KUMAR v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2928

KUMAR v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2928

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to show any sufficiently arguable question of law of general or public importance; the Tribunal's differing outcome from Singh was explained by material factual differences and the alleged failures to consider evidence did...

Source-derived case information.

Citation
[2018] NZHC 2928
Parties
Applicant: Sandeep Kumar; First Respondent: The Immigration and Protection Tribunal; Second Respondent: Minister of Immigration
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
12 November 2018
Procedural Posture
Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review Under Immigration Act 2009 / Decision on Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Judicial Review (dismissed)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal and for judicial review dismissed
Legal Topics
Deportation, Humanitarian Grounds, Judicial Review, Best Interests of the Child, Consistency of Administrative Decision‑making, Leave to Appeal
Immigration Law Administrative Law Family Law International Human Rights Law Deportation Humanitarian Grounds Judicial Review Best Interests of the Child +2 more

Source-derived case record

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Legal principles 5 Authorities cited 17 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Sandeep Kumar

Applicant

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal

First Respondent

Minister of Immigration

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Leave to Appeal and Judicial Review Under Immigration Act 2009 / Decision on Applications for Leave to Appeal and for Judicial Review (dismissed)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the Immigration and Protection Tribunal erred in failing to follow its earlier decision in Singh
  2. 2 Whether the Tribunal met the statutory test in s207(1) of the Immigration Act 2009 for exceptional humanitarian circumstances and for unjust or unduly harsh outcome
  3. 3 Whether the Tribunal failed to consider relevant evidence including the child's New Zealand citizenship and comparative public services in India

Ratio Decidendi

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to show any sufficiently arguable question of law of general or public importance; the Tribunal's differing outcome from Singh was explained by material factual differences and the alleged failures to consider evidence did not amount to legal error sufficient to meet the statutory leave thresholds.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal and for judicial review dismissed

Orders

  • Applications dismissed
  • Costs awarded to the Minister on a 2B basis