Tribunal Allows Humanitarian Appeal Against Deportation

OUTCOME: Allowed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507252 [NAME], [NAME]

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: [NAME] (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted] 21 April 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 62-year-old citizen of [APPELLANT], against his liability for deportation which arose when he became unlawfully in New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] The primary issue on appeal is whether there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature arising from the appellant’s familial nexus to New Zealand, his disability and the conditions he would face upon repatriation that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for him to be deported from New Zealand. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that there are such circumstances, and also that it would not be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain in New Zealand.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant is 62 years old. He is a Tuvaluan national, having been born and lived on [NAME] island, one of [APPELLANT]’s small outer islands. Both his wives are deceased, and his only son and his family are residents of New Zealand. [5] Until he retired at age 55, the appellant was a police officer in [APPELLANT], attaining the rank of Acting Superintendent. His son and his family lived with him until 2022 when they relocated to [NAME] in an attempt at economic betterment for their growing family. In 2024, the son’s family was successful in obtaining resident visas for New Zealand through the [NAME]) quota scheme and they migrated to New Zealand. [6] Also in 2024, the appellant got a blister on his toe which subsequently became infected. He sought medical assistance on [NAME] and was referred to the hospital on [NAME] for medical attention. However, by the time he got there, the infection was sufficiently extensive that his foot had to be amputated. [7] Whilst on [NAME], the appellant stayed with, and was supported by, his [NAME]. When she migrated to New Zealand later in 2024, the appellant’s son returned to [APPELLANT] to collect him. The appellant entered New Zealand on 18 October 2024, holding a visitor visa. [8] The appellant’s last visitor visa expired on 8 July 2025, and this appeal against his deportation liability was lodged on 29 July 2025. STATUTORY GROUNDS [9] 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. [10] 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

3 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]. [11] 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]”. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [12] The appellant’s case is set out in counsel’s submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 29 July 2025, and the appellant’s statement and questionnaire, and can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant would face physical and mental harm should he be returned to [APPELLANT] where he has no family support. As such, he would have inadequate access to water, food and medical care, which are already scarce, and his life would be endangered. (b) The appellant’s first wife died in 2012. He remarried in 2016, however his second wife died in 2019. He has one son whom he and his first wife adopted as they could not have their own children. His son lived with him until 2022 when he and his family moved for economic reasons to support their growing family. (c) In July 2024, the appellant’s [NAME]’s application for residence under the [NAME]) quota scheme was successful. Having just adopted out their fourth child as they were economically unable to support their family, the son and his wife and three children migrated to New Zealand. They had their fifth child in 2025. The appellant’s remaining immediate family are now therefore all New Zealand residents. (d) In approximately 2006, the appellant was diagnosed with type 2 diabetes. In March 2024, he slipped in the shower which caused a small blister on his little toe. The blister became infected, and he

4 was referred to the hospital on the main Tuvaluan island of [NAME]. To reach [NAME] from [NAME], a person is required to travel in a small boat to a passenger or cargo ship which waits out at sea. The service is fortnightly and takes many hours, if not days. (e) When the appellant arrived at the hospital, the infection had spread due to his diabetes, to the extent that he required an amputation above the foot to prevent further spread. He has been wheelchair bound ever since. (f) After his amputation, the appellant was cared for by a [NAME] and her family on [NAME], however she also migrated to New Zealand shortly thereafter, leaving no remaining family members in [APPELLANT]. The appellant’s son therefore assisted him in applying for a visitor visa and subsequently travelling to New Zealand. He arrived on 18 October 2024. (g) Initially, the appellant had understood his visa requirements to mean he was required to exit and re-enter the country every three months. He did so in January and April 2025, travelling to Fiji as it was physically too difficult for him to travel back to [APPELLANT]. Upon his second re-entry, he was told that he was not able to make such travel on the conditions of his visa. He was granted one further visitor visa until 9 July 2025. When that visa expired, this appeal was filed. (h) Neither the appellant nor his family earn sufficient income, nor have sufficient funds, for him to be eligible for any other visa. (i) A return to [NAME] is not possible for the appellant due to the lack of familial support there, the environmental conditions, his health needs and the lack of medical care available. In particular, his disability now makes him especially vulnerable to the challenging conditions there, to the extent that his life would be at risk should he return. There are no services on [NAME] to support the elderly or those with mobility impairments or psychological distress. (j) The appellant has type 2 diabetes, and hypertension alongside his physical disability. His conditions are currently controlled and supported by medication and diet, and as such do not present a

5 potential cost to the [NAME]. His family undertake to pay for his medical care. (k) The appellant and his son, [NAME] and four grandchildren are extremely close. The son feels a moral duty to care for his father and has provided fully for him since his arrival in New Zealand. He undertakes to continue to do so despite his own financial limitations in being the sole income earner for a family of six. They cannot relocate to [APPELLANT] to support the appellant there because of the economic conditions there that were sufficiently severe to compel them earlier to give up one of their children for adoption. (l) The appellant is close to his four young grandchildren (aged seven, six, four years and under 12 months old). He provides care and nurturing for them, as well as a strong cultural link. The appellant sleeps in the same bed as the elder grandchildren. It is in their best interests that he remain living with them. (m) The appellant had one full brother who died in 2007. He additionally has two [NAME] siblings who live in Australia. His parents are deceased. He has a number of [NAME] members in New Zealand who emotionally and practically support him. (n) The appellant was a part of the [APPELLANT] police force between 1982 and 2018, attaining the ultimate rank of Acting Superintendent. Following his retirement, he faced intimidation and threatening behaviour due to his previous role. His physical disability will now limit his ability to defend himself or seek help and, as such, he and his family are concerned about his physical safety should he return. (o) The appellant would therefore be physically and psychologically vulnerable in [APPELLANT] with no familial support. If he returns, he and his family expect that he would suffer premature death. (p) The appellant travelled to New Zealand with the intention of seeking a longer-term visa to allow him to stay. It was not until he was advised by an immigration lawyer when in New Zealand that the level of his family’s income would not support such an application. Whilst

6 in New Zealand, on this stay and previous stays, he complied with his visa obligations fully. (q) New Zealand has international obligations to protect the family unit and children’s best interests. Therefore, it is in the public interest to allow the appellant to remain with his family. Materials and Documents [13] In support of his appeal, the appellant’s counsel provides the following documents: (a) Identity documents of the appellant and his family. (b) A statement (3 July 2025) and completed questionnaire (10 November 2025) from the appellant. (c) Statements from the appellant’s family members, the majority of whom are resident in New Zealand, including his son and [NAME] (30 June 2025), [NAME] (9 September 2025), cousins (10 July 2025, 11 June 2025, 24 June 2025, 16 July 2025), [NAME] (11 June 2025), [NAME] and her husband (16 July 2025) and [NAME] (11 June 2025) attesting to the appellant’s needs and the dire situation he would face in [APPELLANT]. (d) Medical information from [COMPANY] in [APPELLANT] (30 June 2025) and the appellant’s local GP (8 July 2025). (e) A psychosocial report (10 September 2025) regarding the appellant and his circumstances written by a clinical psychologist. The psychologist recommends that the Tribunal consider the “grave medical, social and safety concerns outlined …” and allow the appellant to remain on humanitarian and disability grounds. (f) Statements (17 June and 17 July 2025) from the [NAME], other elders of the church and members of the congregation. (g) A statement (22 May 2025) from the president of the island [NAME] on [NAME]. (h) A statement (16 June 2025) from the [COMPANY] attesting to the conditions on [NAME].

7 (i) General letters of support (6 July 2025, 18 July 2025) from [APPELLANT] nationals. (j) Confirmation of the appellant’s training and service in the [APPELLANT] force. (k) Statement (7 June 2025) from the Commissioner of Police, [APPELLANT]. (l) Clear police report (10 June 2025) from [APPELLANT]. (m) A statement (1 July 2025) from the [APPELLANT] [NAME] noting that the [APPELLANT] government does not have any “old age or disability care policy” and the country has no “old age or disability assistance services”. The [NAME] relies on family support in such situations. (n) A statement (16 July 2025) from the son’s employer confirming that he is hardworking, reliable and dedicated. (o) Financial evidence of the appellant’s son confirming their limited income. (p) A statement (23 March 2026) from the [APPELLANT] confirming that the appellant had been eligible for and received a pension. However, since he migrated, he is no longer eligible. (q) N Elisala and others Exploring Persons with Disabilities Preparedness, Perceptions and Experiences of Disasters in [APPELLANT] (29 October 2020). ASSESSMENT [14] 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 his temporary visa applications and its relevant electronic records. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [15] 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”: [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. Family nexus and circumstances in New Zealand [16] The appellant is a 62-year-old twice widowed citizen of [APPELLANT]. He has spent the last year and a [NAME] in New Zealand, living with his only son, the son’s wife and their children, who are all New Zealand residents. The appellant is close to his son who had lived with him until 2022 when his family was compelled to relocate for economic reasons. The appellant and his New Zealand-based family members wish that he may live out his life reunited with, and well-supported by, his family in this country. [17] The appellant has a close relationship with his three elder grandchildren and assists with their care while living with them. As the appellant’s [NAME] gave birth to their fifth child in August 2025, it has to date been only the appellant’s son who is working. [NAME] wishes to also work which will be possible only if the appellant cares for the children whilst she does so. Finances are tight for the family and [NAME] asks the Tribunal to allow the appellant to remain with the family so that they can retain his support. It is unclear however how realistic the prospect of the appellant caring solely for the young grandchildren is, given his disability. [18] The psychosocial report states that the family provide the appellant with daily care, companionship, practical assistance, and a sense of belonging, stability and emotional support. [19] The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has a strong and supportive extensive family network in New Zealand, willing and able to provide him with practical and financial support. Various members of his [NAME] are already assisting with his care. His five cousins and [NAME], all of whom are resident in New Zealand, wrote confirming their continued support of him. [20] Seen in this context, it is understandable that the appellant wishes to remain close to his only remaining immediate family and continue living in a household where he feels supported and secure, while the family in turn wish to provide for him as he ages. [21] The appellant is actively involved in the Tuvaluan/[NAME] [NAME] in New Zealand, where his knowledge of [APPELLANT] and, in particular, [NAME] customs

9 and practices are recognised and valued. The president of the [COMPANY] writes that they provide, and will continue to provide, social, emotional and psychological support to the appellant. Best interests of the appellant’s grandchildren [22] The Tribunal is obliged to have regard to the best interests of any children aged under 18 years affected by the outcome of an appeal, which includes the appellant’s four grandchildren that he lives with, pursuant to Article 3(1) of the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The High Court has stated that the best interests of the child are neither paramount nor the primary consideration, but they must be afforded substantial weight: [NAME] v Minister of Immigration [2008] NZCA 377, [2009] 2 NZLR 700 at [49]. [23] The appellant assists in the care of his grandchildren when their parents are otherwise occupied. He helps with their schoolwork and teaches them cultural and religious values. They reportedly have a strong bond, even co-sleeping. The appellant lived with his grandchildren in [APPELLANT] when they were very young and has now spent the last year and a [NAME] of their young lives living with them in New Zealand. The Tribunal accepts that the appellant will be a strong presence in their lives, and it is in their best interests for him to remain so. [24] All four grandchildren have the right to live indefinitely in New Zealand and their futures are undoubtedly more favourable in this country than in [APPELLANT]. Although they could return to [APPELLANT] with their parents to support the appellant, the Tribunal finds that this is not in their best interests. The appellant’s health [25] The appellant has diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidaemia and a disability which significantly impacts his mobility, daily functioning and safety. [26] The psychosocial report states that the appellant requires an accessible living environment, access to diabetic medications and support for a strict diet control. If he is returned to [APPELLANT], he is at “high risk of premature mortality… due to a lack of access to essential medications, risk of uncontrolled diabetes and hypertension and susceptibility to infections”. He also faces “environmental risks due to lack of wheelchair accessibility, poor sanitation, and unsafe travel conditions”.

10 [27] The Tribunal accepts the appellant’s health fears in returning to [NAME], especially as his brother died there in 2007 due to similar conditions (foot sepsis and uncontrolled diabetes). Also accepted is that the appellant is no longer able to live independently and requires an accessible living environment. Country conditions in [APPELLANT] [28] In a number of Tribunal decisions, including Limoni [2023] NZIPT 505874, the Tribunal has discussed the general conditions in [APPELLANT]. It is recognised that [APPELLANT] is a small country comprised of nine low-lying islands and atolls with a total land area of only 26 square kilometres. [NAME] is one of the outer islands. The (usually) fortnightly ferry (passenger or cargo) from [NAME] takes several days as it goes via other islands and is unpredictable. It cannot dock at [NAME] and therefore a transfer to a smaller boat is required to access the island. [29] Population growth has the [APPELLANT] population now at approximately 11,000 (representing a tripling of the population since the 1920s), which has adversely affected the environment through the expansion of urban areas. The growth and pressure for food has also led to habitat destruction, unsustainable pressure on natural resources and increased waste generation and pollution; [NAME] [APPELLANT] State of Environment Report: 2022 (2022) at pp5 and 48. See also [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2023] 505998–999; [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2023] NZIPT 506048, 506051; Tamatoa [2024] NZIPT 506284–285; [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2024] NZIPT 506395–396; [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2025] NZIPT 506656–657; and Isala [2025] NZIPT 506627. [30] Life expectancy in [APPELLANT] is 66.16 years for men and 68 years for women (Government of [APPELLANT] [NAME] ([NAME]) Preliminary Environmental and Social Management Plan (February 2022) at p27 (“[NAME]”). [31] According to the [NAME] ([NAME]) Our Work in [APPELLANT] (2025) at www.who.int: [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] is characterized by limited health-care facilities, scarcity of medical professionals, and inadequate access to essential medicines and technologies. The health situation is further compounded by high rates of NCDs [(Non-communicable diseases)], such as diabetes, cardiovascular diseases and obesity. [32] The only hospital in [APPELLANT] is in [NAME]. It has 50 beds and offers basic services. Patients needing more hospital-level diagnostic and clinical care are

11 referred to [NAME] through the [APPELLANT] Scheme. There are [NAME] outreach services to the nine [NAME], including [NAME], usually staffed by a midwife, a registered nurse, a nurse aide and an environmental health officer. However, this varies due to staff capacity and shortages ([NAME], at p30). The [NAME] characterises [APPELLANT]’s [NAME] as one with inadequate access to medications and technologies, likely a result of having to import all necessary items ([NAME]–[NAME]-country Cooperation Strategy 2024–2029 (3 October 2024) at p105). [33] According to [NAME] and others (supra), the subsistence lifestyle on [NAME] is challenging for a person with a mobility disability, especially during environmental disasters. Small communities are not supported to assist disabled people in such disasters, and they must rely on their family or other members of the public. [34] The Tribunal accepts that there are difficult conditions in [APPELLANT], particularly for a person such as the appellant who has health needs and a disability that severely impacts his mobility. The appellant’s circumstances on return to [APPELLANT] [35] The appellant states that the house he owns on [NAME] is very old and in disrepair, with walls already falling down. It is in such a state that he considers that it would be too difficult for him to live in it now. He has no family to live with on [NAME], nor [NAME]. [36] Given the physical difficulties and the delays that a person faces travelling between [NAME] and [NAME], which would impact on the appellant accessing healthcare, the appellant and his family consider that a return to [NAME] would be extremely dangerous for him. The lengthy ferry journey and at-sea transfer would be physically challenging for the appellant now. [37] The traditional lifestyle on [NAME] is not wheelchair compatible nor accessible as it is a subsistence living environment requiring significant physical exertion to complete basic tasks. There is no state-operated care or provision for the elderly or disabled in [APPELLANT] as family members are expected to [NAME] such roles. The appellant has no family remaining to support him. His son provides for him in New Zealand by including him in their home, however he does not have sufficient resources to send money to his father in [APPELLANT] if he returned.

12 [38] The Commissioner of Police writes that [NAME] lacks the health care infrastructure necessary to manage the appellant’s conditions: There is no reliable access to specialised medical care, mobility assistance, or emergency intervention, placing him as imminent risk of severe deterioration should he be required to return. [39] The Tribunal accepts that [NAME] does not have disability services or support and the appellant’s access to resources would be impeded, a situation exacerbated by his lack of family there. [40] The appellant and his family additionally fear the continuation of reprisals against him, should he return, by agitators against the police, especially now that he is an “easy target” due to his disability. The appellant states “My physical limitations make me defenceless – I have previously been targeted by [NAME] and [NAME]”. [41] The Tribunal is satisfied that, should the appellant return to [APPELLANT], his health and wellbeing would be endangered. It is likely that he would not see his immediate family again as he would not physically be able to visit New Zealand, and they would not be able financially to visit [APPELLANT]. [42] The Tribunal acknowledges counsel’s submissions regarding Articles 17 and 23 of the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) and Articles 19, 25 and 28 of the 2006 Convention of the Rights of Persons with Disabilities. However, the appellant has no right to remain in New Zealand solely on the basis of his family’s status, and no legitimate expectation to do so in accordance with New Zealand immigration policy. He is currently unlawfully present. It is not therefore accepted that, in the circumstances of this appeal, the appellant’s deportation would breach New Zealand’s obligations under the ICCPR. Regardless, the Tribunal accepts that it is in the interests of all the appellant’s family for them to remain together. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [43] The appellant’s familial nexus is to New Zealand where his son, [NAME] and four grandchildren have resident status (and citizenship for the youngest). Their care of the appellant is strengthened and supported by many members of the [NAME] who also reside here. There are reportedly no family members left in [APPELLANT], a [NAME] that solely relies on familial provision for the elderly and disabled.

13 [44] The appellant has long-term illnesses and permanent mobility challenges, and his son and family provide him with the financial, practical and emotional support he requires. In turn, he provides his family, including the four grandchildren, with love and connection, and cultural guidance. [45] The appellant’s home island of [NAME] is a considerable distance from the only hospital, which in itself is inadequate, and the subsistence lifestyle there is inaccessible to the appellant. The Tribunal has found that, should the appellant return to [NAME], his health, and as such his life, will be seriously compromised, and he will be without family care and support. [46] The appellant’s deportation will also deprive his son and grandchildren of meaningful contact with him, a situation which will likely persist over the long term.

For these reasons, the Tribunal is satisfied that, when viewed cumulatively, the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. Whether it would be Unjust or Unduly Harsh for the Appellant to be Deported [47] 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]. [48] The appellant is liable for deportation following the expiry of his visitor visa. It is unlikely that he will be eligible for any further visa. He visited New Zealand in 2000, 2015 and 2018 holding visas, the conditions of which he honoured. [49] The Tribunal acknowledges the importance of the integrity of [NAME]. However, the appellant’s actions in failing to leave upon the expiry of his visa are considered in the context of his health and vulnerability, including his lack of alternative options, and his historical compliance with the [NAME]. [50] Against the reason for the appellant’s deportation liability, being his failure to leave upon the expiry of his visa, must be weighed the consequences of deportation. These are that the appellant who is older, disabled and vulnerable, would be returned to an isolated subsistence lifestyle where he has no familial support, and would be separated from his family with whom he has close bonds and depends upon fully. This would detrimentally affect him and his New Zealand

14 family, which (as has been accepted) gives rise to exceptional humanitarian circumstances. Conclusion on injustice or undue harshness [51] Balancing the reason for the appellant’s deportation liability (his unlawful presence in New Zealand including the mitigating circumstances) against the exceptional humanitarian circumstances (and in particular, his strong familial nexus here, his physical vulnerabilities and lack of familial support in [APPELLANT]), the Tribunal finds that it would be unjust or unduly harsh for him to be deported. To return the appellant now would be “beyond the level of harshness that must be regarded as acceptable in order to preserve the integrity of [NAME]”; [NAME] at [35]. Public Interest [52] 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 ([NAME], CIV-2004-485-102, 30 November 2004) at [41]. [53] The public interest is primarily engaged in the appellant’s situation by virtue of the potential imposition he presents to the [NAME] which is already under well-documented pressure. He has diabetes, hyperlipidaemia and hypertension, and a mobility disability. Currently, his conditions are controlled by medication and there is no indication that he poses an immediate burden on the public [NAME]. [54] While the Tribunal is cognisant of the potential burden the appellant will present to the [NAME] should he be permitted to remain in New Zealand, it considers these costs mitigated to some degree by his family’s intention to continue caring for and supporting him, and by his ability to self-manage his conditions with appropriate supports. The Tribunal is equally mindful of the inadequate healthcare and services available in [APPELLANT].

15 [55] The Tribunal further acknowledges the public interest in the integrity of the [NAME]. Visitors to New Zealand are expected to comply with their visa terms and depart from New Zealand prior to their expiry. The appellant’s actions in remaining after the expiry of his visa undermine the integrity of the [NAME]. The Tribunal finds, however, that this is not significant. This appeal was lodged promptly after the appellant first became unlawfully present and, as noted earlier, the appellant has previously complied with the terms of all other visas he has held. [56] There are no character issues in the appellant’s case. The appellant provided a clear police certificate from [APPELLANT]. The Tribunal has additionally obtained from the Ministry of Justice a New Zealand conviction history certificate (17 April 2026) which is also clear. The Commissioner of Police for [APPELLANT] supports the appellant’s appeal. [57] The Tribunal has found that the appellant’s deportation would give rise to exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature and would be unjust and unduly harsh. The Supreme Court has held that the factors informing this assessment are also relevant to the assessment of public interest; [NAME] v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2015] NZSC 28, per Elias CJ at [85]–[90]. There is therefore a public interest in the compassionate treatment of the appellant who is a vulnerable, [NAME], currently living in the care of his supportive New Zealand family. Should he return to [APPELLANT], he would face isolation and endangerment to his physical and mental wellbeing as well as an inability to access the necessities of life. Conclusion on public interest [58] Weighing the public interest factors identified above, the Tribunal is satisfied that it would not be contrary to the public interest for the appellant to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. DETERMINATION [59] 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.

16 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [60] The Tribunal also finds that it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest for him to remain in New Zealand on a permanent basis. Order for Grant of a Visa [61] When granting a humanitarian appeal against deportation, the Tribunal may order the grant of a resident visa or a temporary visa of up to 12 months’ duration, pursuant to section 210(1) of the Act. The Tribunal considers the latter would only prolong the appellant’s situation, particularly as he has no pathway to residence. Given his vulnerabilities, the Tribunal considers it appropriate to provide the appellant with the certainty he requires. [62] Pursuant to section 210(1)(a) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a resident visa. [63] The appeal is allowed in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [64] 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. This is because the decision contains health information in respect of which the appellant is entitled to privacy. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member