Immigration & Protection Tribunal Rejects Humanitarian Deportation Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507175−176 [NAME], [NAME]

[NAME]: FG (India)

Respondent: [redacted]

Before: Judge M Treadwell (Chair)

Representative for [NAME]: [NAME] represent themselves

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 21 April 2026 ___________________________________________________________________

DECISION _________________________________________________________________ [1] These are humanitarian appeals by a husband and wife, citizens of India, against their liability for deportation. The appeals include their two dependent children. The husband is aged 33 years, the wife 27 years. The children are [NAME] aged seven years, and [NAME] who is one year of age. The wife is the responsible adult for the children. [2] The appeals were lodged at the same time as the family’s [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] appeals. Having declined those appeals, the Tribunal must now consider the humanitarian appeals. THE ISSUE [3] The primary issue on appeal is whether [NAME] have exceptional humanitarian circumstances that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for them to be deported at this time, having regard to their settlement in this country, the wife’s anxiety, depression and stress at the prospect of returning to India and the best interests of the children.

2 [4] For the reasons which follow, the Tribunal declines the appeals but orders that the deportation of [NAME] be delayed for three months from the date of this decision, to put their affairs in order.

BACKGROUND [5] On 26 May 2023, [NAME] applied for New Zealand visitor visas. [6] On 13 July 2023, visas were approved and, on 18 August 2023, [NAME] arrived in New Zealand. [7] On 23 August 2023, the [RESPONDENT[NAME] received [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] claim forms for [NAME]. [8] On 25 March 2024, the husband was interviewed. On 26 March 2024, the wife was interviewed. Due to his young age [NAME] was not interviewed. [9] In July 2024, [NAME] was born in New Zealand. He is a citizen of India. On 27 September 2024, the [RESPONDENT[NAME] received a Confirmation of Claim form for him. Again, the mother was the nominated responsible adult for him. [10] On 12 June 2025, the [RESPONDENT[NAME] declined [NAME]’ claims. [11] On 19 January 2026, the Tribunal dismissed [NAME]’ appeals in relation to their claims for recognition as [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] persons. See AL (India) [2026] NZIPT 803004−007. That has meant that the Tribunal must now determine the present appeals. STATUTORY GROUNDS [12] 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 [13] 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]. [NAME]’ CASE [14] [NAME]’ case is set out in their [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] appeals and in submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 28 January 2026. In summary, they submit that they have exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for them to be deported for the following reasons: The [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] appeals (a) [NAME] say that they come from a rural village in Kerala. In 2012, the husband became a member of the [NAME]. On 9 May 2023, the party staged a national protest in another village. The husband was among five attendees from his village. As they approached a certain point in the road, their path was blocked by one [NAME], a member of political groups opposing the husband’s party, and his associates. [NAME] and about 12 of his associates punctured the tyres of their car and threatened the husband and his friends. (b) On their way home, the husband and his friends stopped at a police station and reported the incident. [NAME] was known to the police but they could not find him. They wanted [NAME] in prison as there was already a restraining order preventing him from entering [NAME]’ village. (c) Despite the restraining order, [NAME] entered the village and threatened the husband and his friends in May 2023. (d) On 20 May 2023, the husband and his family were travelling by motorcycle when their motorcycle was hit from behind by a car that had followed them. The husband and the wife saw [NAME] seated in the

4 front with two others in the back. The wife fell off the motorcycle and landed on her face. The husband’s leg was trapped under the motorcycle. [NAME] and the two passengers got out and warned the family that the husband's leg would be chopped off and their son would suffer the same fate if they reported the incident to the police. [NAME] stated that it was in retaliation for the earlier complaint to the police. The husband sought medical assistance for injured ligaments in his ankle and was told to rest for a month. The wife and the son were not seriously injured. (e) The husband and the wife are now in fear of further retaliation from [NAME]. The family’s settlement in New Zealand (f) The family arrived in New Zealand in August 2023. Since that time, they have established strong family, community, and social ties. Requiring the family to depart upon the expiry of their current visas would cause significant and undue hardship, particularly to the children. (g) During the uncertainty of their status, the husband has taken steps to maintain his mental wellbeing through constructive activities, including occasional involvement at local cultural music events. This has assisted him to manage his stress, maintain his emotional stability, and develop social connections within the local community. The following activities demonstrate his commitment to contributing positively to New Zealand society: (i) Volunteering with [NAME], a charitable organisation. (ii) Performing at community events, fostering social connections. (iii) Completing halal slaughter pre-employment training. (iv) Obtaining a Certificate of Approval as a licenced security guard.

5 The wife’s mental health (h) The wife suffers from anxiety and depressive disorder, accompanied by a severe and ongoing fear of returning to India. She is currently receiving medical and psychosocial support through [NAME] (“[NAME])”) and [COMPANY], including participation in [RESPONDENT] group for women and their children, which has been essential in helping her manage her state of mind and maintain daily functioning. (i) The uncertainty surrounding their status has already placed the wife under significant emotional strain. Any forced return would result in a serious and immediate deterioration of her mental health, potentially placing her at risk of further psychological harm. (j) Such a deterioration would also negatively affect the wellbeing of the children, who depend on the wife’s emotional stability and caregiving. The specialised mental health and community support systems available in New Zealand are not accessible, safe, or comparable in India, particularly given her condition and fear of return. (k) Removal from her present stable and supportive environment would likely lead to severe, long-term, and potentially irreversible consequences for the wife’s mental health and for the overall stability and welfare of the family. Ongoing treatment is essential for the wife’s stability and the children’s wellbeing The best interests of the children (l) [NAME] was born in New Zealand, and [NAME] is currently enrolled in Year 3 at primary [COMPANY]. [NAME] speaks only English and has no meaningful connection with India. Removal from New Zealand would expose him to significant language barriers, cultural dislocation and psychological hardship. (m) Both children are emotionally, socially and academically settled within the New Zealand education system. [NAME] has demonstrated positive [COMPANY] engagement and performance and has been awarded two [COMPANY] certificates recognising teamwork and self- management skills. These achievements reflect his successful

6 integration, emotional stability and development within the New Zealand schooling environment. (n) A forced departure would: (i) disrupt the children’s education and psychological development; (ii) cause the children emotional distress and instability; (iii) remove them from a safe, familiar and supportive environment; and (iv) be further compounded by parental mental health challenges. Materials and Documents [15] The Tribunal has before it the files in relation to [NAME]’ [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] claims, which includes all documents submitted by them to the [RESPONDENT[NAME]. [16] In support of the appeals, [NAME] also provide the following documents: (a) written submissions; (b) a letter dated 21 January 2026, from the wife’s doctor, recording that the wife has been under the doctor’s care since March 2024 and has experienced anxiety, depression and stress for which she has been “on treatment” since January 2025 and requires “support and stability in a safe environment”; (c) a certificate dated 8 December 2025 for the wife in recognition of her completing a course in positive parenting; (d) a letter dated 22 January 2026 from the [RESPONDENT] group, confirming that [NAME] has been attending a [NAME] since August 2025, that both the wife and [NAME] have attended the group’s English classes and that the family is settling in and making friends and connections;

7 (e) certificates for the elder son from his [COMPANY], praising him for teamwork and for being a ‘self-manager’; (f) a letter dated 23 January 2026 from [COMPANY], confirming [NAME]’s enrolment there; (g) a copy of the New Zealand birth certificate for [NAME]; (h) a screenshot of the website for [NAME], recording the husband as training there; (i) a certificate for the husband, recording his attendance at a halal slaughter training course; (j) a copy of the husband’s personnel badge as a private security guard; (k) a letter dated 22 January 2026 from [NAME], a family friend, supporting the appeals; (l) a letter dated 22 January 2026 from [NAME], a friend of the husband since 2023, supporting the appeals; (m) a letter dated 22 January 2026 from [NAME], a friend of the husband since 2023, supporting the appeals; and (n) a letter dated 22 January 2026 from [NAME], a family friend, supporting the appeals. ASSESSMENT [17] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by [NAME]. It has also considered the Immigration New Zealand files in relation to their temporary visa applications, Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records, the [RESPONDENT[NAME]’s files in relation to [NAME]’ [RESPONDENT] claims and their [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] status appeal files. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [18] 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

8 rare, they do have to be “truly an exception rather than the rule” — see [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. [19] The High Court has held that the threshold for such a finding is “high”, and that the stringent statutory test of “exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature” cannot be equated with “compassionate factors”, circumstances that are more than simply “routine”, or even “genuinely concerning circumstances” — see Minister of Immigration v Jooste [2014] NZHC 2882, [2015] 2 NZLR 765, at [45]. [NAME]’ [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] claims [20] [NAME]’ [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] appeals centred around the husband, a Muslim, who had a confrontation with a [NAME] (“[NAME]”) and Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (“RSS”) member, who later knocked him off his motorcycle in retaliation for his having made a complaint to the police. The wife and son were also on the motorcycle. The wife fell off and landed on her face. The husband’s leg was trapped under the motorcycle. The culprits got out of their car and warned them that the husband’s leg would be chopped off and the son would suffer the same fate if they reported the incident to the police. The leading culprit stated that it was in retaliation for the police report. [21] In dismissing the [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] claims, the Tribunal assumed, for the purposes of the assessment, that a risk of serious harm was present in [NAME]’ village. Even accepting this, however, it found that the family could move to a different place in Kerala, where they would not be at any risk. It noted that Kerala is a huge state of some 33 million people (some nine million are Muslim) and there are 78 taluks (districts) with a total of 1,670 villages. There are nine cities in Kerala with populations over 100,000 (Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Kozhikode, Kollam, Thrissur, Kannur, Alappuzha, Kottayam and Palakkad) and some 40 cities with populations over 50,000. There are over 90 cities or towns of over 20,000 people. [22] The Tribunal found that, if [NAME] moved to another village or town, well away from their home village (and now over two years after the single incident at the core of the claim), their opponents would have no motivation or ability to find them. They could, for example, reside in the wife’s home village, or in a city further afield. For this reason, [NAME] were able to access state protection in India. The surrogate protection of another country was not required under the [RESPONDENT] or sections 130 and 131 of the Act.

9 [23] Having taken account of the material and submissions provided in relation to these humanitarian appeals, the Tribunal is not persuaded to revisit the findings of credibility and fact made in relation to [NAME]’ [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] appeals. However, while those findings are relied on, the Tribunal reminds itself that the focus for present purposes is on whether there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. The wife’s mental health [24] The wife is described as suffering from anxiety and depressive disorder, accompanied by a severe and ongoing fear of returning to India. She is currently receiving medical and psychosocial support through [NAME]) and [COMPANY], including participation in [RESPONDENT] group, which has helped her to manage her state of mind and daily functioning. [25] The uncertainty surrounding the family’s immigration status is said to have placed the wife under significant emotional strain. Any forced return would result, it is submitted, in a serious and immediate deterioration of her mental health, potentially placing her at risk of further psychological harm. [26] The Tribunal accepts that the incident in 2022 in which three of [NAME] were knocked off a motorcycle would have been frightening and distressing. To have been menaced and threatened by the group of ‘[NAME]’ responsible would no doubt have aggravated the wife’s distress and fear. [27] Balanced against this is the reality that this solitary incident occurred over four years ago now. The wife has had support and counselling in this country, such that she is now able to manage her daily routines and maintain her mental stability. While a return to India may initially reignite some of the wife’s past fears and anxiety, the absence of any risk in other locations in Kerala, well away from their former village, will provide reassurance. [28] As to the impact on the wife’s mental health of the ongoing uncertainty of the family’s immigration status in this country, that too can be expected to resolve itself in time, once certainty is achieved. [NAME]’ circumstances in India [29] The husband and the wife were born, raised and lived most of their lives in Kerala state. The husband was born into a Muslim family in Kerala, in 1992. His

10 parents were tailors. He completed 15 years of schooling, to Level 12. In 2022 to 2023, he worked variously as a taxi driver and as an administration officer. [30] The wife was born into a Muslim family in Kerala, in 1998. Her father was a farmer and her mother worked at home. The wife completed 12 years of schooling, attaining Level 12. [31] The husband and the wife married in 2017. Their first son was born in 2018. [32] In July 2024, the husband’s and the wife’s second son was born in New Zealand. He is a citizen of India. [33] The husband’s parents and sister continue to live in India, as do the wife’s parents and brother. The best interests of the children [34] There are two children in the family, the [NAME] of whom was born in New Zealand. The Tribunal must have regard to their best interests, in line with New Zealand’s obligations under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. Their best interests are neither paramount nor the primary consideration for the Tribunal, but they are a primary consideration and must be given important and genuine assessment; see [NAME] v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2012] NZHC 2599 at [32] and [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [24] per Tipping J. [35] [NAME] attends [COMPANY]. He appears to be settled and doing well in Year 3. [NAME] is nearly two. It is submitted that the children are well settled in New Zealand and that removal would result in significant social and psychological dislocation. The reality, however, is that both children are of an age at which their parents are the focal point of their lives. They will be able to adjust to changes in their environment, including those necessitated by adjustment to life in India, so long as they have the support and presence of their parents. [36] The children have spent their lives in the care of loving and attentive parents, who are focussed on their needs. They will remain in the care of both parents whether the family remains in New Zealand or returns to India, and their best interests will be served in that regard.

11 [37] It is noted that [NAME] is said to speak only English. That is not accepted. In the family’s claims for recognition as refugees or [NAME] persons, the husband recorded himself as speaking, reading and writing both English and Malayalam (and reading Hindi), the wife as speaking, reading and writing Malayalam only, and [NAME] as speaking, reading and writing Malayalam and reading English. While it is accepted that [NAME] will be competent in English because he will use it at [COMPANY], his mother speaks only Malayalam and it must follow that a predominant language in the household will be Malayalam. That, of course, is consistent with the acknowledgement in [NAME]’s claim form that he speaks, reads and writes Malayalam. At his young age, it is not expected that he will have any significant difficulty in India in terms of language. Supporting testimonials [38] [NAME] have provided letters in support from people they have met in New Zealand. Everyone speaks highly of them and it is accepted that they are good and conscientious members of the community, who have made friends and settled well into this country. [NAME] [39] [NAME] have lived in New Zealand for a little under three years. The husband has been employed in various fields. He undertakes volunteer work. The wife has been taking care of the family, as she did in India. [40] The family have integrated positively. They have good relationships within their social circles, neighbourhood and religious community. The husband has been employed and paid tax. [NAME] has settled into [COMPANY], and [NAME] was born here. [41] For the husband and wife, their primary nexus is clearly to India, where they have lived most of their lives. The children are in a slightly different position, given that the period they have spent here is proportionately more significant for each of them than for either of their parents. [NAME] was born here and has never lived in India. However, the children are also inevitably culturally aligned with the place of their parents’ birth. They will quickly gain confidence and competence in the local language if they return to India.

12 [42] [NAME]’ return to India will involve upheaval, just as the travel to New Zealand did. However, they would be returning to a place of familiarity, with extended family nearby, where they speak the language and can manifest their faith among a large Muslim community. [43] The husband and wife would prefer to live in New Zealand and they wish for their children to be able to be educated here. However, those preferences are not in themselves exceptional. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [44] The circumstances identified above are not exceptional. It is common for migrants to form some degree of attachment to New Zealand and to have to experience some upheaval on return to their home country. The children are not of an age at which settlement in India would cause difficulty. [NAME] may prefer not to return to their former village, where there has in the past been antipathy towards them by a small number of [NAME] or RSS members, there are many places in Kerala state in which they can settle without fear of those people, including the wife’s family village. [45] Having regard to all the reasons given, including cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional humanitarian circumstances in [NAME]’ case. DETERMINATION [46] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in terms of the statutory test, in respect of any of [NAME]. [47] An appeal must fail if there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. The Tribunal’s finding that there are none in these appeals makes it unnecessary to consider either the “unjust or unduly harsh” or “public interest” stages of the inquiry under the statutory test.

13 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

Judge M Treadwell Chair Reduction or Removal of the Period of Prohibited Entry [48] The Tribunal has considered whether to reduce or remove the period of prohibition on entry to New Zealand pursuant to section 215(1) of the Act but the evidence does not indicate any reason to do so. Discretion to Delay Deportation or Grant a Temporary Visa [49] The visas held by [NAME] will be cancelled 28 days after the date of this decision declining their appeals (see sections 64(1)(ab) and 175A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act). [50] However, the husband will need to give notice to his employer and their landlord. For this reason, the Tribunal orders under section 216(1)(a) of the Act that deportation of [NAME] be delayed for three months, commencing on the date of this decision, to enable them to put their affairs in order. [51] [NAME] do not meet the requirements of section 207(1) of the Act and the appeals are declined in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [52] 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 [NAME]’ names and any particulars likely to lead to the identification of [NAME]. This is because they have made [RESPONDENT] and [NAME] claims. “Judge M Treadwell” Judge M Treadwell Chair