New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Character requirements

Legal area

Court

23 Dec 2021

H (SC 104/2020) v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZSC 192

Citation

[2021] NZSC 192
Court

Supreme Court

Instruction A5.30 must be interpreted to require a rational connection between an applicant's association with an organisation and the applicant's character; decision-makers must consider the nature, duration, extent and the applicant's knowledge of or involvement in the impugned activities and the extent of free choice; interpreted thus A5.30 is not unreasonable, unfair or ultra vires and remains valid.
13 Nov 2020

H v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZCA 562

Citation

[2020] NZCA 562
Court

Court of Appeal

A5.30 is a lawful immigration character instruction within the Minister's s22 power: association with organisations that committed gross human rights abuses can legitimately inform character assessment; the deeming effect is permissible and counterbalanced by A5.30.1(b) discretion; the wording is not unacceptably vague; "satisfied beyond doubt" describes the officer's evaluative state of mind and does not impose a legal burden or criminal standard; and A5.30 was certified with sufficient regard to refugee obligations and is consistent with the Refugee Convention as implemented in the instruct…
5 Nov 2019

H v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [Redacted] [2019] NZHC 2870

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2870
Court

High Court

A5.30 is a lawful immigration instruction certified under s22 forming part of a legitimate character test: association or membership of organisations responsible for gross human rights abuses rationally informs individual character and may lawfully render an applicant normally ineligible for residence; the deeming effect is permissible given evidentiary constraints and is qualified by A5.30.1(b) which permits immigration officer discretion where satisfied beyond doubt that involvement was minimal or remote; the provision does not impose an unlawful reverse onus and the Minister was not requir…
23 Aug 2018

DENNIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 2169

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2169
Court

High Court

Extension refused because the delay was very lengthy (265 and 188 days), the reasons for delay were weak (no credible excuse from counsel or applicant), and although there is arguable reviewable error in failing to consider the children's interests, there are very low prospects of effective substantive relief due to statutory bars and an alternative remedy (s 177) available to address the children's interests; these facts do not constitute 'special circumstances' under s 247.
29 Oct 2015

MACHIDA & MACHIDA v IMMIGRATION & PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 2649

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2649
Court

High Court

Section 249 did not apply to the challenged decision; the judicial review was filed well outside the 28-day limit in s247 and no special circumstances justified an extension; accordingly judicial review leave/extension was refused. Leave to appeal the Tribunal was refused because there was no seriously arguable error of law or factual error so grave as to constitute a question of law of general or public importance; both applications were dismissed.
30 Jun 2011

AB V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC WN CIV 2010-485-1533

Citation

openlaw-a6adb3c4_0735_4b53_96ac_04cdc86dea50.pdf
Court

High Court

A5.26 applies to refugee applicants for residence; A5.26(b) operates as a deeming provision that normally renders applicants with the specified associations ineligible unless the nature and extent of the association is shown to be minimal or remote under A5.26.1(b); the Board did not err in its interpretation of 'remote' and its factual assessment was lawful, therefore the appeal is dismissed.
17 Nov 2009

MISTRY V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2009-485-1610

Citation

openlaw-0de3db5b_932d_4c90_ac62_846690dee093.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held that the Tribunal did not err in law: it properly exercised the broad discretion under s22(4), correctly applied s22(5) (economic hardship alone does not necessarily meet the unjust or unduly harsh threshold), evaluated the s22(6) factors including family circumstances and policy considerations, and its factual findings were open on the evidence and not so unreasonable as to amount to an error of law; the appeal was dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

H (SC 104/2020) v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZSC 192

H v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZCA 562

H v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [Redacted] [2019] NZHC 2870

DENNIS v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 2169

MACHIDA & MACHIDA v IMMIGRATION & PROTECTION TRIBUNAL NEW ZEALAND [2015] NZHC 2649

AB V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC WN CIV 2010-485-1533

MISTRY V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2009-485-1610