SINGH v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2013] NZHC 2229

SINGH v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2013] NZHC 2229

The Tribunal did not err in law: the Rajan formulation of 'special circumstances' is appropriate in the context of s 188(1)(f); the Tribunal properly treated the child's best interests as a primary consideration, considered relevant evidence, and reasonably concluded that the appellant's circumstances, taken cumulatively, were not sufficiently uncommon or exceptional to warrant recommending ministerial exception; appeal and judicial review dismissed.

Citation
[2013] NZAR 1257
Parties
Appellant/plaintiff: Avinash Singh; Respondent/second Defendant: The Minister of Immigration; First Defendant: The Immigration and Protection Tribunal
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
29 August 2013
Procedural Posture
Appeal and Judicial Review / Decision on Appeal and Application for Judicial Review With Leave Application Considered
Outcome
Appeal dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed; application for leave allowed pro forma
Legal Topics
Residence Instructions, Special Circumstances Under S 188(1)(f), Best Interests of the Child, Judicial Review, Leave to Appeal S 245
Immigration Law Administrative Law Family Law International Law Residence Instructions Special Circumstances Under S 188(1)(f) Best Interests of the Child Judicial Review +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 3 Authorities cited 10 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Avinash Singh

Appellant/plaintiff

The Minister of Immigration

Respondent/second Defendant

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal

First Defendant

Procedural Posture

Appeal and Judicial Review / Decision on Appeal and Application for Judicial Review With Leave Application Considered

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Tribunal erred in law in finding the appellant's circumstances were not 'special' under s 188(1)(f) of the Immigration Act 2009
  2. 2 What legal test applies to 'special circumstances' in s 188(1)(f)
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to treat the best interests of the child as a primary consideration under UNCROC art 3(1)

Ratio Decidendi

The Tribunal did not err in law: the Rajan formulation of 'special circumstances' is appropriate in the context of s 188(1)(f); the Tribunal properly treated the child's best interests as a primary consideration, considered relevant evidence, and reasonably concluded that the appellant's circumstances, taken cumulatively, were not sufficiently uncommon or exceptional to warrant recommending ministerial exception; appeal and judicial review dismissed.

Court Disposition

Appeal dismissed; application for judicial review dismissed; application for leave allowed pro forma

Orders

  • Application for leave to appeal allowed pro forma and appeal dismissed
  • Application for judicial review dismissed