Tribunal Rejects Appeal Against Deportation Based on Humanitarian Grounds

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507525 [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 30-year-old citizen of India, against his liability for deportation, which arose when his application for reconsideration of a decision to decline his application for a further temporary visa was declined. THE ISSUE [2] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant’s circumstances, including his settlement in New Zealand and his family’s circumstances in India, meet the statutory test of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. [3] For the reasons that follow, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional humanitarian circumstances in the appellant’s case. His appeal is declined.

2

BACKGROUND [4] The appellant was born in India, where his mother and brother still live. [5] The appellant first arrived in New Zealand as the holder of a six-month visitor visa on 28 June 2023. [6] The appellant then held an interim visa before a six-month supplementary seasonal employment work visa was granted in January 2024. In September 2024, he was granted an accredited employer work visa. However, after he reported that [NAME], he was granted a migrant exploitation work visa in March 2025, which was valid until 3 September 2025. [7] The appellant made a subsequent application for an accredited employer work visa in August 2025. He was granted an interim visa valid until 16 October 2025. On 25 September 2025, the appellant’s application for an accredited employer work visa was declined because [NAME] found that he had provided fraudulent information about his qualification in his first accredited employer work visa application. As a result, it was not satisfied that he met the minimum skills threshold as required by instructions or that he was suitably qualified to undertake the employment offered. It recorded that its concerns about his character remained ongoing concerns. [8] The appellant made a request to have the decline of his work visa application reconsidered on 10 October 2025. [NAME] considered this request but declined to change its decision on his work visa application on 4 November 2025. [9] The appellant became unlawfully present in New Zealand on 6 November 2025 after his application for reconsideration of a decision to decline his application for a further temporary visa was declined. [10] On 4 December 2025, the appellant lodged this appeal with the Tribunal. STATUTORY GROUNDS [11] 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—

3 (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. [12] 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]. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] The appellant’s case is set out in his submissions (3 December 2025) and can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant has worked hard to establish himself in New Zealand, even in light of the difficulties he faced with migrant exploitation from his first employer. He is well settled here, established in his community and with a strong network of close friends and community connections to support him. (b) The appellant does not have a good relationship with his brother and sister-in-law who live in India as a result of longstanding family conflicts. His mother remains in India but is unwell and unable to support him. He therefore does not have a stable living environment to return to, and being isolated from his [NAME] in New Zealand, he would experience significant emotional suffering and hardship. (c) The appellant’s family land is in an area that suffers from extreme water shortage, making agriculture nearly impossible. The appellant carried a high debt, which makes returning to India financially unsustainable. (d) Allowing the appellant to remain in New Zealand would not be contrary to the public interest as he has always conducted himself honestly and respectfully and contributed to his workplace and community.

4 Materials and Documents [14] In support of his appeal, the appellant provides the following documents: (a) letters (variously dated September or December 2025, or undated) from the [NAME], his employer, [NAME], and seven friends, confirming their support for the appellant and his contributions here; (b) evidence of the appellant’s father’s death in 2019 and medical information (December 2020 and February/May 2023) about his mother’s health; (c) three photographs of the appellant’s family land and an Indian bank statement (November 2025) as evidence of his debt; and (d) copies of the fraudulent information about his qualification submitted to [NAME]. ASSESSMENT [15] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by the appellant. It has also considered the appellant’s [NAME] file in relation to his temporary visa applications, and its relevant electronic records. Whether there are Exceptional Circumstances of a Humanitarian Nature [16] 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”: [APPELLANT] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. The appellant’s circumstances in New Zealand [17] The appellant has lived in New Zealand for just over two-and-a-half years. He has worked while here, mostly in the [NAME]. It is acknowledged that he may have initially been subject to exploitation with his first employer, which has been recognised by [NAME] in granting his migrant exploitation work visa. His present employer writes in support of the appellant, noting that he is a reliable and dedicated member of staff.

5 [18] The appellant’s friends have written in support of him on appeal, attesting to his good character and his hard-working nature. Letters from the president of the [NAME] and [COMPANY] outline his positive contributions to those organisations and his good character. [19] It is accepted that the appellant has settled here and made friends and other connections through his employment and the cultural and religious organisations to which he belongs and has made valued contributions. However, there is nothing to indicate that his level of settlement or his circumstances in New Zealand are well outside the normal run of circumstances in temporary migrants. The appellant’s circumstances in India [20] The appellant’s family nexus remains to India, where his mother and brother reside. His father died in 2019. [21] It is not clear that the appellant holds any qualifications from India, as he has acknowledged that the documents showing that he had a Bachelor of Arts degree granted by an Indian university in 2020 that were presented to [NAME] were fraudulent. However, other information previously submitted to [NAME] indicates that the appellant held a one-third share (along with his mother and brother) in the family land in India. His income tax returns from (2021-2023) showed that he received income from self-employment in a dairy farm, as well as agricultural income. A government business registration document (May 2023) showed that he was operating a [COMPANY] manufacturing dairy products at the time. This information shows that the appellant has some work experience in India and previously had two sources of income to support himself and his family. This information contrasts with the appellant’s claims on appeal that the family land is in an area that suffers from extreme water shortage, making agriculture nearly impossible. Apart from three photographs of unidentified areas of land, these claims are not substantiated. [22] The appellant has been absent from India for a relatively brief period. There is nothing to indicate that the appellant could not return to India and draw upon his previous contacts and experience to again find employment or resume self-employment and the life he previously had there. It is acknowledged that he has a debt of around NZD19,000, which will be challenging to repay in India, although he has a share in an asset (the family land) and previously made an income from the land that may help him to get started on repaying the debt.

6 [23] The appellant submits that he does not have a good relationship with his brother and his sister-in-law. There are no more details of this and no evidence to substantiate that claim. He argues that his mother’s health is not good and she would be unable to support him in any way. The evidence of the mother’s health condition presented on appeal indicates that she had a hysterectomy in 2020 and has been diagnosed with gall stones in 2023 as well as other gynaecological complaints. There is no evidence that she requires ongoing medication or treatment to support her. It is therefore not accepted that the appellant’s family members would be unable or unwilling to accommodate him while he gets resettled. He may be able to maintain some contact via social media with the friends he has made in New Zealand, who could provide him with some emotional support. Further, it is reasonable to infer, given the brief time that he has been out of India, that he will be able to re-establish previous friendships there to provide him with some support. Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [24] The appellant has lived in New Zealand for just over two-and-a-half years. He has worked here and has been a part of the [NAME]. The Tribunal accepts that the appellant has become settled here and made friends and other connections. However, while acknowledging the disappointment and distress that he will no doubt feel as a result of his situation, there is nothing about his level of settlement here that is well outside the normal run of circumstances in migrants who have lived in New Zealand for brief periods. [25] The appellant has lived most of his life in India and retains a strong family nexus there through his mother and brother. A return to India will be a return to a country with which he remains familiar and retains close cultural and family ties. He is able to return to his family house and land, from which he previously derived an income, while he gets re-established. It is not established that the appellant could not once again be self-employed or find employment to support himself. [26] The Tribunal finds that the appellant has not established that exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature arise in his case. DETERMINATION [27] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in terms of the statutory test.

7 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member [28] An appeal must fail if there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature. The Tribunal’s finding that there are none in this case makes it unnecessary to consider either the “unjust or unduly harsh” or “public interest” stages of the inquiry under the statutory test. [29] The appellant has failed to meet the requirements of section 207(1) of the Act and his appeal is declined. No Exercise of Discretion to Reduce or Remove Period of Prohibited Entry Under Deportation Order (Section 215) or to Delay Deportation or Grant a Temporary Visa (Section 216) [30] Having declined the appeal, the Tribunal turns its mind to: (a) its absolute discretion under section 215(1) of the Act to order the reduction or removal of any period of prohibition on re-entry to New Zealand that might otherwise apply under section 179; and (b) its discretion under section 216(1), to delay deportation or order the grant of a temporary visa where it considers it necessary to enable the appellant to remain in New Zealand for the purposes of getting his affairs in order. [31] The appellant will not be subject to a period of prohibition on re-entry if he departs New Zealand voluntarily before the date on which he may be served with a deportation order (sections 10, 175A and 179(2) of the Act). Therefore, an order under section 215(1) of the Act is unnecessary. [32] There are no reasons advanced on appeal or identified by the Tribunal that require the exercise of the Tribunal’s discretion under section 216(1) to find that extra time is required for him to get his affairs in order. [33] Neither order is made. [34] The appeal is declined in the above terms. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member