Read some of our New Zealand Immigration success stories as told through Court and Tribunal cases in which we have fought, and won, for our clients. From refugee appeals and residence appeals to court injunctions and judicial reviews, our client’s victories help tell our story.

FZ (Partnership) [2020] NZIPT 205723 & BX (Afghanistan) [2020] NZIPT 504941

Our client’s further partnership-based work visa and residence application declined by INZ on character grounds for intentionally providing a forged police certificate. INZ focused on the forged evidence and concluded that it outweighed the positive factors that existed. The IPT found that the provision of the false document was serious; however, INZ’s Character Waiver assessment was flawed for conducting a “cursory” assessment of the positive factors. The IPT also criticised INZ for failing to weigh and balance all relevant factors that existed in its assessment. The residence application was referred back to INZ for re-assessment. The humanitarian appeal was also successful as the IPT accepted that there were exceptional circumstances for our client to remain in NZ on temporary basis to await INZ’s reassessment of the residence application.

DG (Partnership) [2019] NZIPT 205493

Our client was declined Residence under partnership because she would have been eligible to be included in her husband’s EOI under the Family (Parent) category. IPT took into account our argument that she was misled by INZ in her husband’s previous application, leading her to believe she could reapply for residence with her health being the only obstacle to her eligibility. As a result, she had no other pathway to residence. IPT accepted that there were special circumstances through her strong familial nexus to NZ and the best interests of the grandchildren.  Minister granted our client Residence.

EM (Deportation Appeal)[2017] NZIPT 600437

Our client gained Residence as a dependent child in 2002. Fifteen years later, she became liable for deportation as INZ claimed that she gained residence visas by fraud by concealing her marital status. This was a successful “on the facts” appeal. The Tribunal accepted that she had not concealed her marriage at all, and that her first Residence Permit was mistakenly issued on arrival after the Residence Visa had already expired.  As a result, she retained her Permanent Resident Visa.

RB (Skilled Migrant) [2018] NZIPT 204798

This appeal resulted in our client’s Residence application being referred back to Immigration New Zealand for reassessment.  The IPT concluded that INZ had not properly considered the financial evidence provided by the employer that its business was sustainable.  It criticised simplistic calculations and assumptions about business viability which led to the original decline.  The client has since secured Residence successfully.

Singh v Corporate Energy (Employment Relations Authority)

The ERA found that Mr Singh was the subject of “contemptible conduct” including coercion into working for little or no pay, resulting in him working in breach of his Work Visa.  He was awarded significant sums of unpaid salary and compensation for hurt and humiliation.  However, as the employer had gone into liquidation it is unlikely that he will ever see any of that award.

JU (Skilled Migrant) [2017] NZIPT 204254

This is one of 16 successful Residence Appeals which we brought in a manner similar to a class action.  Immigration would not recognise the work of IT staff at a call centre as skilled.  We showed that its method of assessment was fatally flawed in many ways.  This led to Immigration publicly announcing that it was changing the way that it would assess such applications. On reassessment, and despite a further misguided attempt by INZ to derail these applications, they were all ultimately approved.

Refugee Appeal AF (Afghanistan) [2011] NZIPT 800057-66

We successfully ended a campaign by Immigration New Zealand over more than 10 years to cancel the refugee status of an Afghani family. This appears to be the first Refugee Cancellation matter decided by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal established in November 2010.

Si Jong Park & Ors v Chief Executive, Department of Labour

Immigration wrongly applied the law and Policy when it declined a family’s request for reconsideration of their permit applications. It was ordered to re-do the case, and the permits were later granted.

Legal Services Agency v Hosseini

Successful appeal against declined Legal Aid for judicial review of two refugee appeals. The Judge was so frustrated by the actions of the LSA that he awarded full costs against them, and not the (lower) Court scale of costs.

Haji v Minister of Immigration

Last minute application to stop the removal of a Somali ex-refugee overstayer. The Judge said that “the possibility of the dire consequences to the applicant are such” that the Minister had to consider a UN High Commission for Refugees report about the dangerous security situation in Somalia before deciding whether to remove Mr Haji.

Residence Appeal 16366

Our client’s Residence was declined because her husband who sponsored her did not tell Immigration that they had just married when he got Residence himself as the child of a family group. The case succeeded because of their special circumstances. This included the fact that the husband did not have enough English to understand what he needed to tell Immigration, and the couple also had a young child.

Residence Appeal 15992

The UK applicant had rheumatoid arthritis and would put a major burden on the New Zealand health system. However, there were “inadequate reasons and lack of precision in the opinions given by the Medical Assessors.” Importantly, Immigration also refused to consider information provided to it just before it made its decision, which was an unfair use of procedure.

Removal Appeal 46487

The Removal Review Authority agreed that our Sri Lankan client’s personal circumstances were exceptional and gave him Residence. He had been in New Zealand for nearly seven years waiting for his refugee claim to be decided. In that time he married and the couple had three children. It was unreasonable to expect them to return to Sri Lanka with him.

Refugee Appeal 76273

A retired Tamil widow was in danger from the Sri Lankan authorities because her children had past connections with the Tamil Tigers. She had also drawn attention to herself because she asked the Army to pay rent for use of her home which they had seized. Her “unique and specific profile” along with her personal vulnerability, led to the grant of refugee status.

Refugee Appeal 76094

Failed attempt to cancel the refugee status of a Syrian national. Although the Refugee Status Appeals Authority decided that he had concealed information about how he escaped from his home country, it agreed that he was still at risk of State persecution because of the political activities of his family in exile in the UK and his father in Syria.