Tribunal Rejects Humanitarian Appeal for Deportation Relief

OUTCOME: Dismissed

IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2026] NZIPT 507201 [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] 9 June 2026

__________________________________________________________________ DEPORTATION (NON-RESIDENT)

DECISION __________________________________________________________________ [1] This is a humanitarian appeal by the appellant, a 27-[NAME]-old citizen of [APPELLANT]. His appeal was lodged at the same time as his refugee and protected person appeal. Having declined the refugee and protected person appeal, the Tribunal must now consider the humanitarian appeal. THE ISSUE [2] The appellant advanced his refugee and protected person appeal on the ground that he was at risk of harm in [APPELLANT] at the hands of a [NAME] friend and business partner who has fraudulently seized control of their jointly-held business assets, and whom the appellant fears will harm him if he tries to claim any financial compensation for his loss. The same claim is repeated here. [3] In addition, the appellant raises concerns about the security situation in [APPELLANT] in the wake of the student protests in 2025 which toppled the government. The appellant also points to the extent he has become settled in New Zealand,

2 including through his employment, after arriving here almost three years ago and his capacity to contribute to the country in the future. [4] The primary issue on appeal is whether the appellant has exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature which would make it unjust or unduly harsh for him to be deported from New Zealand. [5] The Tribunal finds that the appellant does not have exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, and the appeal must be dismissed.

BACKGROUND [6] The appellant was born in the Z district of [APPELLANT] in the mid-1990s. He is Hindu. His parents remain living at the family home. His mother is unwell with mental illness and his father is her primary caregiver. The appellant has two siblings, also in [APPELLANT]. [7] From February 2020 to October 2021, the appellant and two friends, including [APPELLANT] developed ideas for a business and established it using saving and [COMPANY] loans. A company called [COMPANY] was incorporated with shares divided equally. While the business was initially successful, in 2022, the company began to operate at a loss due to supply shortages and rising prices after [NAME] invaded Ukraine. While the appellant and his other business partner wanted to sell the company’s assets to pay off the business’ [COMPANY] loan, [NAME] did not agree to this and wanted the others to sell him their shares. When the appellant refused, threats were made to harm him. [NAME] also sent some local goons to his employer’s office. Under pressure, the appellant agreed to sell [NAME] his shares, but successive post-dated cheques tendered by [NAME] to settle the transfer have not been honoured by the [COMPANY] when presented for payment. This most recently occurred in January 2026. [8] In July 2023, the appellant arrived in New Zealand as the holder of a visitor visa, valid for six months to spend time with friends and attend the FIFA Women's World Cup. [9] In December 2023, the appellant lodged a claim for refugee and protected person status. In March 2024, he was issued with an asylum seeker work visa which was later renewed. His current work visa expires on 8 October 2026.

3 [10] The appellant’s refugee and protected person claim was declined by the [NAME] ([NAME]). His appeal was dismissed by the Tribunal in April 2026: see [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) [2026] NZIPT 803034. STATUTORY GROUNDS [11] This appeal is brought under subsections 194(5) and (6) of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”) and was lodged at the same time as with the appellant’s refugee and protected person status appeal. The grounds for determining a humanitarian appeal are set out in section 207 of the Act: (1) The Tribunal must allow an appeal against liability for deportation on humanitarian grounds only where it is satisfied that— (a) there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and (b) it would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the 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 [NAME] 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. THE APPELLANT’S CASE [13] The appellant’s case is set out in the submissions lodged with the Tribunal on 8 May 2026 and can be summarised as follows: (a) The appellant maintains his claim that he is at risk of serious harm if deported to [APPELLANT] by [NAME], who came to know through the appellant’s social media posts that he was out of the country and used this as an opportunity to incorporate a new company and [NAME] operational control of the property and facilities of [APPELLANT]. When [NAME] visited the appellant’s father in January 2026 to present the latest post-dated cheque, he threatened to have the appellant kidnapped from the airport and killed. The appellant believes that he will not be able to

4 obtain state protection as [NAME] is from a family with social and financial ties to the police. (b) The security situation in [APPELLANT] in the wake of the 2025 student protests is precarious. There has been no prosecution of officials who ordered the shootings of youths during the protests. During the protests, many thousands of criminals escaped from prison (and of which 6,800 dangerous criminals remain at large) and which saw many police stations looted of weapons. Corruption also remains a problem. (c) An [COMPANY] ([COMPANY]) April 2026: [APPELLANT] (April 2026) report ([NAME] report) has cut [APPELLANT]’s growth forecast significantly, slowing it to just 2.7 per cent. [APPELLANT] is facing “a dire economic crisis following the unrest, with high unemployment and stagnant growth”. If deported, the appellant believes that he will face “a devastating economic landscape characterized by systemic collapse and extreme personal financial risk”. (d) The appellant has become settled in New Zealand. He is an active participant in social life within the [NAME] and provides support to [NAME] who have recently arrived in New Zealand to study. Through a member of the community, he has found employment in the [NAME] in a rural location. After just six months, he was officially promoted from a casual role into a supervisory position reflecting his value to his employer’s business. The appellant is committed to building his long-term future here. [14] In support of the present appeal, the appellant provides the following documents: (a) Copies of certificates regarding his schooling in [APPELLANT]. (b) Copies of letters from [NAME] employers in [APPELLANT] as to his good character and work ethic. (c) Various photographs showing himself with [NAME] including at the appellant’s family home and at the opening ceremony of [APPELLANT], of the factory the company had built and the product it eventually

5 produced, and of a cheque in the appellant’s name advanced for the purchase of machinery. (d) Photographs of the dishonoured cheques written by [NAME] to settle his purchase of the appellant’s shares. (e) Photographs showing the appellant enjoying social life with Nepalese friends in New Zealand. (f) A letter (7 May 2026) from the appellant’s current employer confirming the appellant’s employment since March 2025 and his promotion after six months into a supervisory role. He is described as having integrity and a natural leadership potential and someone who has become an asset to the organisation and vital to its success. (g) Links to various reports concerning the general human rights situation in [APPELLANT] and news articles concerning the murder of businessmen, including the 2025 kidnapping and murder of a [NAME] by a [NAME] in Z and the murder of a [NAME] over a financial dispute related to a real estate business. ASSESSMENT [15] The Tribunal has considered the submissions and documents provided by the appellant. It has also considered Immigration New Zealand’s relevant electronic records and his refugee and protected person status appeal file. 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”: [NAME] v Minister of Immigration, at [34]. The High Court has held that the stringent statutory test of “exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature” cannot be equated with “compassionate factors”, circumstances that are more than simply “routine”, or “genuinely concerning circumstances”. The High Court has noted “the high threshold for a finding of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature”; see Minister of Immigration v Jooste [2014] NZHC 2882 at [45].

6 Claimed risk of harm in [APPELLANT] [17] The appellant continues to assert a risk of harm from [NAME] in [APPELLANT]. In [NAME] ([APPELLANT]), the appellant’s refugee and protected person appeal was found to meet the high threshold to be regarded as manifestly unfounded. In so doing, the Tribunal accepted that the appellant’s account was credible. However, this notwithstanding, the appeal was found to be manifestly unfounded as, even accepting everything the appellant had said, his claim could simply not succeed. This was because: (a) In order to come within the definition of a refugee under the [NAME], his predicament in [APPELLANT] needed to have nexus to one of the five specified Convention grounds. At its core, this was a dispute between two [NAME] friends and business partners, with no such nexus. His claim could not succeed on this basis alone; see [57]−[64]. (b) Nor was there any evidence establishing that the appellant was in danger of being tortured (as that is defined in the Act) in [APPELLANT], or that the harassment he would encounter there was sufficiently serious to constitute ‘cruel’ treatment (as also defined under the Act). Further, there is nothing in the past conduct of [NAME], nor men acting for him, which indicated any propensity to act on these threats of physical harm, let alone murder see [68], [72]−[73]. (c) Even accepting that country information refers to ‘endemic’ corruption in [APPELLANT], this does not of itself mean that the appellant had sufficiently established a basis for concluding a future failure of state protection in circumstances when he has not even tried to seek police protection prior to leaving [APPELLANT] and seeking protection in New Zealand; see [17]. [18] Section 231 of the Act allows the Tribunal to rely on the findings of fact and credibility it made. [19] The appellant worries that [NAME] will try and cause him harm if he pursues legal action against him for his fraudulent seizure of his share of the company assets. The Tribunal acknowledges the material and careful submissions that have been provided by the appellant in relation to this humanitarian appeal, but they do not persuade the Tribunal to revisit the findings of credibility and fact made

7 in relation to the appellant’s refugee and protected person appeal. The murder of the two businessmen is noted, but these crimes arose in their own specific circumstances. That other businessmen have been murdered says very little about what, if any, risk the appellant faces in his particular circumstances. Arrest of the alleged perpetrators were made in both cases in any event. Clearly the police force remains functional, and the risk of arrest would loom large in [NAME]’s mind given the many witnesses to their dispute, not least the third business partner. There is nothing new provided which indicates [NAME] has any intention of actually harming the appellant nor that, if threats were again made, that these would not be investigated by the police. [20] Insofar as [NAME] has seized control of the assets of [APPELLANT], this may yet prove to be a pyrrhic victory. The appellant indicted that there is an outstanding [COMPANY] loan which was made to finance the company’s establishment. This loan will, as matter of ordinary commercial practice, been likely to have been secured again the assets of the company. If it has effectively ceased trading and is unable to repay the loan, the [COMPANY] will be able to seek court orders allowing it to sell those same assets to recover, what it can, of what it is owed. [21] The findings in [NAME] ([APPELLANT]) are therefore relied on in this decision. However, the Tribunal reminds itself that, in this appeal, the focus is on whether 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. [22] Adopting the findings of fact and credibility in [NAME] ([APPELLANT]), the Tribunal finds that the appellant has not established that he is at risk of harm if returned to [APPELLANT]. Circumstances in home country [23] The appellant refers to [NAME] 2026: [APPELLANT] (6 February 2026) and [NAME] [NAME] 2025/26: [APPELLANT] (21 April 2026) which cover the events of 2025 including the ‘[NAME] protests which led to the resignation of [NAME] [NAME] [NAME] on 9 September 2025. Both reports outline human rights concerns on issues such as accountability for crimes committed during the civil war, freedom of expression, discrimination against Dalits, the LGBTQ+ community and other minority groups. While these mostly deal with events prior the toppling of the government, to the extent they reflect structural issues in governance and society in [APPELLANT], these are unlikely to have been resolved. Yet none of these matters directly relate to the

8 appellant’s particular circumstances and therefore do not raise relevant matters of humanitarian concern for him. [24] Further the Tribunal notes, however that, in March 2026, the Rastriya Swatantra Party’s (RSP) led by the rapper and [NAME] [NAME] won a clear majority, the first time this had happened in in decades; see [NAME] and [NAME] “[APPELLANT] [APPELLANT] Party Wins in a Landslide” BBC (13 March 2026). The result appears to sign a strong wish by the wider Nepalese population that a single party have the political means to implement necessary structural reforms to tackle issues such as corruption. Whatever ties [NAME]’s family may have had to the old political establishment will have been impacted by these recent developments. [25] The appellant also refers to the [NAME] report which forecasts some contraction in the [NAME]. This may be so. This may make it more difficult for the appellant to be able to find work. But he is not shut out of the labour market. He is clearly an intelligent, capable man, as demonstrated by the careful and structured nature of his submissions, as well as in the references from his employers both here and in [APPELLANT]. Moreover, the appellant has a place to live in and connections or acquaintances he can leverage to re-establish himself. He has in the past been able to establish himself through employment in the greater [NAME] valley area and will be able to do so in the future if he cannot find work opportunities in Z. Extent of settlement in New Zealand [26] The appellant has only been in New Zealand for a short period of time. He has no family living here and his familial nexus remain to [APPELLANT]. [27] Nonetheless, he has developed a network of friends and acquaintances through his participation in the life of the [NAME] and through his employment. These relationships will be disrupted by the appellant’s deportation and both he and his friends will experience some disappointment. There may be some disruption to the daily operations of [NAME], for whom the appellant has become a valued employee. It is not suggested, however, that his deportation would have significant ongoing impact on business operations such as placing the continued employment of New Zealand citizens and/or residents in real jeopardy.

9 Conclusion on exceptional humanitarian circumstances [28] In [APPELLANT], the appellant will have to make decisions about the extent to which he wishes to pursue action against [NAME]. If he does, this will involve both expense and stress. If he does not, he will suffer some financial loss. But that is all. This is of course unfair, but is also not a humanitarian circumstance, let alone an exceptional one in the sense completed by the High Court in Jooste. [29] In [APPELLANT], where he has lived most his life, the appellant will be reunited with his family, not least his mother who is unwell.

For the foregoing reasons, assessed cumulatively, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional humanitarian circumstances in the appellant’s case. DETERMINATION [30] For the reasons given, the Tribunal finds that there are no exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature in terms of the statutory test. [31] 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. Reduction or Removal of the Period of Prohibited Entry [32] The Tribunal has considered whether to reduce or remove the period of prohibition on entry to New Zealand pursuant to section 215(1) of the Act but declines to do so. Discretion to Delay Deportation or Grant a Temporary Visa [33] The Tribunal has considered whether to exercise its discretion under section 216(1) of the Act, to delay deportation or order the grant of a temporary visa to the appellant for the purposes of getting his affairs in order. [34] The High Court has held that the phrase “getting affairs in order” means “organising those personal, legal or financial matters that, by reason of personal need or obligation (legal or moral) must be attended to so that deportation will not leave the [NAME], or those associated with him or her,

10 Certified to be the Research Copy released for publication.

[NAME] Member disadvantaged”: see Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment v Singh [2018] NZHC 272, [2018] NZAR 434, at [20]. [35] Pursuant to section 216(1)(b) of the Act, the Tribunal orders that the appellant be granted a work visa, for a period of four months commencing on the date of this decision. This is because the appellant will need some time to organise his departure from New Zealand, including the purchase of airline tickets to [APPELLANT], and make inquiries about employment opportunities in [APPELLANT]. He has a responsible position in his employer’s business operation, and allowing the appellant to remain in that position for a short period of time will allow his employer to make any necessary adjustments. [36] The visa ordered by the Tribunal will replace the appellant’s existing visa. This is because, as the appeal has been unsuccessful, his existing visa will be cancelled 28 days after the date of this decision (see sections 64(1)(ab) and 175A(2)(b)(ii) of the Act). [37] The appeal is declined in the above terms. Order as to Depersonalised Research Copy [38] 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 it refers to the appellant’s refugee and protected person appeal, to which confidentiality attaches under section 151 of the Act. “[NAME]” [NAME] Member