New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Humanitarian appeal

Legal area

Court

11 Oct 2023

MOHEBBI v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 2854

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2854
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal under s 245 is granted because it is sufficiently seriously arguable that the Tribunal's conclusion that no exceptional humanitarian circumstances existed was untenable on the evidence, given the accepted serious mental health issues of the applicant and his daughter and the risk of significant deterioration including self-harm; leave to commence judicial review under s 249 is declined because the issues are suitable for appeal and no discrete legality or process error is shown.
30 Nov 2022

LIN v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2022] NZHC 3175

Citation

[2022] NZHC 3175
Court

High Court

The IPT decision was set aside because MBIE's failure to supply the 2017 visitor visa application file in breach of s226(2)(b) was a significant procedural error warranting setting aside and remitting the humanitarian appeal to the IPT for rehearing on specified issues, with a partial remittance permitted given the applicant's undertaking that his exceptional humanitarian circumstances remain unchanged.
19 Aug 2022

BE (NIGERIA) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2022] NZHC 2064

Citation

[2022] NZHC 2064
Court

High Court

The Court declined to grant a stay because the statutory framework (notably ss222 and 236 of the Immigration Act 2009) requires prompt determination of humanitarian deportation appeals before parole eligibility and proceeding with the Tribunal hearing would not cause prejudice to the applicant; accordingly the stay application was dismissed.
16 May 2022

P v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2022] NZCA 188

Citation

[2022] NZCA 188
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal and to commence judicial review was declined because the proposed grounds were not seriously arguable: the Tribunal provided a fair hearing and took steps to mitigate disadvantage from lack of legal representation, P did not demonstrate how representation would have changed the outcome, and the factual findings including consideration of stigma did not meet the statutory threshold of exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
14 Apr 2021

SINGH v MBIE & IMMIGRATION & PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2021] NZHC 787

Citation

[2021] NZHC 787
Court

High Court

The Court granted leave to judicially review on two narrowly defined, seriously arguable and publicly important questions: whether the Tribunal creates a legitimate expectation to request INZ files of family members where reasonably necessary and, if that expectation existed and was not met, whether that failure affected the outcome of the appellant's humanitarian appeal. The Court held the Tribunal's discretion under the Practice Note and ss 226–229 is not absolute and must be exercised reasonably. Leave was refused on the separate, fact-specific question of whether a temporary visa under s…
8 Jul 2020

Ochibulu v Immigration and Protection Tribunal [2020] NZHC 1612

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1612
Court

High Court

The Court awarded costs to the second respondent on the basis that costs follow the event, the applicant's challenges lacked wider public importance and were not finely balanced, the respondent's claimed scale steps were appropriate, and financial hardship or incarceration pertains to enforcement not to the entitlement to an award; accordingly $20,443.65 was ordered on the scale claimed.
11 Feb 2019

XX (EUROPEAN UNION) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2019] NZHC 112

Citation

[2019] NZHC 112
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the Tribunal applied the correct legal test under s 207(1) (following Ye), the applicant's arguments were either new and unsupported by evidence or were factual re‑hashes of issues previously decided, no arguable error of law was demonstrated (no wrong test, no irrelevant considerations taken, no failure to consider relevant matters), and the proposed appeal did not raise any question of general or public importance.
4 Dec 2018

MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION v Q [2018] NZHC 3173

Citation

[2018] NZHC 3173
Court

High Court

Absence of fault cannot on its own constitute an exceptional humanitarian circumstance under s207(1)(a) and cannot negate statutory deportation liability created by s158(1A); however absence of fault is a relevant ancillary factor when assessing whether other humanitarian circumstances are sufficiently exceptional and when considering whether deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh and the public interest. The Tribunal did not err in taking absence of fault into account as part of the overall assessment and the appeal is dismissed.
14 Sept 2018

SINGH v IMMIGRATION & PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2409

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2409
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to identify a question of law capable of bona fide and serious argument and of general or public importance; the Tribunal applied the correct legal tests and its factual findings were supported by the evidence so did not meet the high threshold under Taafi; there was no breach of natural justice or actionable discrimination warranting review.
6 Jun 2018

YOUXIN LI v CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF MINISTRY OF BUSINESS INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 1309

Citation

[2018] NZHC 1309
Court

High Court

The proposed fresh evidence was neither sufficiently fresh nor cogent and, in any event, would not have produced a different outcome; the Tribunal's credibility findings and factual conclusions (including assessment of medical evidence and exceptional humanitarian circumstances) were open on the material before it; the statutory threshold for leave was not met, therefore applications for leave to appeal and for judicial review were dismissed.