New Zealand Case Law: Decisions & Judgments

Topic

Removal orders

Legal area

Court

21 Oct 2011

SINGH V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION COA CA662/2010

Citation

COA CA662/2010
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal is dismissed. The Court held Parmanadan is binding that immigration officers are not required to apply s47(3) when making a s54 removal order; in this case the officer conducted humanitarian interviews, considered international obligations and the children's interests as a primary consideration, and the Court will not reweigh the merits absent unreasonableness — therefore no error by the High Court was shown.
7 Sept 2010

KROKOVA AND ANOR V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION HC AK CIV-2010-404-005674

Citation

openlaw-dfcb31f8_8fa4_490b_b43b_73ee9e1cdb21.pdf
Court

High Court

The officers complied with s 58: they considered the applicants' personal circumstances and relevant international obligations, recorded those matters, and considered the additional material received on 12 August 2010; given the statutory limits on inquiry and the RRA's prior detailed consideration of child welfare and discrimination, the applicants had no respectable chance of success on judicial review and interim relief to restrain removal was not necessary to preserve their position.
22 Apr 2010

PARMANADAN PARMANADAN AND ANOR V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA160/2010

Citation

openlaw-cb571de1_06df_43f5_9797_9e92ba2d8a02.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The interim application was dismissed because the appellant lacked reasonable prospects of success on the central legal issues (no requirement to apply s47(3) at the s54 stage in the amended statutory scheme; the immigration officer adequately considered international obligations; no demonstrated natural justice breach) and an interim order was unnecessary because removal would not irretrievably prejudice the appellant given the statutory cancellation/return mechanism and lack of evidentially established special hardship.
9 Mar 2010

AWHITU (AFAKASI SLADE) AND ORS V THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS HC AK CIV-2010-404-001338

Citation

openlaw-3fb85fee_0071_40ef_8455_da52270c8801.pdf
Court

High Court

The detainees were lawfully detained pursuant to ss 59 and 60 of the Immigration Act 1987, there were no outstanding immigration applications or appeals and no impediment to removal, therefore the habeas corpus application lacked merit and was dismissed; the purported representative had no standing but was permitted to speak and the intituling was amended to substitute the Chief Executive of the Department of Corrections as defendant.
1 Feb 2010

ABDUL HASHIM ZAHIR ALI V CHIEF EXECUTIVE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF LABOUR HC WN CIV 2009-485-1596

Citation

openlaw-77232447_6098_48c0_9092_73bb06323d46.pdf
Court

High Court

The High Court held there was no error of law: the Removal Review Authority correctly applied s 47(3), permissibly found the husband's serious and persistent fraud outweighed limited humanitarian considerations concerning the children, concluded the family's circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to make removal unjust or unduly harsh, and properly assessed public interest factors; the appeal was dismissed.
20 Jul 2009

YE AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR SC 53/2008

Citation

YE AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR SC 53/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court held that immigration officers deciding to make or cancel removal orders under ss54 and 58 must, where relevant humanitarian circumstances arise, apply the s47(3) test; s58(5) does not remove the officer's obligation to consider cancellation when s47(3) circumstances are present; failures to apply that legal test warrant setting aside decisions and remitting them for reconsideration.
30 Apr 2009

WANG V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2009-404-002277

Citation

openlaw-356ec181_cc56_42dd_8830_6e9ecaebf49d.pdf
Court

High Court

Applicant failed to meet the threshold for interim relief because there was no real contest and no respectable chance of success given the wide statutory discretion in ss 35A and 130, the time-bar issues under s 146A, and the applicant's delay; therefore interim orders were not justified and the application was dismissed.
3 Mar 2009

MAHINDER SINGH AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR CA CA48/2009

Citation

openlaw-8517fc7b_0743_4c10_9033_4f8506c4ce85.pdf
Court

Court of Appeal

The appeal was dismissed because the appellant did not show a substantial prospect of success on the merits and the balance of considerations (enforcement of immigration law, risk of flight, likely release and non‑compliance, and public policy) weighed strongly against granting interim relief to prevent removal.
17 Dec 2008

SINGH AND ORS V MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR HC AK CIV 2008-404-7545

Citation

openlaw-a336a775_e040_4abe_ac00_775192a00086.pdf
Court

High Court

Applying the binding Court of Appeal authority in Huang, the Court found the humanitarian interview and the decision to implement removal were within the limited role prescribed by statute and precedent, the decision was not irrational or unreasonable on the material available, there was no evidential basis to grant interim relief for alleged breaches of NZBORA, and therefore the application for interim relief was dismissed though a limited stay was ordered to permit an appeal filing.
4 Dec 2008

XIAO QIONG HUANG AND ORS V THE MINISTER OF IMMIGRATION AND ANOR SC 74/2008

Citation

SC 74/2008
Court

Supreme Court

The Supreme Court granted leave and framed the appeal to determine (1) what mandatory considerations and standards under the Immigration Act 1987 govern removal of overstayer parents of New Zealand-resident children, (2) what processes of hearing and inquiry are required, (3) the appropriate approach to judicial review of such decisions, and (4) what relief may follow; leave was granted to resolve those legal questions.