Immigration & Protection Tribunal: Decision Upheld with Exception Recommendation

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207492 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME_2] (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 20 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 50-year-old citizen of China whose application for residence under the Family (Partnership) category was declined by [NAME_5]. THE ISSUE [2] [NAME_5] declined the appellant’s residence application because her New Zealand-citizen partner was not eligible to support her application, as he had acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that [NAME_5]’s decision was correct. [3] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances, arising from her relationship with her partner, the extent of his settlement and nexus to New Zealand, and their preference for living in New Zealand rather than China, such that a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to Government residence instructions is

2 warranted. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has such special circumstances.

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in China. She was married there and had one child, who is now an adult, with her former husband. The couple divorced in 2016. [5] The appellant first travelled to New Zealand in 2013 as the holder of a visitor visa. One of her sisters lives in New Zealand and the appellant’s son also spent time here as a student. During one of her visits, in July 2023, the appellant met her partner. [NAME_6]’s Previous Relationships [6] [NAME_6] is a 50-year-old New Zealand citizen. He was born in China and first travelled to New Zealand in 2001 as the holder of a resident visa. He was granted this visa as a secondary applicant in his first wife’s 1995 General Skills category application. [7] In 2004, the partner and his first wife divorced. [8] In 2007, the partner supported his second wife for residence under the Family (Partnership) category. Although his second wife had been offshore since 2018, the couple only divorced in February 2024. [9] [NAME_6] has two children from his former relationships, who live in Australia. The Appellant’s Relationship With Her Partner [10] The appellant met her partner while visiting New Zealand in July 2023 at a regional [COMPANY_7] event organised by [NAME_8]. In August 2023, the couple began to date and, in November 2023, commenced living together. [11] In February 2024, the couple travelled to China together. The partner returned to New Zealand in March 2024 and the appellant returned in April 2024. In May 2024, they married in New Zealand.

3 [12] Since their marriage, the appellant has spent time in China between September and October 2024 and April and June 2025. Her partner was in China between December 2024 and January 2025. She returned to New Zealand in June 2025 and has remained here since. Since meeting her partner, the appellant has been granted a one-year partnership-based work visa in 2024, and two general visitor visas. She currently holds a visitor visa valid to February 2027. Residence Application [13] On 19 January 2025, the appellant made an online application under the Family (Partnership) category of residence instructions. [14] Family (Partnership) category instructions require that the New Zealand-citizen or resident partner must not have acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application. [15] On 18 June 2025, [NAME_5] advised the appellant that it appeared her partner was ineligible to support her application under F2.10.10 of instructions. This was because he had acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application: when he obtained residence in 2001 as a secondary applicant in his first wife’s residence application; and when he supported his second wife for residence in 2007. [16] On 24 July 2024, counsel accepted that F2.10.10 applied to the appellant and signalled her intention to appeal [NAME_5]’s eventual decision to the Tribunal. [NAME_5]’s Decision [17] By letter dated 1 August 2025, [NAME_5] declined the appellant’s application. Her partner was not eligible to support her application under F2.10.10, having acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application. [NAME_5] had no discretion to do other than decline the application. TATUTORY GROUNDS [18] The appellant’s right of appeal arises from section 187(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act). Section 187(4) of the Act provides:

4 (4) The grounds for an appeal under this section are that— (a) the relevant decision was not correct in terms of the residence instructions applicable at the time the relevant application for the visa was made; or (b) the special circumstances of the appellant are such that consideration of an exception to those residence instructions should be recommended. [19] The residence instructions referred to in section 187(4) are the Government residence instructions contained in [NAME_5]’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [20] On 4 August 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal. She did not nominate, in her appeal form, the section 187(4) of the Act ground on which she appealed. However, counsel accepts, in submissions, that [NAME_6] was not an eligible supporting partner and focuses on the appellant’s special circumstances. The Tribunal therefore proceeds on the basis that the appeal is made on the ground that her circumstances are special such that an exception to residence instructions should be considered. This, as will be seen, requires the Tribunal to first assess whether [NAME_5]’s decision was correct. [21] Counsel submits that there is no evidence to suggest that either of the partner’s previous relationships were entered into for non-genuine reasons. He has lived in New Zealand for many years and is well-settled here. He was unaware of the policy that prevents him from acting as a partner in more than one successful residence application, and the appellant had previously been granted a work visa based on her partnership with the partner. The partner has benefited emotionally from the relationship, and he fears the appellant’s return to China and having to choose between his relationship or his settled life in New Zealand. [22] In support of the appeal, and in addition to documents already provided to [NAME_5] and [NAME_5] documents, counsel provides the following documents: (a) A letter from the appellant in Chinese and an uncertified translation thereof.

5 (b) Two undated letters from [NAME_6] in which he sets out why the couple prefer New Zealand to China and his view of instruction F2.10.10. (c) An undated letter from [NAME_6]. (d) An undated letter from [NAME_8] in which she writes of her support for the couple. (e) An undated letter from [NAME_6] to the Minister of Immigration setting out his concerns regarding instruction F2.10.10 and the policy behind it and seeking a humanitarian exception for the appellant’s residence application. (f) A copy of a rates invoice addressed to [NAME_6] and another individual (not the appellant). (g) Various photographs of the couple and other individuals. (h) Copies of SY (Partnership) [2024] NZIPT 206986 and SJ (Partnership) [2024] NZIPT 206988. Further information provided on appeal [23] The Tribunal cannot consider further information provided by an appellant that was not before [NAME_5] at the time that it made its decision to decline the application (section 189(1) of the Act). [24] There is a relevant exception to section 189(1) where, as in this case, the Tribunal considers that the further information provided on appeal is necessary for its determination of whether the appellant has special circumstances (section 189(3)(b)). This assessment is set out below at [32]. ASSESSMENT [25] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal and the file provided by [NAME_5] in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and [NAME_5]’s relevant electronic records.

6 [26] Although the appellant appeals only on the ground of having special circumstances, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether [NAME_5]’s decision to decline the application was correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. This is set out below and is followed by an assessment of whether the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration of an exception by the Minister of Immigration. Whether the Decision is Correct [27] The application was made on 19 January 2025 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. [NAME_5] declined the application because the appellant was not an eligible supporting partner, having acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application. [28] Family (Partnership) category instructions provide that an application for residence under this category must be supported by an eligible partner: F2.5 How do partners of New Zealand citizens and residents qualify for a residence class visa? … d. An application under [NAME_9] will be declined if: i. the application is not supported by an eligible New Zealand citizen or resident partner; or … Effective 08/05/2017 [29] A partner will not be eligible if they have acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application: F2.10.10 Definition of ‘eligible to support a residence class visa application under the [NAME_9]’ a. For a New Zealand partner (F2.10.2) to be eligible to support a residence class visa application under the [NAME_9] they: i. must not have acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence class visa application (see (b) below); and … b. A New Zealand partner is considered to have acted as a partner if they previously: i. supported a successful [NAME_9] application for a residence class visa; or …

7 iv. were a secondary applicant partner in a successful application for a residence class visa, excluding residence class visa applications made under RV After the grant of a resident visa. Note: Applications under [NAME_9] include applications made under the Family Category Spouse and De facto partner policy in force before [NAME_9] took effect. Effective 23/12/2019 [30] The appellant’s application was supported by her New Zealand citizen partner. He had been granted residence as a secondary applicant partner in 2001 (F2.10.10.b.iv). He then supported his second wife for residence in an application which was approved in 2007 (F2.10.10.b.i). He has therefore acted as a partner in more than one previous successful residence application and is not an eligible supporting partner (F2.10.10.a.i). [NAME_5] was therefore required to decline the appellant’s application in accordance with F2.5.d.i. Conclusion on correctness [31] For the reasons set out above, the Tribunal finds that [NAME_5]’s decision to decline the appellant’s residence application was correct. [NAME_6] was not an eligible supporting partner (F2.10.10.a.i) and [NAME_5] was required to decline the application (F2.5.d.i). Whether there are Special Circumstances [32] Where the Tribunal found the decision of [NAME_5] to be correct, it has the power to consider whether the circumstances of the appellant are special, such that they warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to the residence instructions. [33] Whether an appellant has special circumstances will depend on the particular facts of each case. The Tribunal balances all relevant factors in each case to determine whether the appellant's circumstances, when considered cumulatively, are special. [34] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME_10] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J.

8 Personal and family circumstances [35] The appellant is a 50-year-old citizen of China. She was married in China and has a 30-year-old son with her former husband (whom she divorced in 2016). [36] The appellant currently lives in New Zealand with her 50-year-old New Zealand citizen partner. They have been in a relationship since August 2023, a period of less than three years. [37] [NAME_6] came to New Zealand in 2001, the year after he became a New Zealand resident. He has largely lived here since, although he has travelled regularly to China, sometimes remaining outside New Zealand for longer periods (from example, between June 2008 and February 2010, and April 2016 and November 2018). [38] The appellant’s father, a widower, lives in China as does one of her sisters and her son. The partner’s parents and sister also live in China, and the appellant states they have welcomed her into their family. The appellant’s remaining sister lives in New Zealand with her two children. Immigration history [39] The appellant has a long history of travelling to New Zealand. She first arrived more here as a visitor more than 13 years ago and, between February 2013 and July 2023, travelled here on nine occasions, remaining here for between 15 and 46 days each time. [40] Since meeting her partner, the appellant has spent more time in New Zealand. She was granted a one-year partnership-based work visa in September 2024 and has subsequently been granted two general visitor visas. Her current visa is valid to February 2027. She has been in New Zealand between November 2023 and February 2024; April 2024 and September 2024; October 2024 and April 2025; and from June 2025 onwards. [NAME_6] [41] [NAME_6] was born in China. He has lived in New Zealand for approximately 25 years and has been a New Zealand citizen for around 20 years. For the last seven years, he has worked at a joinery company. He writes of his settlement in New Zealand and his preference to remain in New Zealand, which he describes as a deliberate lifestyle choice. The appellant is from a large

9 metropolitan city in China, which the partner describes as having a “relentless rhythm” and being “better suited for the young chasing opportunities and thrills”. He considers its urban environment, fast pace, hyper-competitive job market and the costs associated with living there to be incompatible with his preferred way of life, which he has found, and now so too has the appellant, in New Zealand. Having been outside of China for so long, he is concerned that he will be isolated as a “foreigner”, and by language barriers, cultural gaps and lack of social networks. [42] Quite aside from the couple’s preference to live in New Zealand, the partner may not be able to live in China, as of right. Chinese law does not recognise dual citizenship, and he is a New Zealand citizen. Most recently, he has been spending time in China holding visas that allow a 180-day stay. It may be that he can acquire a Chinese resident permit to allow him to remain for longer periods. He does not, however, currently hold one. [NAME_6]’s previous relationships and ineligibility as a supporting partner [43] The Tribunal has consistently noted that one of the main purposes of the policy which prevents an individual acting as a partner in more than two residence applications is to guard against potential abuses of the immigration system through the creation of relationships that are not genuine. An underlying concern is that, when a partner is supporting a third or subsequent partner for residence, the partnerships are motivated by one party’s desire to gain residence, rather than the creation of a genuine and stable partnership (see MJ (Partnership) [2015] NZIPT 202701 at [36]). The Tribunal has also acknowledged that, over the course of a lifespan, mature individuals may have several genuine relationships which end because of various life circumstances, such as death or irreconcilable differences (see KZ (Partnership) [2021] NZIPT 206285 at [40]). [44] [NAME_6] first travelled to New Zealand in 2001, the year after being granted a resident visa as a secondary applicant in his then-wife’s 1995 General Skills category application. Their relationship ended in 2004, and the couple divorced the same year. [45] [NAME_5]’s customer interaction notes for the partner record that it received information that the appellant’s relationship with his first wife had ended during the course of their General Skills category residence application and that the couple did not live together after being granted permanent residence.

10 In 2005, [NAME_5] considered whether to revoke the partner’s resident visa but, in 2006, decided not to proceed with revocation because the partner was married (presumably to his second wife) and had a New Zealand-born child. He was also, at this stage, a New Zealand citizen. [46] [NAME_5]’s concerns in this regard are now more than 20 years old and it ultimately decided not to proceed with revoking the partner’s resident visa. As such, the Tribunal notes [NAME_5]’s concern regarding the genuineness of this relationship but does not consider this concern, as recorded in the customer interaction notes, to be a sufficient basis to find that the partner has been party to the type of relationship that F2.10.10 is intended to guard against. [47] As to the partner’s second marriage, it appears that he and his second wife married in either 2005 or 2006. In 2007, the second wife’s residence application, made on the basis of her partnership with the partner, was granted. The couple appear to have had two children together (who now live in Australia). They divorced in 2024 but [NAME_5]’s electronic records for the partner record that his second wife has been offshore since 2018 and that their relationship did not overlap with his relationship with the appellant. It may be that the partner’s relationship with his second wife ended some time before their marriage was formally dissolved. [48] It is not known to the Tribunal why either of the partner’s two previous marriages ended, or exactly when this occurred. Neither the partner nor the appellant address this in any of their letters to the Tribunal. Regardless, there is nothing before the Tribunal that suggests the partner’s second marriage was not genuine or was entered into for the purpose of enabling his second wife to gain residence. [49] [NAME_5] was satisfied that the appellant and her partner are in a genuine and stable partnership. It considered them to be credible and was not concerned by their periods of separation. The evidence before the Tribunal does not suggest that [NAME_5] was incorrect in this regard and the Tribunal accepts that the couple’s partnership is genuine and stable.

11 Settlement in, and contribution to, New Zealand [50] The appellant has a long history of travelling to New Zealand for short term visits prior to meeting her partner. Over a 10-year period, she made nine trips to New Zealand, meeting her husband on the last of those visits. While these visits do not establish settlement here, they do deepen her connection to New Zealand which goes beyond her relationship with her partner. [51] The appellant’s evidence is that she sold her home and car in China at the end of 2025 and invested her assets in New Zealand. The partner has recently re-financed his mortgage, and the couple have moved to a larger property. She shares a joint bank account with the partner, and splits mortgage and utility payments with him. [52] It is evident that the appellant’s contribution to New Zealand is made primarily to her family here. She currently does not hold employment here (her visitor visa does not permit her to work) and it is not evident to the Tribunal if she obtained employment during the currency of her 12-month partnership-based work visa granted in 2024. [53] [NAME_8] in New Zealand writes of her support for the appellant and her relationship. She explains that her family has become close with the appellant and her partner, and they interact often, with the appellant and her partner taking the sister’s children hiking and fishing. She also explains that her husband lives in the United States of America for most of the year. Because of this, when she became unwell in September 2025, he was not able to help her and their children. Instead, the appellant and the partner provided her with much needed care and assistance. The partner assisted her with English translations and cooked for her daily. The appellant drove her to appointments, sat with her through six-months of treatments and still drives her children to school. There is no question that she has provided her sister with valuable practical and emotional support during her illness, as has the partner. [54] The sister’s children are aged 16 and 15 years. The Tribunal is therefore required to consider their best interests in accordance with Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The sister’s children remain in her care and the evidence before the Tribunal does not demonstrate that she is unable to adequately care for and support them, notwithstanding her recent illness. While the appellant, and her partner, have provided both children with support over this period and have grown close to them, and the children have, no doubt, benefited

12 from the presence of them in their lives as their mother has been unwell, it has not been demonstrated that their best interests necessitate a grant of residence to the appellant at this time. Health and character requirements [55] [NAME_5] was satisfied that the appellant met the health requirements of instructions. [56] [NAME_5] was also satisfied that the appellant met the character requirements in instructions. However, it did not complete its assessment of whether the partner met the requirements of character instructions. He provided, in lieu of a police certificate from China, a statutory declaration in which he declared that he was unable to obtain such a certificate, the reasons why, the steps he had taken in his attempts to obtain a certificate, and that he had no convictions, offences or charges in China during the last 10 years. [57] An updated police certificate (15 May 2026) from China for the appellant is clear. Similarly, an updated statutory declaration (16 May 2026) from her partner records that he has never been convicted or found guilty of any offences in China, nor is he facing charges there. A Ministry of Justice criminal history check (19 May 2026) for the appellant records that she has no convictions in New Zealand. Discussion on special circumstances [58] The appellant is a 50-year-old Chinese citizen. She has a strong familial nexus to China, through her son, father and one of her sisters, and to New Zealand, through her partner and remaining sister and her sister’s family. [59] The appellant has a genuine and stable partnership with a New Zealand citizen. The relationship began in August 2023 and the couple have been married since May 2024. They currently reside in New Zealand and wish to settle permanently here. [60] [NAME_6] has lived in New Zealand for approximately 25 years and has been a New Zealand citizen for approximately 20 years. He is well-settled here, holds employment and has a home and other assets here. [NAME_8] in New Zealand is highly supportive of the couple’s relationship and the couple have provided her with much-needed support as she was treated

13 for, and recovers from, an illness. They have also provided support and care to her two children, although the Tribunal has found that their best interests do not necessitate a grant of residence to the appellant at this time. [61] The appellant’s residence application was declined because her partner has previously acted as a partner in more than one successful residence application, in 2001 and 2007. While there is some question over his first marriage, the Tribunal has accepted that his prior relationships do not raise the policy concerns, that is that they were for immigration purposes, which F2.10.10 is intended to protect against. Nevertheless, instruction F2.10.10 operates as a permanent bar such that the appellant will never be able to secure a grant of residence on the basis of her partnership without an exception to instructions. She has no obvious alternative pathway to residence. Conclusion on special circumstances [62] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant and her partner, the Tribunal finds that, considered cumulatively, the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [63] Pursuant to section 188(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 2009, the Tribunal confirms the decision of [NAME_5] to be correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions but considers that the special circumstances of the appellant are such as to warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions. [64] Pursuant to section 190(5) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration: (a) is requested to consider whether a residence class visa should be granted, as an exception to residence instructions, to the appellant; and (b) may, if granting a resident visa, impose conditions on the visa in accordance with section 50 of the Act.

14 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME_2] Member [65] Pursuant to section 190(6) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration is not obliged to give reasons in relation to any decision made as a result of a consideration of the Tribunal’s recommendation. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [66] 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 or her partner. “[NAME_2]” [NAME_2] Member