Immigration & Protection Tribunal Rejects Residence Appeal

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207489 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] 25 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 68-year-old citizen of Hong Kong whose application for residence under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because it was based on his relationship with his adult son who had obtained residence as a secondary applicant in the appellant’s previous residence application, and instructions precluded the approval of a residence class visa to the appellant in these circumstances. [3] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the application was correct. [4] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances, arising from his family nexus, and potential to contribute, to

2 New Zealand, such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant does not have special circumstances.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant and his wife married in Hong Kong in 1988 and their two children were born in Hong Kong: their daughter in 1989 and son in 1992. [6] In 1998, the appellant and his wife visited New Zealand for a week. [7] In 1999, the appellant was granted residence under the (then) General category of residence instructions, with his wife and two children included as secondary applicants. The family arrived in New Zealand in late 1999, when the children were aged 10 years and 7 years. [NAME] and children commenced living in New Zealand from late 1999 and are now New Zealand citizens. [8] The appellant initially spent three months in New Zealand, before returning to Hong Kong in early 2000 where he remained living and working thereafter. He lost his New Zealand resident status in late 2001, having failed to spend sufficient time here. Over the last 25 years (since 2001) the appellant has made 46 trips to New Zealand as a visitor, staying for roughly 20 days on each occasion, although since 2020 his stays have increased to three months’ each. [9] The wife has made some 21 visits to Hong Kong over the last 25 years, most of which were for roughly a month, while from 2016 her visits have been for longer periods of several months. [10] The daughter made regular return visits to Hong Kong until 2013. Since 2013, and with the exception of mid-2020 to early 2022 when she was in New Zealand, she has been in Hong Kong and currently remains living there. [11] The son has made 11 short visits to Hong Kong over the years, including one longer stay of 13 months from 2017–2018. Subsequent Application for Residence and Appeal [12] In June 2019, the appellant applied for residence under the [NAME]) category of instructions, relying on his relationship with his wife.

3 [13] During its assessment of the application, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the appellant with its concern that he did not appear to be eligible for the grant of residence under the [NAME]) category. Residence instructions at R5.35 provided that an application for residence must not be approved if it is based on the applicant’s relationship to a New Zealand resident, permanent resident or citizen, who originally obtained a residence class visa as the partner of the applicant. The appellant’s application was based on his relationship with his New Zealand-citizen wife, and his wife had originally obtained a residence class visa on the basis of her marriage to the appellant. [14] On 30 July 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application under the [NAME]) category, relying on instruction R5.35. It found that his application was based on his relationship with his New Zealand- citizen wife, who had originally obtained a residence class visa as his partner in his previous residence application, and, consequently, was now ineligible to support his current application. [15] The appellant then appealed Immigration New Zealand’s decline of his residence application to the Tribunal. In its decision of May 2020, [NAME]) [2020] NZIPT 205706, the Tribunal (differently constituted) determined that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s residence application was correct, and that the appellant did not have special circumstances such that a recommendation of an exception to instructions be considered. Current Residence Application [16] On 30 September 2024, the appellant made his current application for residence under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category of residence instructions. While the application was supported by [NAME], a cover letter from [COUNSEL] acknowledged that the son was not an eligible sponsor, given that he had originally obtained residence as a dependent child in the appellant’s initial residence application, and that instruction R5.35 prohibited Immigration New Zealand from approving the residence application. Counsel advised that the application was made to facilitate an appeal by the appellant to the Tribunal on the ground of special circumstances. [17] On 26 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category, relying on instruction R5.35. It found that the application was based on the appellant’s relationship with

4 his [NAME], who had originally obtained a residence class visa as a secondary applicant dependent child in the appellant’s residence application of 1999, and, consequently, was not eligible to support his current application. STATUTORY 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) 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 Immigration New Zealand’s Operational Manual; see www.immigration.govt.nz. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [20] On 15 July 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that his circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. [21] Counsel makes submissions on appeal (28 August 2025). In summary, it is submitted (variously) that special circumstances arise from factors including that: the appellant is now retired; his wife has health concerns; he has contributed to the New Zealand economy over the years; he meets the investment requirements of the [APPELLANT] residence category, has the capacity to support himself and contribute financially to New Zealand as well as contributing his skills to the family’s [COMPANY]; the family deserve stability, particularly as his children will shortly be starting their own families and New Zealand will soon be the family’s “centre of gravity”; and with the appellant having no pathway to residence and (along with his wife) a finite ability to continue international travel, the appellant and his family require a permanent solution to their ongoing predicament.

5 [22] Counsel provides new documents on appeal that include: (a) Affidavits of the appellant and his wife (both dated 28 August 2025). (b) Documents concerning the recent health status of [NAME]. (c) [NAME] excerpt, recording the dissolution of the appellant’s business in February 2024. (d) [NAME] extract (June 2025) for a company of which [NAME] is sole director, and the family and their trustee company are shareholders. (e) Real estate listing and rates information (printed July 2025) for a New Zealand property owned by the appellant and his wife. (f) Online banking screenshot showing a New Zealand term deposit held by the appellant (December 2025). [23] The Tribunal may consider further information provided on appeal where it is necessary for the purpose of considering whether to make a determination of special circumstances (section 189(3)(b) of the Act). The further information outline above will be considered by the Tribunal, as relevant, in its special circumstances assessment set out below from [31]. ASSESSMENT [24] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal, the file provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s most recent residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records for the appellant and his family. [25] Although the appellant appeals only on the ground of having special circumstances, the Tribunal’s jurisdiction requires that it first assess whether Immigration New Zealand’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.

6 Whether the Decision is Correct [26] The appellant’s residence application was made under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category on 30 September 2024 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. [27] Immigration New Zealand declined the residence application because it was based on the appellant’s relationship with his son, who was originally granted residence as a dependent child in the appellant’s previous application for residence. [28] The relevant instruction in this case is R5.35, which provides: R5.35 Later application under any residence category by previous applicants An applicant for a residence class visa in New Zealand must not be approved under those instructions if their application is based on their relationship to a New Zealand permanent resident, resident or citizen who originally obtained a residence class visa as the partner or dependent child(ren) of the applicant or the applicant's partner. Effective 28/08/2017 [29] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly determined the appellant’s application. His residence application was based on his relationship to his [NAME], who had originally obtained a residence class visa as a dependent child in his earlier successful residence application of 1999. Consequently, instruction R5.35 mandated that the appellant’s residence application could not be approved. This was conceded by counsel at the time the residence application was made. Conclusion on correctness [30] Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application was correct. [NAME] originally obtained residence as the appellant’s dependent child, so the appellant’s current residence application, based on this family relationship, could not succeed (R5.35 and F3.5.a.vi). Whether there are Special Circumstances [31] Where the Tribunal found the decision of Immigration New Zealand 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.

7 [32] 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. [33] The circumstances relevant to this Tribunal’s special circumstances assessment below have been obtained from (variously) the appellant’s Immigration New Zealand file, the evidence presented on appeal, and the Tribunal’s earlier decision of [NAME]). Appellant’s personal and family circumstances [34] The appellant, now aged 68 years, is a citizen of Hong Kong. His wife is a citizen of both Hong Kong and New Zealand, now aged 72 years. The [NAME] have been married for 38 years. They have two children, a daughter now aged 37 years and a son aged 34 years, who are also dual citizens of Hong Kong and New Zealand. [35] The appellant’s elderly mother, and his three siblings, reside in Hong Kong. Two of the wife’s siblings live in Hong Kong and a third sibling lives in Singapore. [36] The appellant has had a successful career in Hong Kong as an engineer, from which he retired in early 2024. (His career history is outlined in greater detail in [NAME]) at [27]–[28]). Little else is known of the appellant’s circumstances in Hong Kong, although it is noted that he owns property there (as he and his wife do in New Zealand), and he will have a network of professional and social connections there. Family’s travel history and settlement [37] The appellant and his family were granted residence in New Zealand in 1999, under the General category of residence instructions. They arrived in New Zealand in November 1999, and [NAME] and two children went on to settle in New Zealand. The wife and children obtained New Zealand citizenship in 2003. Although the appellant initially spent three months in New Zealand, he then returned to Hong Kong in early 2000, where he remained living and working thereafter. His resident visa expired in 2001 as he failed to spend sufficient time here.

8 [38] Over the last 25 years (since 2001), the appellant has made some 46 trips to New Zealand, travelling here at least once most years (except for 2015 and 2021–2022). Until 2020, the duration of each stay was approximately 20 days. Since 2020, his stays in New Zealand have extended to roughly three months each. Immigration New Zealand’s electronic records suggest that the appellant has travelled here under the visa waiver scheme for Hong Kong visitors, which allows him stays of up to three months. More recently, the appellant has applied for a temporary retirement category visitor visa (see instruction V3.120) which would afford him two years’ stay in New Zealand. At the time of this appeal, Immigration New Zealand was yet to decide this application. [39] [NAME] has effectively lived in New Zealand since her arrival 26 years ago. As such, she will undoubtedly feel well-settled here. It is not known if she has held employment in New Zealand, but it is acknowledged that over the decades the appellant has been financially supporting his family from Hong Kong. In that period, the wife has made 21 trips to Hong Kong. Until 2016, most of her trips were roughly a month in duration, while since 2016 her stays have been for several months each. [40] [NAME] arrived in New Zealand at age 10. She completed her education, including university study, in New Zealand, whilst making regular return visits to Hong Kong. The daughter’s travel records indicate that since 2013 when she was aged 24, she has been living in Hong Kong; with the exception of a period from mid-2020 to early 2022 when she returned to New Zealand. On appeal, it is said that the daughter currently works as an architect and that she and her partner, also a New Zealand citizen, are obtaining work experience in Hong Kong before returning to New Zealand in the future. [41] [NAME] has been living in New Zealand since his arrival with the family at age 7. He has made 11 short visits to Hong Kong over the years, including one longer stay of 13 months from 2017–2018. Currently, the son is living with his partner in the same New Zealand city as [NAME], and he holds employment as an engineer. Failure to maintain New Zealand resident status and attempts to regain residence [42] The appellant did not settle in New Zealand as a resident in 1999 but returned to Hong Kong, where he continued to work as an engineer. Having lost his resident visa in these circumstances, instruction R5.35 indefinitely precludes

9 him from being granted residence based on his relationship with his New Zealand- citizen family members. [43] The purpose of instruction R5.35 is to prevent an applicant obtaining the right to live in New Zealand but not settling here, even though their spouse and/or children do. The instruction aims to prevent the potential abuse that arises when a person whose residence application is approved, continues to live predominantly overseas and resides in New Zealand only when it suits him or her. In such a situation, an applicant’s skills and other contributions, on which their application for residence was approved, may never materialise as a contribution to New Zealand if they remain offshore and never settle here. Consequently, the reasons why an appellant has not been able to settle in New Zealand will always be relevant to a consideration of special circumstances, given these public policy considerations that underpin R5.35. [44] On appeal, counsel submits that the appellant’s return to Hong Kong in 2000 was an economic reality and a “necessity”. The evidence of the appellant and his wife is that the appellant struggled to find employment in New Zealand commensurate with his skills and experience, so the [NAME] made the difficult decision that he would resume his work in Hong Kong and support his family from afar, while his wife stayed with the children so that they could grow up and have the opportunities that New Zealand afforded. It was not anticipated that the appellant and his family would spend the next 25-plus years living apart, despite this being what has eventuated. [45] The appellant states that his travel to New Zealand over the years was dictated by his work and family commitments. He explains that, in Hong Kong, his business burgeoned in the early 2000s, which provided a stable income from which to capably support his family in New Zealand, including through the purchase of a family home and financially supporting his children through tertiary study. Around the same time, the appellant’s mother in Hong Kong became very unwell and he assisted, along with his siblings, to provide her with care. [46] In 2019 and moving towards retirement, the appellant tried to regain residence by making a [NAME]) category application. However, he was not aware at the time that his wife was not eligible to support his application. As discussed, the appellant appealed Immigration New Zealand’s decline of residence, but his appeal was unsuccessful.

10 [47] In [NAME]), the Tribunal’s special circumstances discussion at that time (May 2020), regarding the appellant’s failure to settle in New Zealand in the context of R5.35, included the following: [33] While acknowledging that the appellant had hoped to settle in New Zealand, and that he took initial steps to establish a business in New Zealand, the reality is that, over several decades spanning 20 years, he did not settle here. He has continued to live and work in Hong Kong. The Tribunal accepts that the appellant may have encountered difficulties to establish a business in New Zealand more than 20 years ago. However, no evidence has been provided that, in the ensuing decades, he has made any further attempts to find gainful employment in New Zealand. The Tribunal accepts that his previous failure to settle in New Zealand was not a calculated abuse of New Zealand’s immigration laws. However, no compelling explanation has been provided as to why the appellant decided to remain in Hong Kong rather than settle permanently in and contribute to New Zealand. [34] It is only now, at 63 years, and nearing retirement age, that the appellant seeks to reside in New Zealand, where his wife and adult children live. It is acknowledged that he has had a successful career in Hong Kong and holds work experience that is transferable to New Zealand. He has produced evidence of having purchased property here in his wife’s name, of appointing an architect who has drafted plans for building on this site, and of having arranged for an accountant to assist to establish a business for the [NAME] here. At 63 years of age, he is capable of developing a business and making modest contributions through investment here. It is equally possible that he may continue to retain his home in Hong Kong and make regular visits to New Zealand, as he has done for the past 20 years, and so retain his investments in New Zealand and contribute to the business that he hopes to establish here. [48] In August 2023, the appellant requested Ministerial intervention for the grant of a resident visa as an exception to instructions, but in April 2024 Immigration New Zealand advised that the Minister had declined to intervene. [49] It is clear that, with the appellant never having settled in New Zealand, he has not made the contribution that was contemplated when he was initially granted residence. The circumstances that prevented the appellant from settling in New Zealand, namely securing appropriate employment, while understandable, are not uncommon. It is frequently the case in appeals before this Tribunal from persons caught by R5.35, that a [APPELLANT] who wishes their children to have a perceived better quality of life in New Zealand then finds themselves sacrificing their own settlement to financially facilitate this. These are the inevitably difficult choices and decisions facing migrant families. [50] On appeal, the appellant states that his circumstances have changed since the Tribunal’s decision of May 2020. He is now retired (and has provided evidence of dissolving his business), his wife has some health concerns, and his family has started a business in New Zealand. He has demonstrated that he meets the investment requirements of the Family ([APPELLANT]) category,

11 and he is without a pathway to secure residence in New Zealand. As such, it is submitted that instruction R5.35 would not be undermined if the appellant was granted residence. Potential contribution to [NAME]’s current circumstances here [51] The appellant states that after 25 years of living apart from his wife, the [NAME] long to be reunited and care for each other as they age. They will not be able to continue reciprocal travel indefinitely. In more recent years, the appellant has travelled to New Zealand for longer periods but is subject to temporary stay requirements. With no alternative residence pathway (he explains that he does not meet the investment requirements of the [NAME] category and is above the maximum age of the [NAME], assuming he could secure skilled employment), the appellant requests a permanent solution to his family’s predicament; something that a temporary visa does not afford. [52] [NAME], now aged 72 years, lives alone in New Zealand and it is said that her recent health concerns are such that she would benefit from the appellant’s physical presence. She has had some falls over the last few years, and on each occasion has visited the hospital. In mid-2025, after many years of stomach distress, further medical investigation (imaging) was undertaken while the wife was in Hong Kong. In early 2026 in New Zealand, she underwent a small eye procedure, during which time the appellant was present and able to provide her with support. The wife writes that it is not always practical or possible for her to contact her son and wait for his assistance during these events, and having the appellant in New Zealand would alleviate her anxiety at living alone and provide her with physical and emotional support. [53] It is submitted that despite not living in New Zealand, the appellant has contributed to New Zealand over the years and has the potential to contribute further in the future. His successful business in Hong Kong enabled him to support his family in New Zealand, including the purchase of property and other investments here. On appeal, the appellant states that the [NAME] recently sold their New Zealand family home, to downsize. The [NAME] also purchased a property with the intention of undertaking a residential property development, and in March 2023, the family incorporated a company in New Zealand for this purpose, with the aim of utilising their various professional skills. Currently, the wife is the sole director and all family members are shareholders. It is submitted that if the appellant is granted residence, he could be actively involved in the

12 business and utilise his experience, which would benefit the New Zealand economy. [54] Now retired, it is the strong desire of the appellant and his wife to reunite, in New Zealand. The wife writes that granting the appellant residence would give their family a sense of stability. She is confident that the [NAME]’s children will start a family and raise the [NAME]’s grandchildren, once born, in New Zealand. [55] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant’s ongoing presence in New Zealand would, primarily, benefit his wife, who is a New Zealand citizen and has shown a commitment to residing in New Zealand. Her health is a relevant consideration, as is the [NAME]’s desire to provide each other with reciprocal practical and emotional support during their later years. However, as a New Zealand citizen, the wife can and has accessed public health services here when required, and the fact that her son, now an adult and living independently, is not always available for immediate assistance, is a reality for many ageing parents who find themselves living alone. [56] The Tribunal must look at the circumstances of the appellant and his family as they stand presently. Currently, the appellant and his wife continue to be able to undertake reciprocal travel. It is acknowledged that this may may become more difficult as the [NAME] advance in years. However, the wife has spent time with the appellant in Hong Kong through her regular travel there, and there is no suggestion that she could not reside there once again, as a dual citizen of Hong Kong and New Zealand. She also retains other familial connections there. [57] The Tribunal notes that the appellant (and his wife) has a familial nexus to both New Zealand and Hong Kong, with immediate family residing in each country. While the [NAME]’s son is well-settled in New Zealand, their daughter has been living in Hong Kong for over 11 of the last 13 years. These children are independent and successful adults with their own lives, and while it may be the [NAME]’s desire to be present in New Zealand when the next generation of family arrive, this is not relevant at the present time. Nor is this an uncommon sentiment for parents who reside offshore and whose adult child or children live in New Zealand. [58] The wife’s length of residence in New Zealand is noted. So too is the appellant’s commitment (until recently) of living in Hong Kong. The [NAME]’s experience of living separately and maintaining their relationship largely at a distance has been longstanding. It is an inevitable consequence of this family’s migration choices, which saw [NAME] and children settle in

13 New Zealand and the appellant continue to live and work in Hong Kong. It is the [NAME]’s desire to reside together in New Zealand now, at a time of their choosing, and in circumstances where the appellant does not meet the requirements of residence instructions. [59] The appellant’s contribution to New Zealand, through his property interests over the years, and his potential future involvement in the family’s property development plans, are noted. It is appreciated that the appellant may be able to apply his professional experience to the family’s proposed combined venture, but there is nothing out of the ordinary or uncommon about this potential contribution and no obvious reason why the appellant cannot be involved as required from offshore. Current Family ([APPELLANT]) category residence application [60] The appellant’s most recent residence application was made under the Family ([APPELLANT]) category, in September 2024. At the time this application was made, it was acknowledged that the appellant did not meet the family requirements of the category. It appears that this residence category was nominated to demonstrate that the appellant had both the financial means to contribute to New Zealand and the capacity to support himself if granted residence. This, according to counsel, distinguished the appellant from Family ([APPELLANT]) category residence applicants. [61] Because Immigration New Zealand declined the application pursuant to R5.35, it did not complete its assessment as to whether the appellant met the financial requirements of the Family ([APPELLANT]) category. These requirements included investing in New Zealand NZ$1 million, having NZ$500,000 as settlement funds, and demonstrating an annual income of NZ$60,000 (see F3.5.a, effective 29 November 2010). [62] On appeal, counsel submits that the appellant met these requirements, as Immigration New Zealand expressed no concern regarding these factors. The Tribunal observes that Immigration New Zealand’s assessment does note prospective concerns with each of these requirements; specifically, that some of the appellant’s nominated investment and settlement funds were held jointly with his wife (although he still appeared to have sufficient nominated funds) and that the evidence did not demonstrate that he met the annual income requirement. However, Immigration New Zealand did not request further information or fully assess these issues, as the application was being declined on other grounds. For

14 the purposes of this special circumstances assessment, the Tribunal assumes that the appellant satisfies the investment and settlement fund requirements. [63] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has funds and assets in New Zealand and Hong Kong that provide him with financial independence and that, given his financial position, he is unlikely to present a financial burden to New Zealand if granted residence. [64] It is submitted that the appellant’s financial circumstances, as demonstrated through this residence application, illustrate his intention to settle permanently in New Zealand. While this may now be so, this does not make his circumstances special. [65] In terms of the other residence requirements, Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant had an acceptable standard of health for residence and that he met the character requirements of instructions through the provision of clear police certificates from New Zealand and Hong Kong. Discussion on special circumstances [66] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. [67] The appellant is a 68-year-old retired citizen of Hong Kong who wishes to be granted residence to join his wife and live in New Zealand. Having initially obtained residence for himself and his family in 1999, the appellant returned to live and work in Hong Kong and consequently lost his resident status, while his wife and two children settled here and became New Zealand citizens. [68] Over the last 26 years, the appellant and his wife have largely lived apart whilst making regular reciprocal visits between Hong Kong and New Zealand. Travel records show that [NAME] has resided in Hong Kong for most of the last 13 years. His son lives with his partner in New Zealand. [NAME] also has a lengthy connection to New Zealand, having lived here since the family’s arrival, while her trips to Hong Kong have increased in length over the last decade, as have the appellant’s trips to New Zealand since 2020. [69] The appellant has made a number of attempts to regain residence status over the last few years. However, while it was hoped that he would join the family in New Zealand and it was initially believed there would be no impediment to him

15 doing so, there was no guarantee that he would be able to obtain a resident visa once again. It is submitted that his circumstances have changed since making his last residence application in 2019, in that he is now retired, his wife’s health would benefit from his physical presence, and he can contribute through his investment and the application of his skills to his family’s [COMPANY]. While these circumstances are noted, the former are a routine consequence of the effluxion of time as persons age. Further, there is nothing about the appellant’s potential contribution to the family’s property development plans, his ability to meet the financial requirements of the Family ([APPELLANT]) category, or his demonstrated ability to be financially self-supporting here, that indicates that a grant of residence to him as an exception to instructions is warranted. [70] While the appellant has a connection to New Zealand through his wife and son and financial and property investments here, he maintains a strong nexus to Hong Kong through his professional and social networks and investments, in addition to his daughter and other family members who reside there. His wife similarly retains familial and social connections to Hong Kong through her siblings and visits there. As a dual citizen, his wife is not prevented from residing with him in Hong Kong, and there is no obvious impediment to her doing so. The [NAME] are not without options to live together (and close to their daughter) albeit that this is not in their preferred location. Certainly, the appellant and his wife and family can maintain their strong relationships as they have over the last 26 years. [71] The Tribunal has considered the extent of the appellant’s connections to New Zealand and the circumstances of his family members here, along with his and his family’s circumstances in Hong Kong. Whilst it is acknowledged that the appellant has no pathway to residence, he is not precluded from applying for a longer-term temporary visa (such as a [APPELLANT] boost visitor visa) which would allow him to spend lengthy periods of time in New Zealand. Although that this would not secure him the stability and certainty of remaining here indefinitely, as the family desire, it would provide the appellant with the opportunity to spend greater time here in years to come. Conclusion on special circumstances [72] Having regard to circumstances of the appellant, and his family, the Tribunal finds that, considered cumulatively, the appellant has not established that he has special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions.

16 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member DETERMINATION [73] This appeal is determined pursuant to section 188(1)(a) of the Immigration Act 2009. The Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to decline the appellant's application for residence as correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions. The Tribunal does not consider that the appellant has special circumstances which warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions under section 188(1)(f) of the Act. [74] The appeal is unsuccessful. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [75] 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 his family members. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member