Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal Against Deportation

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507212 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Representative for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 30 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 40-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 appellant’s relationship with [NAME] whom she adopted to her New Zealand citizen sister, and her relationship with her sister and her family in New Zealand who depend on the appellant for support, in addition to the appellant having no close family remaining in [APPELLANT] constitutes exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature such that they would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported to [APPELLANT]. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal allows the appeal and orders that the appellant be granted a resident visa.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in [APPELLANT]. She no longer has any family living in [APPELLANT]. Her father lives in New Zealand as a citizen as does another sister. Four of her other siblings (three sisters and a brother) live in Australia. These three sisters are also citizens of New Zealand. [5] In 2011, the appellant’s sister who lives in New Zealand adopted the appellant’s son, now aged 14 years. [6] The appellant visited her son and the family in New Zealand for three months between December 2014 and March 2015. She returned in December 2019 as the holder of a visitor visa and has remained here since this time. She has held a succession of visitor visas, the most recent expiring on 3 December 2022. [7] Between 2007 and 2023, the appellant registered five times for the Special Policies (Samoan Quota Scheme) category ballot but was unsuccessful. [8] After becoming unlawfully in New Zealand, the appellant requested to the Minister of Immigration for a visitor visa under section 61 of the Act. The Minister refused to grant this application. However, a subsequent application made on 8 May 2025 was approved by the Minister on 4 June 2025 and the appellant was granted a one-day visitor visa enabling her to appeal to the Tribunal on humanitarian grounds. [9] On 4 July 2025, the appellant appealed to the Tribunal. STATUTORY GROUNDS [10] The grounds for determining a humanitarian appeal are set out in section 207 of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act): (1) The Tribunal must allow an appeal against liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds only where it is satisfied that— (a) there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and (b) it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand.

3 [11] The Supreme Court stated that three ingredients had to be established in the first limb of section 47(3) of the former Immigration Act 1987, the almost identical predecessor to section 207(1): (i) exceptional circumstances; (ii) of a humanitarian nature; (iii) that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the person to be removed from New Zealand: Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104 at [34]. [12] To determine whether it would be unjust or unduly harsh for an appellant to be deported from New Zealand, the Supreme Court stated, in Ye, 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 New Zealand’s [NAME]”. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] The appellant’s case is set out in the documents lodged with the Tribunal on 31 July 2025 and can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant has guardianship of her 14-year-old [NAME] son who was adopted by her sister and her husband as an infant. The appellant lives with them and cares for her son and her sister’s 14-year-old daughter. (b) The appellant is the primary caregiver for her father who has prostate cancer. She also cares for her sister, who has ongoing medical and has healthcare needs of her own. (c) The appellant no longer has any close family living in [APPELLANT] and would be alone without support should she return there. Materials and Documents [14] In support of her appeal, the appellant provided material already on the Immigration New Zealand file in addition to the following documents: (a) An order of adoption for the son (27 September 2011) by the appellant’s sister and her husband.

4 (b) Documentation under the Care of Children Act 2004 concerning the appellant’s application for guardianship for her son and a copy of the court order awarding her guardianship (14 July 2025). (c) A medical letter (1 February 2023) for the appellant’s father. (d) A medical report (8 April 2024) for the appellant’s sister. (e) A medical letter (4 December 2023) from a specialist diabetologist and endocrinologist for the appellant. (f) A medical letter (11 April 2024) for the appellant from [NAME]. (g) Tenancy agreements in the sister’s name (2005 and 2008). (h) A bank statement (28 March 2024) from the [COMPANY] for the appellant’s father. (i) A letter (19 May 2024) from the appellant’s sister. (j) Identity documentation for the appellant, including the biodata page of the appellant’s passport and a birth certificate. (k) Identity documentation for the appellant’s son, including the biodata page of his passport, birth certificate and New Zealand certificate of citizenship. (l) Identity documentation for the son’s adoptive parents, including the biodata pages of their passports and a name change certificate for the mother. [15] The Tribunal wrote to the appellant seeking further information in relation to her health and that of her father and sister, in addition to information concerning her relationship with her son. On 8 April 2026, the appellant provided a letter from the son and medical information for her father and sister. On 22 April 2026, she provided a medical report from [NAME] (20 April 2026) and a letter to the Tribunal explaining her current living and care arrangements.

5 ASSESSMENT [16] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by the appellant. It has also considered the appellant’s Immigration New Zealand files in relation to her temporary visa applications and its relevant electronic records. The appellant’s circumstances in New Zealand and the best interests of her son [17] The appellant has been living in New Zealand for over six years. She lives with her sister and her husband, their 14-year-old daughter and her 14-year-old [NAME] son. [18] The Tribunal has an obligation to have regard to the best interests of any children affected by the outcome of the appeal, under Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The best interests of the children are a primary consideration and must be afforded substantial weight; [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 at [49]. [19] The appellant, her sister and son have all written on appeal stating that the appellant is a central figure in their family. Although the son was adopted by the appellant’s sister in 2011 as an infant, the appellant has now been living with him for over half of his life. Recently, the appellant’s sister supported the appellant’s successful application for guardianship of the son. This reflects the appellant’s desire to be involved in important decisions in her son’s life, as supported by the son’s adoptive parents. [20] The evidence conveys that the appellant is intimately involved in the son’s day-to-day care and is strongly bonded to him. The son has written on appeal stating that the appellant is a mother figure to him, and he would be lost without her. He conveys the extent of their closeness by stating that “I don’t know if I can handle a week or a day without seeing or hearing her voice”. He states that she helps him with his homework and daily activities and makes him feel safe. He also values the care that she provides to other family members including his adoptive mother and [NAME], both of whom have medical conditions of concern. [21] The sister also explains that the appellant is an important part of her daughter’s life as well. The appellant explains that the two have been raised

6 together and are closely bonded. She states that she looks after them together and helps them both with their homework and other activities. [22] The appellant’s elderly father is also living in New Zealand. Medical reports have been provided conveying that he was diagnosed with prostate cancer in 2022, has muscular dystrophies and myopathies, ischaemic heart disease and hypertension. His [NAME] [NAME] emphasises that his overall health is concerning. Medical reports for the sister also convey that she has poorly controlled non-insulin dependent diabetes, hypothyroidism and that she had been referred in November 2022 for surgery concerning an ovarian abscess. [23] The sister has written on appeal that she needs the appellant for day-to-day support and that the appellant provides significant assistance to both her and their father with their respective health conditions. The father’s [NAME] [NAME] has also written that the appellant is her father’s primary support person, helping him to manage his health conditions and attend relevant appointments. The appellant, too, emphasises that it is important to her to be available to care for her loved ones and, in particular, to be a central figure in her son’s life. [24] It is evident that the appellant is part of an [NAME] in New Zealand that comprises her sister and her husband, their daughter, son and father. She is closely bonded with each of them and provides them with love and day-to-day support. The bond she shares with [NAME], for whom she is an appointed guardian, is crucial to his wellbeing and stability. After adopting him out to her sister, she visited him when he was approximately three years of age and then returned when he was eight years of age. She has remained living with him since this time and has been present during his mid-childhood and early adolescent years. Should the appellant be forced to return to [APPELLANT], this would adversely impact the son’s emotional wellbeing and development. The Tribunal considers that it is in the best interests of the son for the appellant to remain in New Zealand with him. It may also be extrapolated from the significant period that the appellant has spent in her sister’s daughter’s life, and given the interconnectedness of the family unit, that it would be in her best interests for the appellant to remain part of their family unit too. The appellant’s circumstances in [APPELLANT] [25] Prior to coming to New Zealand, the appellant lived in [APPELLANT] all of her life. However, she no longer has any close family living there. Her mother has passed

7 away and her father and sister are settled as citizens in New Zealand. Her other siblings are living in Australia. [26] Other than her lack of a close family nexus to [APPELLANT], this appeal turns on the fact that the appellant is a central figure in the life of her son and his family in New Zealand. She is also a primary support person for [NAME]. Although she has a sister living here who is also closely bonded with the father, the sister has health conditions of her own and is working and raising two teenagers. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [27] The Tribunal finds that there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in this case arising from the best interests of the two teenage children, including the appellant’s close bond with [NAME], whose wellbeing would be significantly adversely impacted should he be separated from her, and the care and support she provides to her elderly, [NAME] father, and her sister’s family unit. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [28] 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]. [29] The appellant is liable for deportation because she is unlawfully here, having stayed beyond the expiry of her visitor visa which expired in December 2022. [30] The integrity of the [NAME] is undermined by persons who (among other things), do not depart New Zealand as required and remain here without lawful right. However, it is acknowledged that once the appellant became unlawfully here, she applied for [NAME] to regularise this status, and was granted a one-day visa in June 2025 enabling her to pursue her statutory right to lodge this appeal. [31] Weighed against the appellant’s liability for deportation are the consequences of deportation, which arise from the exceptional humanitarian circumstances set out above. These concern the best interests of the two teenage

8 children impacted by this appeal, including the appellant’s close relationship with her teenage son in New Zealand and the support that she provides other family members including [NAME] and sister. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [32] Weighing the reason why the appellant is liable for deportation against the consequences of her deportation, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would be unjust or unduly harsh for her to be deported from New Zealand. Public Interest [33] Where the Tribunal has determined that there are exceptional humanitarian circumstances which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported, it must also be satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. This involves the weighing of those factors which would make it in the public interest for the appellant to remain against those which make it in the public interest that he leaves – [NAME] v Chief Executive of Department of Labour (HC Auckland, CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41]. [34] There are no adverse character considerations in this appeal. The appellant provided a clear police certificate from [APPELLANT] (14 April 2021) and a clear criminal history certificate from the New Zealand police (30 March 2026). [35] During the processing of the appellant’s most recent temporary visa application, Immigration New Zealand found that she was not of an acceptable standard of health. She had provided a medical letter (4 December 2023) from a specialist diabetologist and endocrinologist, recording a diagnosis of presumptive papillary thyroid cancer and congenital right hemiparesis. The report conveyed stable measurements of the right thyroid nodule and no evidence of distant metastatic disease. He recommended another scan in a year’s time. [36] On appeal, the Tribunal has requested an update on the appellant’s medical condition. It has received a letter (20 April 2026) from [NAME], stating that he arranged for an updated ultrasound of the appellant’s thyroid which conveyed a stable right thyroid nodule and no lymph node involvement. He reiterated that they had chosen a surveillance strategy for her treatment and that, from these results, she had a good prognosis for the foreseeable future. He recommended an annual review and that she [NAME]

9 prescribed thyroxine (noting that she had been relying on herbal remedies to date). [37] On the basis of this medical update, it appears that the appellant’s presumptive condition is stable and that there have not been any changes since the medical conducted in 2023 some three years ago. [NAME] considers that she has a good prognosis for the foreseeable future. The Tribunal does not consider that her current condition would impose any significant cost to [NAME]. [38] In this appeal there are also positive public interests in maintaining the unity of families and in avoiding unjust or unduly harsh outcomes where possible. In the event that the appellant’s condition would [NAME] a turn for the worse, the Tribunal finds that the public interest in maintaining family unity and avoiding unjust outcomes would outweigh any cost the appellant may present to the [NAME]. Conclusion on public interest [39] The Tribunal finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. DETERMINATION [40] 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. [41] The Tribunal also finds, taking into account all the particular circumstances of this appellant, that it would not be contrary to the public interest for her to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. Order for Grant of a Visa [42] The appellant has met the requirements of section 207(1) and her appeal is allowed. The Tribunal orders the grant of a resident visa to the appellant.

10 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [43] 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 appellant and other family members whose health information is discussed in this appeal. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member