New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Country information

Legal area

Court

24 May 2019

BC (PHILIPPINES) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2019] NZCA 180

Citation

[2019] NZCA 180
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to amend the ground of appeal was granted but leave to appeal to the High Court was declined because the Court was satisfied the Tribunal had considered the relevant country material (including references to extra-judicial killings) and there was no serious arguable legal error of general or public importance nor exceptional circumstances warranting further appeal under s245(3).
6 Mar 2019

AO (Cameroon) v A REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2019] NZHC 360

Citation

[2019] NZHC 360
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the Tribunal's credibility and factual findings had an available evidential basis, the expert and country evidence relied upon were either predicated on facts the Tribunal rejected or inapplicable on the facts as found, and the statutory thresholds for leave (no question of law of general or public importance nor exceptional individual injustice) were not met.
19 Oct 2018

BC (Philippines) v IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2722

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2722
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because it was not seriously arguable that the duty to give reasons requires the Tribunal to articulate a specific 'analytical path' for credibility assessments; existing authorities establish a flexible, fact-sensitive approach and the Tribunal gave adequate reasons in this case, so the proposed question was not of general or public importance under s245.
28 Sept 2018

AA (ZIMBABWE) & ANOR v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2018] NZHC 2523

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2523
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicants failed to demonstrate any seriously arguable error of law; the Tribunal's adverse credibility findings and factual assessments were supported by evidence and country material, and the peripheral challenges and additional evidence did not show errors of fact so grave as to amount to errors of law under s245.
20 Dec 2017

BP (SOUTH AFRICA) v REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2017] NZHC 3259

Citation

[2017] NZHC 3259
Court

High Court

The IPT's factual findings and the weight it assigned to country information were open to it on the evidence and did not disclose a seriously arguable question of law; the alleged errors were factual or matters of weight and did not meet the Taafi thresholds, therefore leave to appeal and leave to judicially review are refused.
13 Apr 2017

BY (CHINA) V REFUGEE AND PROTECTION OFFICER [2017] NZCA 127

Citation

[2017] NZCA 127
Court

Court of Appeal

The Tribunal lawfully considered the relevant country information and the applicants' evidence, its conclusion that there was no well-founded fear of forced sterilisation or abortion was a factual determination not shown to involve an error of law, and therefore leave to appeal is declined.
21 Sept 2016

AI (SOMALIA) v THE IMMIGRATION & PROTECTION TRIBUNAL & ANOR [2016] NZHC 2227 [21 September 2016]

Citation

[2016] NZAR 1471
Court

High Court

Palmer J held the innominate ground and cumulative impropriety did not apply here but there was a seriously arguable legal question that the Tribunal erred by converting its rejection of the applicant's evidence into a positive factual finding that his parents and brother live in Mogadishu without evidential foundation; that error could amount to mistake of fact, failure to consider relevant matters (including Hathaway principle), Wednesbury unreasonableness or a factual conclusion contrary to the only reasonable inference, and accordingly granted leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial r…
19 Nov 2015

BZ (SRI LANKA) v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL OF AUCKLAND [2015] NZHC 2883

Citation

[2015] NZHC 2883
Court

High Court

Leave to commence judicial review out of time was denied because the applicant failed to demonstrate special circumstances under s 247(1) Immigration Act 2009 (six month delay not justified by asserted mental health, language or financial barriers), and although a procedural fairness issue (exclusion during wife's telephone evidence) was arguable, it was not of general or public importance and there was no substantive unfairness; accordingly leave under s 249 was refused.
28 May 2008

F V REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2006-404-007714

Citation

openlaw-f346738f_434a_4fe0_803c_be602ea5da5e.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court dismissed the review application because the RSAA had an adequate evidential basis for its adverse credibility finding and for its predictive factual conclusion that the applicant would practice Christianity discreetly; the RSAA lawfully analysed country information and made open evaluative judgments about risk, so no reviewable error was established and the RSAA decision was upheld.
29 Jun 2007

AA & OTHERS V REFUGEE STATUS APPEALS AUTHORITY AND ANOR HC AK CIV-2006-404-7974

Citation

openlaw-12194334_9d6b_4334_84f8_94fc06a30ddc.pdf
Court

High Court

The Court dismissed the judicial review application: the RSAA's adverse credibility findings were comprehensive, logical and foreseeable given the applicants' case centered on the plumbing incident; the RSAA was not required to give separate express notice about an interlinked credibility issue, applicants failed to identify additional evidence that would have altered the outcome, and the RSAA's conclusions were open on the evidence and not Wednesbury-unreasonable.