As 2025 comes to a close, I wanted to celebrate some of the complex immigration cases that were successfully resolved this year. These wins highlight a simple truth: expert guidance can turn a difficult case into a positive outcome especially when the rules aren’t on your side.
Here’s one of my recent standout success stories, an appeal that shows just how intricate immigration law can be, and how vital specialised knowledge is when navigating it.
1) A Successful Residence Appeal
Earlier this year, we were approached by a client who had originally arrived in New Zealand decades ago under the Refugee Family Quota. He and his family held residence visas, but shortly after arriving, he returned overseas to take up work so he could financially support both his family in New Zealand and family back home. Over the years he made several trips back to New Zealand to see his family and continued to support them from offshore. By being overseas, he eventually lost his resident visa status.
When he applied for a Second or Subsequent Resident Visa (SSRV), Immigration New Zealand (“INZ”) informed him that he was caught by the barring provision under R5.35. This provision prevented him from being granted residence because his application was based on his relationship to a resident or citizen where that person originally gained residence because of him. In simple terms, it stops people from getting residence, leaving New Zealand to live overseas, and then trying to re-apply later through their own family members.
To make things worse, INZ incorrectly advised him to apply through the partnership category. Based on INZ’s advice, our client filed a partnership residence application which was also declined under the same provision. This is a common mistake, because even immigration officers sometimes overlook how R5.35 works.
Taking the case to the Tribunal
When we took over the matter at appeal stage, we needed to show that the client’s circumstances were so unusual and compelling that his case deserved to be recommended to the Minister as an exception to the rules.
The Immigration & Protection Tribunal ultimately agreed and almost all the arguments we carefully constructed were accepted. To achieve this, we needed to go beyond the obvious and conduct extensive research into the client’s background, the purpose of the instructions, and the historic context of his arrival.
At the appeal stage, we demonstrated that:
- His absence from New Zealand was due to the 1990s recession and lack of job opportunities, not an abuse of the immigration system. Unlike someone who arrives on, for example, a Business Visa and chooses to run their business overseas, our client’s circumstances were shaped by economic hardship and family obligations, not a desire to circumvent immigration rules.
- The Refugee Family Quota did not require immediate employment as part of settlement. We also highlighted historical data showing that New Zealand faced high unemployment in the 1990s and was going through a recession. The Tribunal accepted that this context made his decision to work offshore understandable and reasonable.
- INZ’s incorrect advice had caused significant disadvantage.
- His family had strong settlement and personal reasons requiring his presence here.
The Tribunal found that our client’s circumstances were indeed special and recommended that the Minister grant him residence as an exception to the instructions. This was a major win, especially because the relevant immigration instruction (R5.35) clearly did apply. Success required an in-depth approach that looked beyond the surface.
2) Partnership Visa saved after INZ applied wrong character instructions
Another success involved a client whose Partnership Work and Residence applications were put at risk after INZ repeatedly applied the wrong character instructions and misinterpreted key court documents.
As I was already handling the case, I was in a position to quickly identify the errors, clarified the correct legal provisions, and provide accurate explanations of the documents in question. Attention to detail was critical at several points, INZ even suggested that our client had provided false or misleading information, based on incorrect references to past applications and wrong event dates.
Through careful submissions and correcting INZ’s misunderstandings, we ensured the case was assessed under the correct character instructions. INZ ultimately accepted our explanations, and the application was approved.
Why professional help matters
Cases like this illustrate why professional expertise can be crucial. Immigration cases can become complicated quickly, sometimes due to overlooked policies, misread documents, or simple human error. That’s why having the right specialists on your side can make all the difference.
At Laurent Law, our team brings nearly 45 years of combined experience handling complex and high-risk immigration matters. Whether you’re facing a challenge or want to avoid one, we’re here to help. Contact us for clear, strategic immigration advice.