Residence Appeal: [2013] NZIPT 201812

Representative for the appellant: Antees Joseph

Date of Appeal Decision: 22 November 2013

Category: Partnership

Decision Outcome: Referred to Minister, Minister granted residence.

Family (Partnership) category / India / INZ declined the application as sponsor not eligible / decline decision correct / F2.5 / F2.10.10 / sponsor husband a successful principal applicant under Partnership category and previously sponsored a successful applicant under same category / special circumstances found / relationship genuine and stable / after couple’s marriage, appellant remained in India to care for her parents-in-law / as NZ-residents, parents-in-law moved to NZ / appellant granted visa to visit terminally ill father-in-law / remained since, assisting husband to care for his ailing mother / couple have NZ-citizen son / while appellant made consistent attempts to regularise her status in NZ, primary barrier has been husband’s ineligibility as sponsor / strong family nexus to NZ / recommendation to Minister of Immigration that the appellant’s special circumstances warrant consideration as an exception to instructions / section 188(1)(f) / Minister granted residence

Residence Appeal: [2011] NZIPT 200102

Representative for the appellant: Antees Joseph

Date of Appeal Decision: 20 May 2011

Category: Skilled Migrant Category

Decision Outcome : Decision Reversed, the appellant granted residence.

Skilled Migrant category / South Africa / complimentary health therapist / INZ declined the

application as employment found not genuine / decline decision incorrect / SM4.15 / SM7.5 / SM7.15 / Appendix 11 / genuineness / appellant not required to have commenced employment in order for offer to be genuine / employer entitled to impose conditions on offer of employment / condition that appellant obtain residence before starting work, in best interests of continuity for patients, not unreasonable / INZ reasons for decline incorrect / failure to consider appellant’s responses / Tribunal finds employment genuine / section 18D(1)(b)

Residence Appeal : AAS 15099.

Representative for the Appellant: Antees Joseph.

Date of Appeal Decision: 2 November 2006.

Category: Business (Entrepreneur).

Decision Outcome: S18D(1)(e). Business (Entrepreneur) category / South Korea / appellant's LTBP expired on 5 February 2005 / appellant applied for residence on 7 February 2005 / INZ declined the application because the appellant did not meet the English language requirements and had not been self-employed in the business for two years / BD3.1 / sections 29, 35(6) Interpretation Act 1999 / appellant's LTBP expired on a Saturday / as this was not a working day, by virtue of section 35(6) of the Interpretation Act INZ should have extended the time to the next working day / that day was Monday 7 February 2005, on which day the appellant did make her residence application / INZ should have applied BD policy / self-employment for at least two years / INZ concluded that because the restaurant did not open until May 2003, appellant was not self-employed until that month / reasonable period spent in setting up a business is a common component of being "self-employed" / self-employment commenced at the point at which the appellant was clearly committed to the business going ahead / appellant obviously became committed to the business on the signing of the lease on 2 February 2003, though earlier date may be possible / INZ also did not consider further time which had elapsed since application had been made / the INZ decision is cancelled and referred back to INZ for correct assessment / appeal successful / section 18D(1)(e)

Appeal: 15264e

Representative for the Appellant: Antees Joseph

Date of Decision: 16 April 2007.

Category: Business (Entrepreneur).

Decision Outcome: Section 18D(1)(e).Business (Entrepreneur) category / Singapore / purchased passenger transport franchise / INZ not satisfied appellant had created employment, therefore application declined as business found not to be benefiting New Zealand / BH1 / BH2.1 / BH4.1 / BH4.5.1 / BH4.5.5 / BH4.10 / Residence Appeal No 15192 (13 February 2007) / INZ considered appellant had not created employment but had merely retained "two previous drivers of the franchise" / Board finds INZ erred in its assessment / INZ did not distinguish between AA as former owner of the business and AA as appellant's employee / business had at first instance created employment / however at time of application AA no longer actively employed by the business as receiving ACC / BB only worked one day per week / therefore no evidence that employment created was active and ongoing at time of assessment / INZ gave appellant no opportunity to comment on issue of "creating employment" / the INZ decision is cancelled and referred back to INZ for correct assessment / appeal successful / section 18D(1)(e)

Appeal: 15713b

Repesentative for the Appellant: Antees Joseph.

Date of Decision: 31 July 2008.

Category: Family (Dependent Child).

Decision Outcome: Section 18D(1)(b). Family (Dependent Child) category / Tonga / INZ declined the application as the appellant had failed to provide a court order conferring sole custody of the appellant on her father / F5.1 / F5.20 / sections 9, 11 Oaths & Declarations Act 1957 / INZ satisfied the appellant met the requirements of F5.1 / appellant under 16, single, and totally reliant / INZ requested the appellant produce a court order from Tonga / failure to provide this order the basis for INZ's decision to decline / F5.20 includes three options for establishing that the New Zealand-resident parent has custody / third option is for "legal documents" showing the New Zealand citizen or resident parent has custody / appellant's parents submitted three different statutory declarations or affidavits in which the appellant's mother purported to relinquish all rights to the custody of and the management of the day-to-day life of the appellant / these rejected by INZ / not correct / Oaths and Declarations Act provides for the making of declarations and oaths both within and outside New Zealand / one affidavit properly sworn before the Commissioner of Oaths in Tonga / also a custody and guardianship agreement executed as between the parents / both are legal documents and satisfy the requirements of policy at F5.20.c.iii / the INZ decision is incorrect and reversed by the Board / appeal successful / section 18D(1)(b)