Mother Wins Humanitarian Appeal Against Deportation

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507296 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 14 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 33-year-old citizen of [APPELLANT], 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 best interests of the appellant’s eight week-old, New Zealand-citizen daughter, the appellant’s experience of family violence from her husband and her fear of social stigma if she returns to [APPELLANT] are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. The appeal is allowed and the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a work visa for a period of 12 months, from the date of this decision.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in the early 1990s, in [APPELLANT], where her parents and sister are resident. [5] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in May 2022 holding a working holiday visa, valid until 25 May 2025. She found employment as a barista in a [NAME] in Y city. [6] In November 2024, the appellant met her now husband on an [NAME]. Their relationship moved quickly and, shortly afterwards, they agreed to be in an exclusive relationship. In February 2025, they began discussing marriage and their plans to live together. They married in April 2025. [7] The [NAME] moved in together in May 2025 in a property in X city. Shortly afterwards, the appellant discovered that she was pregnant. [8] On 8 May 2025, the appellant applied for a visitor visa based on her partnership. Following the expiry of her working holiday visa, she was granted an interim visa while her application was being assessed. [9] On 4 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand raised concerns about the stability of the [NAME]’s partnership as they had been living together for only a short period of time. In response, the appellant provided documentary evidence to show that they were living together. [10] On 27 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the application as its concerns about the limited time that the [NAME] had been living together had not been resolved. In particular, there was insufficient evidence to show that the partnership was stable. Although it did not form part of the decision, Immigration New Zealand noted that the husband had declared [NAME] family violence convictions. [11] Following the expiry of her interim visa on 18 July 2025, the appellant became unlawfully in New Zealand. [12] On 11 July 2025, the appellant applied to Immigration New Zealand for a reconsideration of its decision to decline her visitor visa application, which was refused on 23 July 2025. Immigration New Zealand found that, despite the extra evidence provided, including the fact of her pregnancy, there was limited evidence to demonstrate that the [NAME]’s relationship was genuine and stable.

3 [13] On 22 August 2025, the appellant sought the grant of a visa from the Minister of Immigration under section 61 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act), which was refused on 29 August 2025. [14] On 25 August 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal to the Tribunal. [15] On 5 October 2025, the appellant suffered family violence at the hands of her husband. The relationship between the [NAME] ended shortly afterwards. The appellant’s husband was arrested and charged and the appellant applied for a protection order. [16] In February 2026, the appellant’s daughter was born. STATUTORY GROUNDS [17] The grounds for determining a humanitarian appeal are set out in section 207 of the Act: (1) The Tribunal must allow an appeal against liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds only where it is satisfied that— (a) there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and (b) it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the [NAME] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. [18] 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: [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [34]. [19] To determine whether it would be unjust or unduly harsh for an appellant to be deported from New Zealand, the Supreme Court stated, in [NAME], at [35], that an appellant must show a level of harshness more than a “generic concern” and “beyond the level of harshness that must be regarded as acceptable in order to preserve the integrity of [NAME]”.

4 THE APPELLANT’S CASE [20] The appellant’s case is set out in the submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 25 September 2025, 1 December 2025 and 25 February 2025. Much of the material contained in the September 2025 submissions was predicated on the [NAME]’s partnership and is therefore no longer relevant. Of relevance is the following: (a) The appellant suffered family violence at the hands of her [NAME]. (b) Members of the husband’s family have continued to support the appellant. The mother had provided financial support and, since the separation, the appellant lived for some time with [redacted] in W city. (c) A New Zealand-citizen daughter was born to the appellant in February 2026. (d) The appellant fears stigma as a single mother in [APPELLANT], particularly as her daughter is not fully Korean. [21] In support of her appeal, the appellant provides a large number of documents, the most relevant being listed below. For ease of reference, they are grouped into pre- or post-5 October 2025 (the date of the family harm incident): Pre 5 October 2025 (a) A clear police certificate (30 April 2025) from [APPELLANT]. (b) The appellant’s and her husband’s marriage certificate and confirmation of the appellant’s pregnancy and due date. (c) A letter of support (10 July 2025) from the husband’s sister. (d) A psychologist’s report (17 September 2025) about the importance of the daughter being raised in Māori culture (the culture of the husband and his whānau).

5 (e) The husband’s Ministry of Justice convictions history report (19 August 2025) disclosing more than 40 convictions over a decade, and details of his offending in 2019 (including family violence offending) that led to his imprisonment. Post 5 October 2025 (f) Email correspondence (6 and 9 October 2025) between the appellant and a police officer about the status of the protection order, the arrest of the husband, and further details about the husband’s verbal and physical abuse of the appellant. (g) A New Zealand Police Victim Notification Register application form (17 October 2025) completed by the appellant. (h) Letters (22 October 2025 and 13 November 2025) from a student counsellor and a [COMPANY]. (i) A report (17 November 2025) from a [NAME]. (j) A letter of support (13 November 2025) from [NAME] and evidence of her financial support for the appellant. (k) The appellant’s daughter’s New Zealand birth certificate. [22] Following enquiries from the Tribunal on 17 and 18 March 2026, the appellant provided the following information: (a) Submissions (26 March 2026) by the representative with an update of the appellant’s circumstances. (i) The appellant had recently left W city [redacted] and further she did not feel safe in the area in which she was living. She is now living in [redacted]. (ii) While the husband’s family have strongly supported the appellant, they have felt obliged to support the husband through his upcoming sentencing. (iii) The husband has pleaded guilty to eight charges, including two charges of assault on a person in a family relationship.

6 (iv) Currently, there is a ‘no-contact order’ between the [NAME]. Once the husband is sentenced (in about two months’ time), it is highly likely that the protection order sought by the appellant will be put in place. (v) The best interests of her daughter are the appellant’s main concern. She, her husband’s family and her friends all consider that those interests are best served by the appellant raising her daughter in an appropriate cultural environment. (vi) The appellant’s compelling, exceptional circumstances warrant a grant of residence to the appellant. (b) Additional submissions (27 March 2026) from the representative state: (i) Although the appellant does not wish to remove her daughter from New Zealand, [NAME] is concerned that this could happen and is considering taking action through the Family Court to prevent this. (ii) The appellant reiterates her strong wish that her daughter remain in New Zealand and that she should have access to her family and culture in New Zealand. [23] The representative has provided a number of documents, including six letters of support (all dated 24 March 2026) from the appellant’s friends, correspondence (various dates) between the appellant and the police confirming that her husband had pleaded guilty and been convicted of eight charges. Further, the husband was not opposing the appellant’s application for a protection order. [24] Following a request to the New Zealand Police on 18 March 2026, the Tribunal received a police vetting report (25 March 2026). Of note is the following: (a) [redacted]. (b) [redacted]. (c) The husband had been convicted of “multiple offences” and is awaiting sentencing.

7 ASSESSMENT [25] 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 temporary visa applications and its relevant electronic records. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [26] 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”: [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. Best interests of the New Zealand-citizen daughter [27] The 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child provides at Article 3(1) that, in all actions concerning children, the best interests of the child shall be a primary consideration — see also Puli’uvea v Removal Review Authority (1996) 14 FRNZ 322 (CA). The High Court has stated that the best interests of the child are not a paramount or the primary consideration, but they are to be given important and genuine assessment — see [NAME] v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2012] NZHC 2599, at [32]. The assessment requires careful analysis of the child’s particular circumstances, including the stability of the child’s current living arrangements. [28] The appellant’s New Zealand citizen-daughter is just eight weeks of age. The appellant is a first-time mother who is her daughter’s principal caregiver. They have both received a large measure of emotional, physical and financial support from the husband’s family since the family harm incident. This included [redacted] and financial support from [NAME] as the appellant was unable to work without a work visa. [29] Due to complicated family dynamics with the upcoming sentencing of her husband, the appellant is now living in [redacted]. [30] Deportation of the appellant so soon after the daughter’s birth would likely bring to an end her current arrangements and a much needed “settling down” period following significant instability — the breakdown of her marriage, the family violence offending against her, and the complicated family dynamics with the husband’s family.

8 [31] In the unlikely event that the appellant leaves the daughter in New Zealand, her daughter’s care situation would be uncertain. The husband is unlikely to be a suitable caregiver, and, in the appellant’s absence, it is not clear who is best placed to care for the daughter. While it could potentially fall to a suitable member of the husband’s family, there are clearly difficult family dynamics at play. However, given the past support that the husband’s family has provided to the appellant following the family violence incident, once the uncertainty of her immigration status is resolved and the husband’s sentencing has taken place, the family’s support for the appellant and her daughter may be able to resume. [32] Given the daughter’s very young age and her level of dependence on the appellant, the Tribunal considers that, at the present time, it would be in her best interests to remain in New Zealand in the care of the appellant. This arrangement should remain in place until such time as the appellant has certainly as to whether she is able to reside in New Zealand on a long-term or permanent basis. Settlement in New Zealand [33] Despite a short period of not quite two years in New Zealand, the appellant has settled into life here. As well as her employment as a barista (until the expiry of her working holiday visa), she has built up a strong group of supportive friends here. She has had supportive relationships with the husband’s family although, at the moment, there are complications as his family negotiate the husband’s upcoming sentencing. Prospects in [APPELLANT] [34] The appellant has strong ties to [APPELLANT] where she was born. She is a citizen of that country and it is the place where she has, presumably, spent most of her life. Her parents and sister also live in [APPELLANT]. Although the appellant’s sister earlier expressed support for the appellant’s marriage and pregnancy, this was before the end of the appellant’s marriage, and the degree of support available from the appellant’s parents is unknown. [35] The representative submits that the appellant may face stigma as a single mother in [APPELLANT] which, due to traditional societal norms emphasising family and marriage, could result in the appellant being judged by employers and the wider community. In [APPELLANT] Ji-hye “[APPELLANT]’s Slow Shift for Single Mothers, Through Their Eyes” The [APPELLANT] (9 February 2026)), births outside of marriage are “rare and stigmatised” and are seen “as a sign of one’s wayward

9 youth and a source of shame for the family”. Although attitudes are changing and government allowances for child-rearing have recently increased, “significant obstacles [for single mothers] remain”. These include isolation as the result of unwillingness to confide in unsupportive family and friends, psychological stress, and economic hardship. Against this backdrop, however, the appellant’s daughter was not born out of wedlock. Further, divorce is relatively common in [APPELLANT] and [NAME] are reportedly the greatest share of households in Seoul. As noted by [NAME] [NAME] in “[ADDRESS] in Seoul, Divorces Fall — Except Among 60 and Up” [APPELLANT] [NAME] (15 September 2025): Divorces, meanwhile, have been on a downward trend. After peaking at 32,499 in 2002, the figure steadily declined to 12,154 last year. The average age at divorce last year was 51.9 for men and 49.4 for women, more than a decade older than in 2000, when it was 40.8 and 37.4, respectively. However, divorces among older adults surged. In 2000, divorces involving people 60 and older accounted for only 3 percent of cases. By 2024, that figure had risen to about 25 percent. In 2024, Seoul recorded 4,006 international marriages — 2,633 involving Korean husbands and foreign wives, and 1,373 involving foreign husbands and Korean wives. Most foreign spouses came from China, Vietnam and Japan. One-person households made up the largest share of households in Seoul, with about 1.66 million such households, or 39.9 percent of the total, surpassing two-person households at 26.2 percent and four-person households at 12.3 percent. [36] In an appeal of this kind, the Tribunal is unable to properly test the claims about social stigma and a lack of family support in [APPELLANT]. In any event, it is unnecessary for the Tribunal to assess the issue, particularly as the best interests of the appellant’s daughter point so firmly to her remaining here at the present time. These issues can be canvassed in any future application that the appellant may wish to make. Victims of Family Violence category [37] Immigration instructions provide that partners who are the victims of family violence by a New Zealand citizen or resident partner may apply for temporary visas and resident visas under the categories for victims of family violence — see Special Work Visas for Victims of Family Violence (WI7) and the Residence Category for Victims of Family Violence (S4.5). [38] To obtain a visa of either kind, the applications must be supported by evidence and documents from third parties to assure Immigration New Zealand that family violence has occurred (see WI7.5 and S4.5.5, both instructions

10 effective 28 February 2023). There is ample evidence that the appellant was the victim of family violence at the hands of her [NAME]. The husband has a ‘no contact’ order in relation to the appellant, he pleaded guilty to and has been convicted of eight charges, including two of family violence against the appellant. Further, he has a history of violence against a [NAME] partner. In 2019, he was sentenced to four years’ imprisonment after he received a number of convictions, including assault of a former partner and breach of a protection order. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [39] Exceptional circumstances “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”; see [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. [40] At the present time, given the best interests of the appellant’s daughter, the strong support the appellant has in New Zealand, and the family violence the appellant suffered at the hands of her [NAME], the Tribunal finds that these factors cumulatively establish exceptional humanitarian circumstances. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [41] 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] v Minister of Immigration [2015] NZSC 132, [2016] 1 NZLR 248, at [9]. [42] The appellant is liable for deportation because her temporary visa to remain in New Zealand expired. The Tribunal recognises that the integrity of the immigration system depends on temporary visa holders departing New Zealand prior to the expiry of their visas and not remaining here unlawfully. However, by the time her interim visa had expired, the appellant was pregnant to her New Zealand citizen husband. [43] The best interests of the appellant’s New Zealand-citizen daughter are to remain this country in a settled environment in the first months of her life, with her mother, at least until the appellant’s eligibility to remain here as a victim of family violence has been considered. Removing the daughter from this environment in the first months of her life is “beyond the level of harshness that must be regarded

11 as acceptable in order to preserve the integrity of [NAME]” ([NAME] at [35]). Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [44] Weighing the reasons why the appellant is liable for deportation against the exceptional humanitarian circumstances, the Tribunal is satisfied that it is unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand. [NAME] [45] 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 [NAME] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. This involves the weighing of those factors which would make it in the [NAME] for the appellant to remain against those which make it in the [NAME] that he leaves — [NAME] v Chief Executive of Department of Labour (HC Auckland, CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41]. [46] In the present appeal, the [NAME] is engaged in preserving the integrity of the immigration system when individuals do not maintain lawful status in New Zealand. Nevertheless, there is also a significant [NAME] in the protection of families (Articles 17 and 23(1) of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights). While the relationship between the appellant and her husband’s family is currently strained, it remains important to the appellant that the husband’s wider family and culture should play a role in her daughter’s life. Once the uncertainties relating to her immigration status and the husband’s sentencing are resolved, it may be that the family’s support for the appellant and her daughter can resume. [47] There is no adverse [NAME] in relation to character by permitting the appellant to remain on a further temporary basis as she has previously been found to meet character instructions. In addition, the Tribunal has obtained a Ministry of Justice conviction history check (1 April 2026) which records that she has no convictions in New Zealand. While the appellant’s health was not assessed in her [NAME] visa applications, there is nothing before the Tribunal to suggest that she has a medical condition that is likely to present a significant burden to New Zealand’s health system for the duration of the temporary visa that the Tribunal intends to order.

12 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Conclusion on [NAME] [48] Weighing the various [NAME] considerations, the Tribunal determines that it is not contrary to the [NAME] to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand for the duration of the temporary visa that the Tribunal intends to order. DETERMINATION [49] 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 at this time. [50] The Tribunal also finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the [NAME] for her to remain in New Zealand on a temporary basis. Order for Grant of a Visa [51] Pursuant to section 210(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant is granted a work visa for a period of 12 months. This will give the appellant time to make an application under the Victims of Family Violence categories. [52] The appeal is allowed on the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [53] 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 to protect the privacy of the appellant as a victim of family violence as well as the privacy of her daughter. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member