination, are “well outside the normal run of circumstances” in the sense intended by the Supreme Court in Ye. Assessed cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances in the appellant’s case. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [27] Where exceptional humanitarian circumstances are found to exist, the Tribunal must assess whether those circumstances would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported. [28] The 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” [NAME] v Minister of Immigration (at [35]). [29] According to the Supreme Court, this assessment is to be made “in light of the reasons why the appellant is liable for deportation and involves a balancing of those considerations against the consequences for the appellant of deportation”: see [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 132, [2016] 1 NZLR 248 at [9].

7 [30] The Tribunal is required to determine this appeal because it has found that the appellant is not at risk of serious harm such that she is entitled to be recognised as a refugee or a protected person. In due course, she will become liable for deportation. [31] As noted above, if the appellant is deported to [NAME] [APPELLANT], the husband will face a difficult choice between returning to a risk of physical harm in [NAME] [APPELLANT] or separation from his wife through remaining in New Zealand. Either option would have serious adverse consequences. The Tribunal finds that deportation of the appellant, before the family has had the opportunity to have their application for residence assessed, would be unjust or unduly harsh. [32] The appellant entered New Zealand lawfully to visit her son, and she has remained here lawfully throughout. Her refugee and protected person appeal was associated with that of her husband and could not be said to be abusive of the immigration system. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [33] For the reasons given above (notably the prospective separation of husband and wife and the negative consequences for the mental health of both), the Tribunal finds that deportation of the appellant would be unjust or unduly harsh. [NAME] [34] Having determined that there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported, the Tribunal must also be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the [NAME] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. This involves the weighing of those factors which would make it in the [NAME] for the appellant to remain against those which make it in the [NAME] that the appellant leaves: [APPELLANT] v Chief Executive of the Department of Labour ([NAME], CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004), at [41]. [35] There is a positive [NAME] in ensuring that New Zealand meets its obligation to provide protection to the husband. That obligation would potentially be undermined if the appellant’s humanitarian appeal is declined, and the husband was to contemplate accompanying her back to [NAME] [APPELLANT], thereby exposing himself to the risk of serious harm.

8 [36] There is also a positive [NAME] in maintaining family unity. The appellant and her husband clearly have a genuine and stable relationship that has endured many years of fear and stress caused by their experiences in [NAME] [APPELLANT]. [37] No negative [NAME] factor arises as to the character of the wife, for whom the Tribunal has obtained a New Zealand Police clearance (24 April 2026). Nor is there any evidence before the Tribunal that she has any adverse medical condition beyond her identified vulnerability to mental distress, which would only be exacerbated by deportation. Conclusion on [NAME] [38] The Tribunal finds that it would not be contrary to the [NAME] for the appellant to remain in New Zealand as the holder of a further temporary visa while she seeks to finalise her immigration status as a secondary applicant in the husband’s likely residence class visa application. DETERMINATION [39] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for her to be deported from New Zealand. The Tribunal also finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the [NAME] for the appellant to remain in New Zealand in the short term while the husband’s immigration status is resolved. [40] The appellant’s husband is likely to apply for residence based on his successful protected person appeal. While it is a matter for Immigration New Zealand, the evidence does not indicate any reason why the application would not succeed. It is appropriate that the wife be granted a temporary visa that will enable her and the husband to maintain their relationship over the next 12 months, including having the opportunity for her to be included as a secondary applicant in any residence application made by the husband. Order for Grant of a Visa [41] Pursuant to section 210(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a work visa for 12 months from the date of this decision.

9 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [42] The appeal is allowed on those terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [43] Pursuant to clause 19 of Schedule 2 of the Immigration Act 2009, 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 her identification or her husband’s. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member