New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Humanitarian grounds

Legal area

Court

7 Dec 2023

MUTSAMWIRA v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZCA 623

Citation

[2023] NZCA 623
Court

Court of Appeal

Leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to identify any seriously arguable question of law; the matters advanced were challenges to the IPT's factual findings which did not demonstrate a legal error or issue of general or public importance; alleged procedural errors were not questions of law and caused no demonstrable prejudice; and the Court of Appeal lacks jurisdiction to grant s249(3) leave absent a prior High Court refusal.
6 Sept 2023

T (CA3/2016) v THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 2504

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2504
Court

High Court

Leave to judicially review was declined because the applicant's grounds did not identify any unlawful, unfair or unreasonable exercise of statutory power nor raise questions of law of sufficient general or public importance to warrant High Court intervention; the Tribunal lawfully found exceptional humanitarian circumstances but, weighing the seriousness of offending, correctly concluded deportation was not unjust or unduly harsh for the applicant.
15 Aug 2023

HA (China) v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2023] NZHC 2176

Citation

[2023] NZHC 2176
Court

High Court

The application for leave to appeal was refused because the applicant failed to show a seriously arguable error of law: the Tribunal's factual findings and the weight it gave to medical and family evidence about dementia progression, care options in China, and the daughter's intentions were open on the evidence and did not amount to errors of law sufficient to justify leave under s245.
4 Jun 2021

VAILAGILALA v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2021] NZHC 1310

Citation

[2021] NZHC 1310
Court

High Court

The Tribunal considered the rehabilitation evidence and availability, applied the correct s 207 statutory test, and its weighting of rehabilitation against the seriousness of the murder offence did not disclose a legally arguable error; consequently there is no seriously arguable question of law of general or public importance and leave to appeal is refused.
17 Aug 2020

NM (Fiji) v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZHC 2077

Citation

[2020] NZHC 2077
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal was refused because the alleged error was a factual disagreement about weight to be given to evidence rather than a question of law; the Tribunal applied the correct legal principles (Ye) and the application did not raise a question of law of general or public importance nor any other exceptional reason; the additional evidence sought was not admissible for lack of freshness, cogency or because its admission would be contrary to the statutory scheme.
1 Jul 2020

SMITH v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZHC 1510

Citation

[2020] NZHC 1510
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to commence judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to show a seriously arguable error of law: the Tribunal's factual findings and evaluative judgments about credibility and weight of evidence were open on the material before it, the applicant's challenge was effectively a merits attack rather than an identifiable legal error, and the statutory leave thresholds under ss 245 and 249 were not met.
2 Apr 2020

KRUTI PATEL v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2020] NZSC 27

Citation

[2020] NZSC 27
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court refused leave because the applicant could not demonstrate sufficient prospect of success on the core issues (the concealment of the divorce proceedings as relevant information and lack of factual basis for humanitarian or counsel-error claims) and failed to show the rare and exceptional circumstances required for a direct appeal from the High Court; further evidence was not admissible at the leave stage and costs were awarded to the respondent.
11 Oct 2019

HAI v MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION [2019] NZHC 2584

Citation

[2019] NZHC 2584
Court

High Court

The Court granted consent orders setting aside the Immigration and Protection Tribunal's decision and remitting the appellant's deportation appeal on humanitarian grounds to the Tribunal for rehearing and redetermination with directions to consider specified fresh evidence, because the Tribunal did not have the benefit of that evidence and remittal was the appropriate remedy.
12 Nov 2018

KUMAR v THE IMMIGRATION AND PROTECTION TRIBUNAL [2018] NZHC 2928

Citation

[2018] NZHC 2928
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and leave to bring judicial review were refused because the applicant failed to show any sufficiently arguable question of law of general or public importance; the Tribunal's differing outcome from Singh was explained by material factual differences and the alleged failures to consider evidence did not amount to legal error sufficient to meet the statutory leave thresholds.
14 Mar 2018

CO v CHIEF EXECUTIVE, MINISTRY OF BUSINESS, INNOVATION AND EMPLOYMENT [2018] NZHC 442

Citation

[2018] NZHC 442
Court

High Court

Leave to appeal and/or judicial review was refused because the applicant's complaints were predominately case-specific factual disputes which do not raise points of law of general or public importance, the IPT's conclusions were supported by country information and a prior refugee decision now final, and the applicant failed to demonstrate a seriously arguable error of law or exceptional circumstances warranting High Court intervention.