New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Family unity

Legal area

Court

1 Jul 2020

DG (BANGLADESH) v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1528

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1528
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal under s245 was granted because there is a bona fide and serious argument that the Tribunal erred in law by failing to have regard to applicable international conventions (UNCROC and ICCPR) and the principles of family unity and the best interests of the child when assessing whether the husband and child face Convention-based risk; leave to bring judicial review under s249 was refused because the issue can be adequately resolved on appeal.
8 Oct 2012

NGUYEN V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC AK CIV-2012-404-1858

Citation

openlaw-9f90a0a4_2c75_45c9_b5e3_30020c8d1909.pdf
Court

High Court

No question of law was established; the Tribunal lawfully and adequately considered the applicant's family interests and supporting evidence, and the assessment of risk of re-offending properly falls within the public interest limb of s 105(1), rendering the leave application unsustainable.
1 Oct 2008

PRASAD V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV-2008-485-967

Citation

openlaw-e99f8fad_068e_42f0_b0e2_49b347e23b42.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal erred in law by treating the gravity and breadth of fraudulent conduct perpetrated by the mother and stepfather as determinative against these appellants despite their lack of personal culpability and by impermissibly including subsequent separate frauds in the assessment; the error justifies quashing the Tribunal decision and remitting the matters for reconsideration with leave to raise victims' status and counselling needs.
19 Aug 2008

MESAKE EPENISA V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2008-485-611

Citation

openlaw-03e457c9_63e8_461b_be30_e08fa8e066e9.pdf
Court

High Court

The Tribunal did not err in law. The evidence did not establish that the two older children were part of the appellant's family or that sufficiently close ties existed to require that their interests be treated as a primary consideration under the UNCRC or ICCPR. Even if their interests had been expressly considered, the lack of evidence of a close bond or material impact meant the proportionality assessment would remain in favour of deportation; accordingly the appeal is dismissed.

New Zealand Case Law

DG (BANGLADESH) v THE REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER [2020] NZHC 1528

NGUYEN V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC AK CIV-2012-404-1858

PRASAD V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV-2008-485-967

MESAKE EPENISA V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC WN CIV 2008-485-611