SINGH v AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER [2016] NZHC 1778

SINGH v AN IMMIGRATION OFFICER [2016] NZHC 1778

Interim relief was refused because the applicants remain unlawfully in New Zealand with deportation orders lawfully in force, there is no domestic legal mechanism to stay deportation pending UNHRC determinations, the purported 1 and 17 June communications were not fresh reviewable decisions but notifications to resume implementation, and the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the immigration regime to preserve its integrity despite likely hardship to the children.

Citation
[2016] NZHC 1778
Parties
First Applicant: Kulbir Singh Minhas; First Applicant: Navjot Kaur; Second Applicant: Gurcharan Singh; First Respondent: An Immigration Officer; Second Respondent: The Minister of Immigration
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
2 August 2016
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief (injunction)
Outcome
Application for interim injunction and interim relief dismissed; interim stay maintained only until 12 August 2016 by order of the Court
Legal Topics
Deportation, Interim Injunction, UN Human Rights Committee Communication, Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies, Judicial Review
Immigration Law Administrative Law Human Rights Law International Law Deportation Interim Injunction UN Human Rights Committee Communication Exhaustion of Domestic Remedies +1 more

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 6 Authorities cited 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 1
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Kulbir Singh Minhas

First Applicant

Navjot Kaur

First Applicant

Gurcharan Singh

Second Applicant

An Immigration Officer

First Respondent

The Minister of Immigration

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review / Application for Interim Relief (injunction)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether an interim injunction should restrain deportation pending determination by the UN Human Rights Committee
  2. 2 Whether communications to UNHRC create a stay or reviewable decision in domestic law
  3. 3 Whether decisions dated 1 June and 17 June 2016 constituted reviewable decisions

Ratio Decidendi

Interim relief was refused because the applicants remain unlawfully in New Zealand with deportation orders lawfully in force, there is no domestic legal mechanism to stay deportation pending UNHRC determinations, the purported 1 and 17 June communications were not fresh reviewable decisions but notifications to resume implementation, and the balance of convenience favoured enforcing the immigration regime to preserve its integrity despite likely hardship to the children.

Court Disposition

Application for interim injunction and interim relief dismissed; interim stay maintained only until 12 August 2016 by order of the Court

Orders

  • Application for interim injunction and interim relief dismissed
  • Decisions communicated on 1 June 2016 and 17 June 2016 not set aside