Section 82 — Immigration Act 2009: Grant of limited visa rather than temporary visa applied for or held
Text of the provision Official document
82 Grant of limited visa rather than temporary visa applied for or held (1) If a person applies for a temporary visa (rather than a limited visa), the Minister or an immigration officer may grant the person a limited visa rather than the temporary visa applied for if, and only if,— (a) the person,— (i) including a person to whom a visa waiver applies, is outside New Zealand and wishes to come to New Zealand for an express purpose; or (ii) is a person to whom a visa waiver applies who arrives in New Zealand and wishes to stay in New Zealand for an express purpose; or (iii) is the holder of a temporary visa, and agrees to the grant of the limited visa; and (b) the Minister or the immigration officer identifies a risk that the person will remain in New Zealand beyond the expiry of his or her visa; and (c) the Minister or the immigration officer considers that the grant of a limited visa rather than a temporary visa is necessary to manage that risk. (2) If the holder of a temporary visa applies for entry permission, the Minister or an immigration officer may cancel the temporary visa by granting the person a limited visa, and grant entry permission to the person on the basis of the limited visa if, and only if,— (a) the person wishes to enter New Zealand for an express purpose; and (b) the Minister or the immigration officer identifies a risk that the person will remain in New Zealand beyond the expiry of his or her visa; and (c) the Minister or the immigration officer considers that the grant of a limited visa (and entry permission on the basis of that visa) is necessary to manage that risk; and (d) the person agrees to the grant of a limited visa and entry permission on the basis of that visa. Compare: 1987 No 74 s 14DA(2)
Official source: legislation.govt.nz
Search case law on this topic
See judgments from New Zealand courts and tribunals with a plain-English summary and legal holding.
Explore case law →