A Correspondent
A couple, whose work visa under essential skills had been declined, had appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against their liability for deportation.
A few years ago, the couple had been issued a Deportation Liability Notice as they were found by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) to have been excluded from Australia in 2005 and were alleged to have not disclosed this in their applications to INZ.
Humanitarian Appeal declined
They had then, out of time, approached the High Court and the Court of Appeal in 2016, after their humanitarian appeal had been declined by the Tribunal.
Their counsel at the time, Gurbrinder Aulakh Barrister & Solicitor, had argued against their deportation. Although their appeals had been dismissed being out of time, the observations made by the High Court and the Court of Appeal came to the rescue of the applicants.
In 2018, the Tribunal declined their humanitarian appeal and gave the couple four month visa to sort their affairs before leaving New Zealand. Their subsequent applications for special directions and Section 61 for a work visa were also declined
They were issued a letter by Immigration New Zealand to depart New Zealand by 15 May or be ready for deportation action.
The applicant again engaged the service of Gurbrinder Aulakh Barrister & Solicitor, and filed Judicial Review proceedings at the High Court.
The Time table orders for the interim application and substantive hearing were made by the Court in May 2019.
MBIE Undertaking
At the interim application hearing this month, Mr Aulakh argued that to preserve his clients position, interim directions be issued directing the respondent INZ to not to deport his client, and for the continuance of the visa while the proceedings are pending.
The Respondent, Chief Executive of Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment, through the Crown Counsel gave an undertaking to the Court that no further action to deport the applicant and his wife will be taken till the final determination of the proceeding by the High Court.
Regarding the continuity of the work visa, the Court held that the visa had expired about five months earlier and it could not allow it to continue. However, the Court observed that the applicant’s position was adequately protected or preserved with the undertaking given by INZ.
The Court held that the undertaking therefore “…..provides the applicant with the same level of comfort as an interim order would do…”
Costs reserved
The costs have been reserved till the final determination of the proceeding, and the matter has now been set down for filing of further evidence and submissions for the substantive hearing.
*
Photo Caption
Gurbrinder Aulakh (INL File Photo)
