SINGH v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 868

SINGH v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2014] NZHC 868

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges raised are primarily mixed questions of fact and law, the applicant was afforded opportunity to be heard and submitted evidence on the relationship with his child, and the issues do not meet the statutory s246(2) threshold of a question of law of general or public importance to justify a Court of Appeal appeal.

Citation
[2014] NZHC 868
Parties
Applicant: Avinash Singh; First Respondent: The Immigration and Protection Tribunal; Second Respondent: The Minister of Immigration
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
30 April 2014
Procedural Posture
Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Under S 246 Immigration Act 2009 / Leave to Appeal Application Decided by High Court (refusal)
Outcome
Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.
Legal Topics
Residence Class Visa, Special Circumstances (s188(1)(f)), Leave to Appeal (ss245 246), Natural Justice, Application of Residence Instructions
Immigration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Public Law Residence Class Visa Special Circumstances (s188(1)(f)) Leave to Appeal (ss245 246) Natural Justice +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 4 Authorities cited 4 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avinash Singh

Applicant

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal

First Respondent

The Minister of Immigration

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Application for Leave to Appeal to the Court of Appeal Under S 246 Immigration Act 2009 / Leave to Appeal Application Decided by High Court (refusal)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in declining to recommend special circumstances under s188(1)(f)
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal inserted or relied on facts without evidence or without giving the applicant an opportunity to be heard (natural justice)
  3. 3 Whether the child's interests were treated as a primary consideration and whether separation would be permanent

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal was refused because the challenges raised are primarily mixed questions of fact and law, the applicant was afforded opportunity to be heard and submitted evidence on the relationship with his child, and the issues do not meet the statutory s246(2) threshold of a question of law of general or public importance to justify a Court of Appeal appeal.

Court Disposition

Leave to appeal to the Court of Appeal refused.

Orders

  • Leave to appeal refused under s246 of the Immigration Act 2009