Immigration & Protection Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal for Elderly Citizen

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507291 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME_1] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 14 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 73-year-old citizen of Kiribati, against her liability for deportation which arose when she became unlawfully in New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant’s settlement in New Zealand, her familial nexus here through her daughter and grandchildren, her lack of accommodation in Kiribati and her health needs give rise to exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for her to be deported. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported. The Tribunal also finds that, on balance, it would not be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain here permanently.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in Kiribati and is one of six siblings. Her parents and three of her siblings are deceased, and her two remaining siblings live in Kiribati. [5] The appellant married in Kiribati, although her husband is deceased. She had three daughters and one son (who is also deceased). Two of her daughters live in Kiribati with their husbands and (collectively) 11 children. [6] The remaining daughter is now a New Zealand permanent resident. She arrived in New Zealand in late 2008 and she, her husband and their two children were granted resident visas in February 2009 under the Special Policies (Pacific Access Category) category. They have since had another four children who are New Zealand citizens. [7] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in August 2009, as the holder of a three-month visitor visa. She became unlawfully in New Zealand in November 2009. She has remained here since her arrival. [8] In July 2025, the appellant requested a visa under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Her request was successful, and, on 8 August 2025, she was granted a one-day visitor visa to allow her to lodge a humanitarian appeal against her deportation liability with this Tribunal. [9] On 11 August 2025, the appellant became unlawfully in New Zealand once more. She lodged the present appeal against her deportation liability on 18 August 2025. STATUTORY GROUNDS [10] 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.

3 [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]. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [12] The appellant’s case is set out in the representative’s submissions dated 24 October 2025 and can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant has a serious health condition which cannot be adequately treated in Kiribati. She will face a significant decline in health if she cannot remain in New Zealand and there is a very real risk that she will die shortly after any return to Kiribati. (b) The appellant’s New Zealand-permanent resident daughter is a health care support worker and qualified to care for the appellant. Neither she nor her husband (either alone or together) are able to meet the sponsor income requirements of the Family (Parent) category. (c) The appellant has six grandchildren in New Zealand who have grown up with her. Deportation will deprive the grandchildren of their relationship with their grandmother as it is unrealistic to expect them (and their mother) to regularly travel to Kiribati. (d) The appellant no longer has a home in Kiribati and is unable to live with her older brother, who is her only remaining family there. (e) While the appellant’s prolonged period of unlawfulness in New Zealand (16 years) is a negative public interest factor, she remained here to support her daughter. New Zealand has a responsibility to its [NAME_3], as does the world to Kiribati, and the appellant’s overall humanitarian circumstances outweigh the cost of her medical care and her period of unlawfulness.

4 Materials and Documents [13] In support of the appeal, the representative provides the following documents: (a) A family declaration document, which outlines the appellant’s family members and their whereabouts. (b) A bundle of documents setting out the circumstances of the daughter in New Zealand, her husband, and the appellant. (c) Seven letters of support from members of the appellant’s community and two letters from the appellant’s family members in Kiribati. (d) Various family photographs. (e) Variously, passport biodata pages and birth certificates for the appellant’s six grandchildren in New Zealand. (f) The appellant’s passport biodata page and most recent New Zealand visa, and a clear police certificate (29 August 2025) from Kiribati. (g) A letter (17 July 2025) from [NAME_4], a general practitioner, regarding the appellant’s health needs and a hospital discharge summary (9 October 2025) for the appellant. [14] On 23 March 2026, the Tribunal sought updated health information for the appellant. On 8 April 2026, the representative provided an updated letter (2 April 2026) from [NAME_6], a general practitioner, as well as medical information previously provided. 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 request for a visa under section 61 of the Act and its relevant electronic records.

5 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]. The appellant’s circumstances in New Zealand [17] The appellant has been in New Zealand for over 16 years, primarily unlawfully. She arrived as the holder of a three-month visitor visa in August 2009 and has remained here since. She has a strong familial nexus to New Zealand. She lives with her daughter, son-in-law and six grandchildren, who are, variously, New Zealand residents, permanent residents and citizens. [18] The appellant’s intention on arrival was to assist and support her daughter and her family as they settled into a new life in New Zealand. The daughter explains that the family struggled to make ends meet, particularly between 2009 and 2015, and that their limited English and lack of understanding of the [NAME_7] led to the appellant remaining here unlawfully without understanding the implications of doing so. The appellant’s immigration status is now a “source of immense distress” for the entire family. [19] The family live in social housing in New Zealand and have done so since at least October 2015. The daughter is a healthcare support worker and, while it is not apparent if the son-in-law is currently employed, he has certifications relating to truck driving. [20] Various letters from relatives and members of the appellant’s community in New Zealand record that she is a respected elder in her [NAME_8] here. The Chairperson of a [COMPANY_8] describes the appellant as a “pillar of [the] [NAME_8]”, an active church member, a “true guardian” of I-Kiribati culture and an expert cook. [21] According to another community member, the grandchild of one of the appellant’s friends, in addition to sharing her cultural knowledge, the appellant cares for the children of her community members while their parents are working, providing invaluable support. That individual writes of their own gratitude for the appellant’s support when their child was a baby and describes the appellant as kind and dependable and “someone who genuinely looks out for others”.

6 Another person describes the appellant as being “known for her many talents and her willingness to help out not only her own family but everyone in the [NAME_8]”. They go on to state that the appellant’s “positive impact is felt by many”. [22] Other community members describe the appellant in similar ways. It is evident that the appellant’s contributions to preserving and sharing Kiribatian cultural knowledge in New Zealand are highly valued and widely respected. Best interests of the appellant’s grandchildren [23] The Tribunal is obliged to have regard to the best interests of any children affected by the outcome of an appeal, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The High Court has stated that the best interests of the child are neither paramount nor the primary consideration, but they must be afforded substantial weight: [NAME_9] v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 at [49]. [24] The appellant has six grandchildren living in New Zealand. The two older grandchildren (aged 19 and 17 years old) are New Zealand residents and the four younger grandchildren (16, 9, 7 and 4 years old) are New Zealand citizens. The oldest grandchild, aged 19, is not subject to the Convention on the Rights of the Child as he is now technically an adult (see Article 1). [25] The evidence before the Tribunal regarding the appellant’s grandchildren does not suggest that the daughter and son-in-law are unable to adequately care for and support their children without the appellant’s assistance. Nevertheless, the Tribunal understands that the grandchildren continue to live in the same home as their grandmother (the appellant) and that she has lived with the family in New Zealand for most, if not all, of the grandchildren’s lives. They have grown up with her as an adult member of their household who has been at least partially responsible for their care. [26] Members of the appellant’s community describe, in their various letters, how she looks after the grandchildren while their parents are working, by providing childcare and taking on domestic tasks. This includes taking the grandchildren with her for weekends away when she visits her friends and caring for them alongside the children of other members of [NAME_8]. One community member writes that “it is clear that her bond with [her grandchildren] is exceptionally strong, and she provides them with a level of care

7 and guidance that is unique and irreplaceable”. They go on to explain that her “presence is a source of stability and love for her grandchildren”. Another community member describes the grandchildren’s bond with their grandmother as “incredibly close”. [27] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has provided care and support for her grandchildren over the time she has been in New Zealand. While her ability to provide such care may be waning, given her age and health, this will not negate the strong bonds she will have formed with them over the years. [28] The Tribunal finds it reasonable to infer that it will be in the grandchildren’s best interests to remain in a stable (and certain) household environment that includes their grandmother. Further, and noting the appellant’s health (discussed below), the Tribunal is satisfied that separating the grandchildren from their grandmother, in circumstances where a return to Kiribati is likely to be significantly detrimental to her health, will not be in their best interests. The appellant’s health conditions [29] The appellant has multiple health conditions. [NAME_6]’s letter records that the appellant has latent autoimmune diabetes (diagnosed in October 2025), type 2 diabetes mellitus (diagnosed in 2009), hypertension (which is currently treated), bilateral cataracts (moderately dense, nuclear sclerotic and cortical) and left nasal pterygium with induced astigmatism. She is under ophthalmological care for the latter two conditions and relies on her family for daily support. She takes two medications, for her hypertension and diabetes, and is prescribed glucose and ketone test strips. [30] The daughter’s evidence is that the appellant’s immigration status and uncertain ability to remain in New Zealand is exacerbating her health challenges and undermining her general wellbeing. [31] While it appears that the appellant’s medical conditions are currently stable, this has not always been the case. In July 2025, another general practitioner from the same practice, [NAME_4], wrote, in a letter (17 July 2025), that the appellant has “severe, uncontrolled diabetes which has led to significant and debilitating complications, profoundly impacting her quality of life and overall health”. At that time, [NAME_4] wrote that the appellant’s “condition has deteriorated to a critical point” and that she:

8 … exhibits severe impairments including significant vision loss, profound hearing impairment, and substantial cognitive decline affecting her memory, particularly her ability to adhere to essential medication [regimes]. These compounding health issues severely limit her independence and make effective self-management of her diabetes impossible. [32] [NAME_4] noted his grave concern that the appellant’s visa status in New Zealand limits her access to medical care and states: It is my professional opinion that [the appellant] requires immediate and ongoing access to comprehensive medical care, including specialist consultations, regular monitoring, and appropriate medication management, which can only be adequately provided in New Zealand. Her current health status is dire, and without consistent and specialized medical intervention, her prognosis is extremely poor. Crucially, the necessary medical facilities and specialized care required to manage [the appellant’s] complex diabetic complications are not available in Kiribati. Returning her to Kiribati would effectively deny her access to life-sustaining treatment and would undoubtedly lead to a rapid and irreversible decline in her health, with a high probability of preventable morbidity and mortality. [33] In October 2025, the appellant spent a week in a high dependency unit in a [COMPANY_10]. She was admitted with diabetic ketoacidosis and pneumonia. Her hospital discharge summary records that she also suffered an acute kidney injury and delirium as secondary complications. [NAME_6] considers this hospital admission to highlight the appellant’s vulnerability “to becoming seriously unwell, particularly when she develops other conditions”. Access to healthcare and general country conditions in Kiribati [34] In terms of the availability of healthcare in Kiribati, the Tribunal (differently constituted) explored this in [NAME_11] [2024] NZIPT 506064. [NAME_11] set out, at [22], that: United Nations Population Fund Pacific Health Facility Readiness and Service Availability Assessment: Republic of Kiribati (March 2020) records the limited service capacity and limited access to health care in Kiribati. The leading causes of death in Kiribati include cardiovascular diseases, digestive diseases, diabetes and cancer. [35] According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the leading cause of death for women in Kiribati is diabetes mellitus (see WHO Kiribati – Health data overview for the Republic of Kiribati (2026) at https://data.who.int). [36] WHO, in its report Pacific Islands–WHO Multi-country Cooperation Strategy 2024 – 2029 (3 October 2024), writes: While Kiribati has seen some health improvements, it continues to face high burdens of communicable diseases and [noncommunicable diseases (NCDs)]. Gaps persist in Kiribati’s overstretched health system including those related to the geographic spread, limited human resources and the complexities of service

9 delivery. Key issues facing the country include persistent issues of neglected tropical diseases, tuberculosis and communicable disease outbreaks, as well as the growing challenge of NCDs, malnutrition, and maternal and child mortality. Building climate-resilient, sustainable and holistic health systems and addressing the social determinants of health will be crucial to improving population health outcomes. [37] The Tribunal, in [NAME_11], observes that: [24] Kiribati relies on support provided by other countries, including Australia, for implementation of key health services and, in particular, targeted health worker training through the Kiribati-Australia Health Sector Programme: see Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade 2021-22 Kiribati Development Program Progress Report (2022). In New Zealand, there is also the New Zealand Medical Treatment Scheme, operating within the wider context of the New Zealand Aid Programme, which funds residents from Pacific countries, including Kiribati, to travel to New Zealand for treatment that they cannot receive in their home country (see Pasifika Medical Association Group NZ Medical Treatment Scheme (2023) at https://pmagroup.org.nz). [38] More generally, it is well accepted in the Tribunal’s jurisprudence that Kiribati is facing socio-economic and climate change-related challenges which have impacted its economy and adversely impact the enjoyment of human rights (see, for example, BH (Kiribati) [2025] NZIPT 506651–652 at [32]–[40]; Pita [2023] NZIPT 506029 at [41]–[55]; [NAME_12]) [2023] NZIPT 506036 at [36]–[39]; and [NAME_13]) [2022] NZIPT 802085 at [51]–[61] and [70]–[85]). Key challenges include poverty, access to safe drinking water, sanitation and hygiene, saltwater intrusion, coastal erosion and food insecurity, including depletion of marine resources, and overcrowding. The appellant’s general prospects in Kiribati [39] The representative submits that the appellant has one brother in Kiribati, whom she states is her (the appellant’s) only remaining family member there. This is in contrast to the appellant’s family declaration which records that she also has a sister, two daughters, two sons-in-law and 11 grandchildren living in Kiribati. As such, the evidence before the Tribunal is that the appellant retains a strong familial nexus to Kiribati, through her two daughters and two siblings (and their families) who remain living there, although she has not been there herself for more than 16 years. [40] Nevertheless, the brother writes that he is unable to house the appellant. He describes his home in South Tarawa as a “single-room dwelling that consists solely of a kitchen, toilet and bathroom, without any separate bedrooms”. He, his wife and their two granddaughters, who help care for them, share the home and, when their other grandchildren come to stay, the house becomes overcrowded,

10 with the floor the only available sleeping area. The brother explains that his own children have established their own households and families and are unable to accommodate their aunt. [41] One of the appellant’s daughters in Kiribati explains, in a letter, that she is also unable to house the appellant. She lives with her partner and their five children in a home on her partner’s family’s land in the outer islands. She describes the home as a “single roof house with only a kitchen” in which the appellant, if she were to live with them, would be required to sleep on the floor. She explains that she and her husband are unemployed and live a subsistence lifestyle, which is becoming increasingly difficult as resources are depleted. [42] There is no information before the Tribunal as to the circumstances of the remaining daughter in Kiribati or those of the appellant’s other sibling there. Nevertheless, the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant does not have a home of her own to return to and that at least two of her family are unable to provide her with accommodation should she return to Kiribati. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [43] Considering the above on a cumulative basis, the Tribunal is satisfied that there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in this case. This is because the appellant has been in New Zealand for more than 16 years and is well-settled here with strong familial bonds, including to her grandchildren. Further, the appellant’s health is now such that adequate healthcare is not available in Kiribati, and a return to Kiribati will lead to an irreversible decline in her health and life expectancy. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [44] 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_9] v Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 132, [2016] 1 NZLR 248 at [9]. [45] The appellant is unlawfully in New Zealand following the expiry of her one-day visitor visa, which was granted in August 2025 to facilitate the present appeal. The one-day visitor visa was preceded by a prolonged period of approximately 16 years of being unlawfully present in New Zealand.

11 Having arrived as the holder of a three-month visitor visa in August 2009, the appellant became unlawfully here in November 2009. [46] The appellant’s daughter explains that her own limited English, understanding of New Zealand’s immigration system and need for support as a new migrant led to the appellant remaining here past the expiry of her visa. She writes that she is now better informed, regrets the “initial oversight” (allowing the appellant to remain in New Zealand unlawfully) and wants to do all that she can to help her mother regularise her immigration status. [47] The Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant and her family members are in a position of stress but does not condone the appellant’s lengthy period of unlawfulness, regardless of the reason for such. It observes that, in May and June 2015, Immigration New Zealand put the appellant and her daughter on notice that she was unlawfully in New Zealand and that the appellant was required to depart but that no steps were taken towards either her voluntary departure or her deportation. Regardless, the appellant always remained responsible for complying with the terms of her visa, which included departing New Zealand prior to its expiry. Given that she has now been in New Zealand unlawfully for more than 16 years, the Tribunal considers the appellant’s breach of the integrity of the immigration system to be significant. [48] Against this, the Tribunal weighs the exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature identified above. In particular, the Tribunal acknowledges that the appellant faces significant detrimental health impacts if she returns to Kiribati. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [49] Weighing the reason that the appellant is liable for deportation against the consequences of her deportation, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be unjust or unduly harsh for her to be deported from New Zealand. Public Interest [50] 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 public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. This involves the weighing of those factors which would make it in the public interest for the

12 appellant to remain against those which make it in the public interest that he leaves; [NAME_14] v Chief Executive of Department of Labour (HC Auckland, CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41]. [51] The Tribunal has found that it would be unjust or unduly harsh to deport the appellant in the immediate future, because of her current exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. There is a public interest in avoiding outcomes which 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]. [52] The Tribunal notes the representative’s submissions regarding the public interest in family unity (see Articles 17 and 23(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) and acknowledges that there is a positive public interest in upholding New Zealand’s international obligations in this regard. However, the appellant’s immigration status has been determined in accordance with New Zealand law and immigration policy and does not constitute an arbitrary or unlawful interference with her family, notwithstanding that it gives rise to compassionate factors. [53] There is a positive public interest in preserving the best interests of children. In this case, the appellant has been a long-standing member of her New Zealand-based grandchildren’s family and the Tribunal has found that it is in their best interests that she remains in New Zealand. This is due to the caregiving role she has played within the family, for most, if not all, of the grandchildren’s lives. [54] The appellant has spent a significant period unlawfully in New Zealand, a negative public interest factor. There is a strong public interest in preserving the integrity of the immigration system. Individuals who enter New Zealand as the holders of temporary visas are expected to depart prior to the expiry of those visas. Of the more than 16 years she has spent in New Zealand, the appellant has been lawfully here for only three months. It was not until 2025 that she attempted to rectify her immigration status, through a request for a visa under section 61 of the Act, and the Tribunal considers that this does little to mitigate her significant period of unlawfulness. [55] The appellant requires health care for her medical conditions, which will generate an associated cost (and potential burden) to the New Zealand health care system. She has recently had a short period of hospitalisation and has

13 required comprehensive and specialist support to manage her uncontrolled diabetes and the secondary consequences of such. [56] While her health is a negative public interest factor, the appellant is no longer in an acute episode. [NAME_6] anticipates that, if she remains in New Zealand, the appellant’s ongoing healthcare needs would be: regular general practitioner monitoring of her diabetes, hypertension and general health; continued ophthalmological care, which may include surgery in the future; continuation of her current medications to maintain the stability of her medical conditions and reduce the risk of further acute episodes; and the ongoing supply of glucose and ketone monitoring consumables to support safe self-management of her diabetes at home. [57] Against this, the Tribunal weighs [NAME_4]’s opinion that a return to Kiribati would lead to an irreversible decline in the appellant’s health. The Tribunal is satisfied that the potential burden which the appellant presents to the [NAME_10] is outweighed by the public interest in her remaining in New Zealand with her family members and in the compassionate treatment of someone who is well settled here and whose health and wellbeing would be put at risk on return to their home country. [58] There are no additional adverse public interest considerations. The appellant provided a police certificate (29 August 2025) from Kiribati which records she has no convictions. The Tribunal has obtained a Ministry of Justice criminal history check (24 March 2026) which records she has no convictions in New Zealand. Conclusion on public interest [59] For the reasons discussed, the Tribunal finds that in all the circumstances, it would not be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. DETERMINATION [60] 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.

14 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME_1] Member [61] The Tribunal also finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest for her to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. Order for Grant of a Visa [62] Pursuant to section 210(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a resident visa. [63] The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [64] 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 the identification of the appellant. This is because the decision outlines sensitive health information. “[NAME_1]” [NAME_1] Member