Tribunal Recommends Exception for Residence Application Due to Partner’s Family Violence History

OUTCOME: Allowed in Part

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 207452 RŌPŪ TAKE MANENE, TAKE WHAKAMARU AOTEAROA

Appellant: [redacted]

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

Before: M Avia (Member)

Counsel for the Appellant: [redacted]

Counsel for the Respondent: [redacted]

Date of Decision: 26 May 2026 ___________________________________________________________________ RESIDENCE

DECISION ___________________________________________________________________ [1] The appellant is a 26-year-old citizen of China whose application for residence under the [NAME_1]) category was declined by Immigration New Zealand. THE ISSUE [2] Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s residence application because her partner had been found to be the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which had resulted in the grant of residence to his former partner under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. For that reason, the partner was not eligible to support the application. The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand correctly declined the application on that basis. [3] The principal issue for the Tribunal is whether the appellant has special circumstances arising from the genuine nature of her [NAME_1], her settlement in New Zealand, including her voluntary activities in her community, the work the partner has done to change his approach to being in a relationship, and the fact

2 that instructions provide a permanent bar to the appellant obtaining residence in New Zealand. [4] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has special circumstances such as to warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration to consider an exception to Government residence instructions.

BACKGROUND [5] The appellant is a citizen of China. She arrived in New Zealand in 2018 and completed a year-long foundation studies course before enrolling in a bachelor’s degree in science. After completing her degree and obtaining a post-study work visa, she was employed in various roles, including her present employment in a retail store specialising in electronics. She currently holds a student visa, valid until March 2027 and is studying towards a master’s degree in business. She continues to work part-time as a sales assistant at the retail store. [6] [NAME_2] is from Sri Lanka. He arrived in New Zealand in 2014 as the holder of a student visa. In 2017, he was granted residence under the Skilled Migrant category of instructions. In November 2019, he was granted permanent residence and he became a New Zealand citizen in April 2025. [7] [NAME_2] entered into an arranged marriage with his now former wife in Sri Lanka in January 2022. In August 2022, she joined him in New Zealand. Their relationship broke down shortly after her arrival and, in January 2023, the former wife applied for and was granted a temporary protection order. Immigration New Zealand records indicate that, in 2024, the former wife was granted a resident visa under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category on the basis that the partner had been a perpetrator of family violence. In August 2024, the Family Court discharged the protection order against the partner. [8] The appellant and her partner met through their place of employment. They have been in a relationship since May 2023 and began living together a few months later in September 2023.

3 Residence Application [9] On 23 November 2024, the appellant made an online application under the [NAME_1]) category of residence instructions. [10] [NAME_1]) category instructions require that an applicant should be living together with his or her partner in a genuine and stable [NAME_1] and that the New Zealand-citizen or resident partner cannot have been the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which has resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category (S4.5). [11] By letter dated 23 May 2025, Immigration New Zealand wrote to the counsel raising its concern that [NAME_2] did not appear to be eligible to support her residence application under the [NAME_1]) category. Immigration New Zealand had found that he was a perpetrator of family violence which resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. [12] By letter dated 5 June 2025, counsel for the appellant submitted that the partner had no knowledge that the partner’s former wife had been granted residence as a victim of family violence in which he had been identified as the perpetrator. Counsel further set out circumstances relevant to the issue, including that he accepted the Family Court made findings of family violence against him and had taken steps to address his behaviour. The appellant was fully aware of the partner’s previous relationship and the Family Court proceedings and had remained supportive throughout. The couple were in a genuine and stable [NAME_1] and, but for this requirement of instructions, Immigration New Zealand would have had no reason to decline the application. Because Immigration New Zealand could not consider exceptions in an application such as this, the appellant indicated that she would abide by Immigration New Zealand’s decision and then appeal to the Tribunal on the grounds that she had special circumstances. Immigration New Zealand’s Decision [13] On 6 June 2025, Immigration New Zealand declined the appellant’s application because her partner had been the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. As a result, Immigration

4 New Zealand found the partner was not an eligible supporting partner under residence instructions (F2.10.10.a.iii). STATUTORY GROUNDS [14] 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. [15] 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 [16] On 30 June 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal on the ground that her circumstances are special such that an exception to the residence instructions should be considered. [17] Counsel accepts Immigration New Zealand’s decision was correct in terms of the residence instructions but submits that the appellant’s special circumstances are such that an exception to residence instructions should be recommended. Those circumstances include the following: (a) The partner accepted that he had engaged in abusive behaviour towards his ex-wife. Since then, he had completed a 12-session course to address his issues, and the Family Court had decided that a final protection order was not necessary for the protection of the former wife. Further, he has not been charged with any offences in New Zealand, including any offence related to family violence. (b) The partner satisfied the Department of Internal Affairs that he was of good character before being granted New Zealand citizenship.

5 (c) Although the appellant and her partner are in a genuine and stable [NAME_1], despite no fault on her part, the effect of the instructions is that she is permanently barred from obtaining residence in New Zealand through her partner. (d) The appellant has contributed to New Zealand through her work, volunteering and artistic pursuits and she has established a strong nexus to this country over the last seven years of living here. [18] Together with the above submissions, counsel provides the following documents in support of the appeal: (a) Statements (both dated 30 June 2025) from the appellant and her partner. (b) The decision of the Family Court (7 August 2024) in respect of the final protection order and the order (7 August 2024) discharging the temporary protection order made against the partner. (c) A non-violence programme completion report (19 July 2023) for [NAME_2]. (d) Correspondence (29 January 2025) in relation to the couple’s purchase of a house. (e) The appellant’s clear police certificate (13 June 2025) from China. (f) Eighteen letters of support (variously dated) from the appellant and her partner’s mothers, friends, employers, family members, and community group representatives for the appellant, her partner and the [NAME_1]. (g) An agreement (July 2024) for the appellant to work as an intern for a trust assessing plastic pollution in waterways. (h) Photographs of the appellant’s dance group. (i) Material already contained in the Immigration New Zealand file. [19] Additional documents were later produced including: (a) An agreement (July 2025) for the appellant to provide part-time support for another community trust.

6 (b) Two further letters of support from friends (November 2025). (c) A certificate (September 2025) confirming that the appellant had completed a programme with an environment foundation. [20] Following a request from the Tribunal, on 25 May 2026, counsel provided updated information about the appellant’s course of study and her employment. [21] The Tribunal takes the above information into account, as necessary, in its determination as to whether the appellant has special circumstances (section 189(3)(b) of the Act). ASSESSMENT [22] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided on appeal, the files provided by Immigration New Zealand in relation to the appellant’s residence application, and Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records. [23] 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. Whether the Decision is Correct [24] The application was made on 23 November 2024 and the relevant criteria are those in residence instructions as at that time. Immigration New Zealand declined the application because it concluded the partner was not eligible to be a supporting partner because he had been the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which had resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. [25] The relevant instructions include F2.5.d.i (effective 8 May 2017) of the [NAME_1]) category which states that an application under this category will be declined if it is not supported by an eligible New Zealand citizen or resident partner.

7 [26] Instruction F2.10.10.a.iii sets out criteria that must be met in order for a New Zealand citizen or resident partner to be eligible to support a [NAME_1]- based residence application and states: a. For a New Zealand partner (F2.10.2) to be eligible to support a residence class visa application under the [NAME_1] they: … iii. the New Zealand partner cannot have been the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which has resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under the category for victims of family violence (see S4.5); and Effective 23/12/2019 Partner ineligible to support the application [27] The appellant’s application for a residence class visa under the [NAME_1]) category was supported by her partner who is a New Zealand citizen. However, Immigration New Zealand’s records established that he had been found to be the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under the Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. As a result, he was not an eligible to support her application (F2.10.10.a.iii) and the appellant’s residence application had to be declined (F2.5.d.i). [28] The partner was unaware that Immigration New Zealand had found him to be a perpetrator of family violence and that his ex-wife had been granted residence as a result. Nevertheless, Immigration New Zealand had no discretion in this matter and was obliged to decline the application. Conclusion on correctness [29] The Tribunal finds that Immigration New Zealand’s decision to decline the appellant’s application for residence was correct. Whether there are Special Circumstances [30] 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.

8 [31] 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. [32] Special circumstances are “circumstances that are uncommon, not commonplace, out of the ordinary, abnormal”; [NAME_3] v Minister of Immigration [2004] NZAR 615 (CA) at [24] per Glazebrook J. Personal and family circumstances [33] The appellant is a 26-year-old citizen of China. Her father (a doctor) and mother (a retired accountant) remain living there. [34] The appellant arrived in New Zealand in June 2018 as the holder of a student visa. Subsequently, she held a series of student visas until September 2022 when she obtained a post-study work visa. Since 2025, she has held further student visas, the latest of which is valid until March 2027. While in New Zealand, she has been on overseas holidays and returned to China for family visits. [35] [NAME_2] is a 31-year-old New Zealand citizen. Originally from Sri Lanka, he arrived in New Zealand in 2014 as the holder of a student visa and completed Level 5 and 6 diplomas in information technology. He moved to the city in which he and the appellant live as the result of being offered employment as a technician. In 2017, he was granted residence under the Skilled Migrant category of instructions. This was followed by permanent residence in November 2019, and he became a New Zealand citizen in April 2025. Currently, the partner is a business development manager for the same company in which the appellant works. [36] The partner’s parents live in Sri Lanka, and he has a younger brother who is currently living in New Zealand. [37] The partner entered into an arranged marriage with his former wife in January 2022. However, the relationship foundered early on. The couple lived together for just five months and formally separated in January 2023.

9 Appellant’s relationship with partner [38] The appellant and her partner met through their place of work and have been in a relationship since May 2023. They were together for a short time before the appellant left New Zealand to visit her family in China and agreed that if they got on well with each other while managing the relationship at a distance, they would continue the relationship on her return. The appellant returned to New Zealand in early September 2023 and, a few days later, she and her partner began living together. [39] The appellant states that both she and her partner have come from relationships where valuable lessons were learned and that as a result, they approach their current relationship with maturity and seriousness. Despite their different cultural backgrounds, they have similar values, particularly about family, respect and resilience. They are committed to one another and, in January 2025, bought their house together. The partner echoes similar sentiments and states that the healthy, respectful relationship he shares with the appellant is proof of his personal development and commitment to maintaining a supportive and positive [NAME_1]. [40] The appellant’s [NAME_1] has the support of the couple’s respective families. The appellant’s mother has met the partner and his parents have met the appellant. Both mothers’ statements make it clear that they fully support the relationship. The appellant’s mother noted the appellant and her partner are always respectful of and cooperative with one another. The partner’s mother says she saw first-hand how caring and supportive the appellant was to her son, and that she and the partner’s father fully support their relationships, their goals and their life together. The appellant has a good relationship with her partner’s younger brother, who has recently graduated from tertiary study and lives with them. [41] A number of friends have written letters of support for the appellant’s [NAME_1] noting the respectful relationship that the couple have, and that the [NAME_1] is a strong one founded on mutual respect and care. [42] On all of the evidence available, the Tribunal is satisfied that the appellant and her partner are in a genuine and stable [NAME_1].

10 The partner’s ineligibility to support the residence application [43] The partner was ineligible to support the appellant’s application because Immigration New Zealand had found him to be the perpetrator of an incident of family violence which resulted in the grant of a resident visa to a person under Special Policies (Victims of Family Violence) category. [44] In January 2023, the partner’s former wife was granted a temporary protection order against the partner. In February 2023, the partner filed a notice with the Family Court to oppose the protection order being made final. In its decision (7 August 2024), the Court found that the appellant had been psychologically and physically abusive to his former wife. However, the partner had completed a prevention of family violence programme and appeared to have gained insight from it. Further, there was no reason for the couple to have any contact with one another in the future, and the partner had undertaken not to do so. Therefore, the Family Court determined that a final protection order was unnecessary and ordered it to be discharged. [45] The Tribunal also notes that the non-violence programme completion report (19 July 2023) records that the partner had attended all 12 sessions of the programme and had achieved the primary objective which was “to stop or prevent family violence”. The partner also satisfied the Department of Internal Affairs that he was of good character before being granted New Zealand citizenship (as required by section 8(2)(c) of the Citizenship Act 1977). The appellant’s safety has to be considered against this background. That her partner has addressed the causes of his actions, is confirmed by the appellant who says in her statement that she knew about the protection order granted against the partner by the Family Court from early on in their relationship and that her partner has always been open about it — not just with her, but also in his workplace. She also says that she and her partner work on their communication together and that they try to approach disagreements logically instead of arguing. Further, the appellant discloses that her previous partner was abusive. From this background, she states that she has never known her partner “to be like him” and that she feels “completely safe” with her partner. [46] The Tribunal emphasises that the appellant’s circumstances are the focus of its assessment of special circumstances. The residence instructions that render the partner an ineligible supporting partner reflect wider public policy considerations that family violence is inherently serious and that instructions operate to ensure such violence is not condoned or facilitated. However, the

11 Tribunal accepts that the relationship between the appellant and her partner, as disclosed to Immigration New Zealand, appears to be of a loving and supportive nature and there is no evidence of violence or abuse. Combined with the factors noted above, the Tribunal is satisfied that an exception to instructions, in the circumstances of this case, would not undermine the purpose of the instructions. The appellant’s visa pathways [47] Instructions F2.5.d.i and F2.10.10.a.iii operate as a permanent bar to the appellant gaining residence under the [NAME_1]) category with her partner’s support. Given this, the appellant does not have a pathway to residence, or any further temporary visa based on her [NAME_1]. Therefore, if the appellant is not granted a resident visa, she does not appear to have a apparent pathway to residence. [48] The appellant left China eight years ago, not long after she finished high school in China. As such, any working life she had there is limited (having left at 18 years of age). She says in her statement that she is reluctant to return as she has many unhappy memories of her school days. She concedes that she would probably be able to find work in China, although it would likely be low-skilled given that she would otherwise be competing against many others with more work experience in China or higher qualifications. Nevertheless, she has a New Zealand degree, has had work experience here and would also likely receive some support from her parents. However, if she is required to return to China, she may face separation from her partner. Although the couple have raised the possibility of her partner going with her to China, the Tribunal notes that he is well-established in New Zealand, has many friends, and is highly regarded in his employment. Further, he is not a Chinese national and as such, being able to remain in China permanently with the appellant is not certain. The partner may also face communication difficulties in China as there is no evidence to indicate that he can speak Mandarin or any other Chinese language. Settlement in, and contribution to, New Zealand [49] The appellant has been here since 2018. After undertaking a foundation studies course, she completed a bachelor’s degree in science in 2022. She then worked for various businesses, including employment at a retail store specialising in electronics. Currently, she is studying towards a master’s degree in business and continues to work part-time as a sales assistant at the retail store.

12 [50] The appellant is involved in various community activities, including tree planting and previously, she had undertaken a research project about the presence of plastic particles in the local environment. The programme coordinator of an environmental group for which the appellant volunteers states in a letter (November 2025) that the appellant had volunteered with the group a few hours per week for the last five months and, in doing so, helped to improve the efficiency and effectiveness of its services and brought creativity and hard work to all her tasks and projects. The appellant’s interest in the environment led her to complete an environmental foundation programme in September 2025. She also belongs to a modern dance group. Should the appellant remain in New Zealand, she plans to set up her own business, possibly a fitness studio aimed at Chinese-speaking people. [51] Before the appellant lived with her partner, she lived with a close friend and her friend’s husband. While the appellant was visiting her family (briefly) in China, her friend was murdered. The appellant states that she has deeply mourned her friend. She spent a lot of time with her friend’s family on her return, and still sees them from time to time. A mutual friend, who was a witness in the trial, notes in a letter how supportive the appellant and her partner were to her and to their murdered friend’s family over this time. [52] Until restricted by the demands of his current job, the partner, like the appellant, was active in the community, volunteering for a community patrol, emergency management (for nearly four years) and as an animal caregiver. [53] The appellant and her partner have a wide circle of friends, a number of whom have provided letters of support to the Tribunal. They all attest, variously, to the couple’s hard work, voluntary involvement, and strong relationship. Health and character requirements [54] According to its records, Immigration New Zealand was satisfied that the appellant had an acceptable standard of health for residence. [55] Immigration New Zealand found that the appellant met the character requirements of instructions. Immigration New Zealand obtained a clear New Zealand police certificate (5 December 2024). The Tribunal has obtained a New Zealand police vetting report (7 May 2026) which confirms that the appellant does not have any convictions in New Zealand. The appellant provided Immigration New Zealand with a clear police certificate from China (19 August

13 2024). Since the date of that certificate, the appellant has travelled out of New Zealand on two occasions, the first for 23 days in September/October 2024 and in March/April 2025, she travelled to China for 22 days. On 20 May 2026, the appellant provided an updated, clear police certificate from China and on 25 May 2026, she provided a statutory declaration confirming that she has no outstanding convictions, has not been found guilty of any offence, is not facing any charges and is not under active investigation for any offences against the law in China, New Zealand or any other country. [56] Immigration New Zealand found that that the partner met the character requirements set out in R5.95.a.i and .ii (effective 27 August 2023) as he had no convictions for family violence of a sexual nature. He also had a clear police certificate from Sri Lanka (27 August 2024). Since the date of that certificate, the partner (with the appellant) travelled out of New Zealand 23 days in September/October 2024. On 25 May 2026, the partner provided a statutory declaration confirming that he has no outstanding convictions, he has not been found guilty of any offence, is not facing any charges and is not under active investigation for any offences against the law in Sri Lanka, New Zealand or any other country. [57] The partner’s most recent New Zealand police certificate recorded that a temporary protection order that had been issued against the partner in January 2023. As set out from [46] to [48] of the Family Court’s decision, the Family Court discharged the temporary protection order against the partner, he completed a family violence prevention course, acknowledged his behaviour, and satisfied the good character requirement as a condition of being granted New Zealand citizenship. Further, the Tribunal has found that he and the appellant are in a genuine and stable [NAME_1] in which she feels completely safe. Finally, the 7 May 2026 police vetting report for the appellant is clear, meaning that there are no family violence incidents in which the appellant was involved as a victim or in any other way. [58] Notwithstanding the partner’s ineligibility to support the appellant’s application, the Tribunal does not consider the reasons for the partner’s ineligibility as a supporting partner to be a negative factor in the assessment of special circumstances for the reasons set out above.

14 Discussion on special circumstances [59] The appellant has lived in New Zealand for nearly eight years. During her time here, she has become well-settled into life in New Zealand. She has completed a degree, is hardworking, and has established many connections through her employment, voluntary work and other community activities. Further, she has a wide circle of friends in her local area, many of whom have written letters of support for her. [60] The appellant has a strong nexus to New Zealand through her New Zealand citizen partner, with whom she is, on the evidence before the Tribunal, in a loving and supportive relationship that is genuine and stable. [61] While acknowledging that the couple has been together for three years, residence instructions mandate that the partner is permanently ineligible to support the appellant’s future visa applications. That means the couple may be forced to separate if the appellant cannot stay in New Zealand as it is not certain whether the partner could stay permanently in China. Further, although the appellant is not to blame for her partner’s ineligibility, she has no pathway to residence unless an exception to residence instructions is made. Consideration by the Minister would provide the couple with an outcome and certainty from which they can go on to make future arrangements. [62] The Tribunal acknowledges Immigration New Zealand has previously found the partner was the perpetrator of an incident of family violence. However, the Tribunal also takes into account that the Family Court has determined that it was not necessary for there to be a permanent protection order against him and that there is no evidence of the partner committing offending of any kind. Further, the partner has recognised and acknowledged his previous actions, sought and received counselling for it, and based on the dynamics of his [NAME_1] with the appellant, it is clear that he has learned a different and positive approach to being in a [NAME_1]. [63] The Tribunal finds that these factors, when considered cumulatively, amount to special circumstances that warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration of an exception to residence instructions.

15 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

M Avia Member Conclusion on special circumstances [64] Having regard to all of the appellant’s circumstances, the Tribunal finds that the appellant has special circumstances that warrant a recommendation that the Minister of Immigration consider an exception to residence instructions. DETERMINATION [65] Pursuant to section 188(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 2009, the Tribunal confirms the decision of Immigration New Zealand to be correct in terms of the applicable residence instructions but considers that the special circumstances of the appellant are such as to warrant consideration by the Minister of Immigration as an exception to those instructions. [66] Pursuant to section 190(5) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration: (a) is requested to consider whether a residence class visa should be granted, as an exception to residence instructions, to the appellant; and (b) may, if granting a resident visa, impose conditions on the visa in accordance with section 50 of the Act. [67] Pursuant to section 190(6) of the Act, the Minister of Immigration is not obliged to give reasons in relation to any decision made as a result of a consideration of the Tribunal’s recommendation. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [68] 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 their family members. “M Avia” M Avia Member