CHEEMA & OTHERS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-007469

CHEEMA & OTHERS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-007469

The decision to refuse a further work permit was lawful and not so unreasonable that no reasonable immigration officer could have reached it: the officer legitimately considered the applicant's immigration history (including her recent expression of interest in residence), the integrity of the immigration system given the husband's fraud, and the children's interests, and afforded the applicant opportunity to respond; dismissal of the review follows.

Citation
openlaw-8a278108_0643_4fc0_841d_8255eaad5658.pdf
Parties
Plaintiff: Karamjit Kaur Cheema; Plaintiff: Baltinder Singh Cheema; Plaintiff: Tanjinder Singh Cheema; First Defendant: Minister of Immigration; Second Defendant: Attorney-General of New Zealand
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
1 April 2009
Procedural Posture
Judicial Review Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 / Final Judgment on Application for Review (dismissed)
Outcome
Application for review dismissed
Legal Topics
Work Permit, Temporary Entry Policy, Character Policy, Natural Justice, Discretion, Policy Exceptions, Unreasonableness (wednesbury), Best Interests of the Child
Immigration Administrative Law Judicial Review Public Law Child Welfare Work Permit Temporary Entry Policy Character Policy +5 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 10 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Karamjit Kaur Cheema

Plaintiff

Baltinder Singh Cheema

Plaintiff

Tanjinder Singh Cheema

Plaintiff

Minister of Immigration

First Defendant

Attorney-General of New Zealand

Second Defendant

Procedural Posture

Judicial Review Under the Judicature Amendment Act 1972 / Final Judgment on Application for Review (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the decision-maker failed to take into account relevant considerations
  2. 2 Whether irrelevant considerations (husband's fraud) were impermissibly relied on
  3. 3 Whether the decision was so unreasonable that no reasonable immigration officer could have made it

Ratio Decidendi

The decision to refuse a further work permit was lawful and not so unreasonable that no reasonable immigration officer could have reached it: the officer legitimately considered the applicant's immigration history (including her recent expression of interest in residence), the integrity of the immigration system given the husband's fraud, and the children's interests, and afforded the applicant opportunity to respond; dismissal of the review follows.

Court Disposition

Application for review dismissed

Orders

  • Application dismissed
  • If costs cannot be agreed defendants to file memoranda on costs within ten working days and plaintiffs to file responses within ten working days of receipt