SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 972

SINGH v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 972

The IPT applied the correct legal test under s 207 and Ye; the applicant was not without fault because he remained responsible to inform INZ when his substantive duties changed; the applicant's circumstances did not meet the high threshold of 'exceptional humanitarian circumstances' and there is no seriously arguable error of law or public importance to justify leave to appeal or leave for judicial review, therefore both leave applications are declined.

Citation
[2018] NZAR 1120
Parties
Applicant: Shivdev Singh; First Respondent: Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment; Second Respondent: Immigration and Protection Tribunal
Court
High Court
Jurisdiction
New Zealand
Judgment Date
7 May 2018
Procedural Posture
Immigration Leave to Appeal and Leave to Commence Judicial Review / High Court Leave Applications Under Ss 245 and 249(6)
Outcome
Applications for leave to appeal and for leave to commence judicial review declined
Legal Topics
Deportation Liability, Humanitarian Appeal (s 207), Leave to Appeal (s 245), Leave for Judicial Review (s 249), Temporary Work Visa Conditions
Immigration Law Administrative Law Judicial Review Deportation Liability Humanitarian Appeal (s 207) Leave to Appeal (s 245) Leave for Judicial Review (s 249) Temporary Work Visa Conditions

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 12 Party arguments 2 Amounts and remedies 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Shivdev Singh

Applicant

Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment

First Respondent

Immigration and Protection Tribunal

Second Respondent

Procedural Posture

Immigration Leave to Appeal and Leave to Commence Judicial Review / High Court Leave Applications Under Ss 245 and 249(6)

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the IPT misapplied s 207 by failing to find exceptional humanitarian circumstances
  2. 2 Whether there is a seriously arguable point of law warranting leave to appeal under s 245
  3. 3 Whether leave for judicial review should be granted under s 249(6)

Ratio Decidendi

The IPT applied the correct legal test under s 207 and Ye; the applicant was not without fault because he remained responsible to inform INZ when his substantive duties changed; the applicant's circumstances did not meet the high threshold of 'exceptional humanitarian circumstances' and there is no seriously arguable error of law or public importance to justify leave to appeal or leave for judicial review, therefore both leave applications are declined.

Court Disposition

Applications for leave to appeal and for leave to commence judicial review declined

Orders

  • Leave to appeal under s 245 declined
  • Leave to commence judicial review under s 249(6) declined