LAWS7016-New Zealand Immigration Instructions & Pieter Case Study - Law Assignment Help

Assignment Task

Task

Case background
 

1. Pieter Neels is a citizen of South Africa. He is 35 years old (DOB: 1/2/87). Pieter is presently in New Zealand as the holder of a two-year work visa as the partner of a New Zealand citizen. His visa will expire on 1 December 2022.

2. Pieter’s New Zealand-citizen partner, Tui Edwards, is 40 years old (DOB: 30/1/82). Tui has two children from previous partnerships, a son, Nikau, aged 18 years (DOB 8/2/2004) and a daughter, Mia, aged almost 5 years (DOB 30/5/2017).

3. On 2 September 2021, Pieter applied for residence under the Family (Partnership) category based on his partnership with Tui. His application was declined by Immigration New Zealand (INZ) on 31 March 2022. He received the decline decision by email that same day.

4. INZ declined Pieter’s application on the ground that he was not of good character and was not granted a character waiver. During the processing of the application, INZ also raised concerns that Tui was not an eligible supporting partner, but it did not rely on this issue in
declining the application.

5. Pieter wants to appeal INZ’s decision to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (the Tribunal).

Pieter’s background

6. Pieter’s father and younger brother live in South Africa. He has no other immediate family (aside from Tui and her children). He is employed in New Zealand as a diesel mechanic. He has a South African qualification as a diesel mechanic and 10 years’ relevant work experience in South Africa.

7. Pieter arrived in New Zealand on 1 December 2018 as the holder of a two-year Essential Skills Work Visa. He was recruited from South Africa by a New Zealand employer named “Dagg’s Buses”, which is based in South Auckland. Pieter continues to work as a diesel mechanic for Dagg’s Buses. Nine months ago, he was promoted to foreman. He earns NZ$105,000 per annum.

8. Pieter has two criminal convictions in South Africa. Fifteen years ago, he was convicted of an assault on his then partner. She suffered a broken arm and abrasions. Pieter was sentenced to six months’ imprisonment. The sentence of imprisonment was suspended. Five years ago, Pieter was convicted of common assault after an altercation with his colleague, who hebelieved was stealing from his work place. Pieter was fined the equivalent of NZ$300. Pieter has declared his convictions in all of his visa applications.

9. Pieter met Tui in January 2019 and they began dating each other. They moved in together in early June 2019. Pieter, Tui, Nikau and Mia live together in a rented three-bedroom home (7 Kea Street, Pukekohe). INZ was satisfied that Pieter and Tui were living together in a genuine and stable partnership.

Tui’s background

10. Tui has two children. Her son Nikau was the result of a relationship in her early twenties with a New Zealand citizen. Nikau’s father has never provided Tui with any financial support and has had no contact with Nikau for about 14 years. Nikau’s father is presently serving a long prison sentence for drug offences.

11. Tui’s daughter Mia is the result of a relationship Tui had with Ranjit Singh, a citizen of India, whose successful residence application under the Family (Partnership) category was supported by Tui. The relationship ended before Mia’s birth and Ranjit has never had any contact with Mia.

12. Ranjit and Tui began living together in February 2015. 0n 2 May 2016, Ranjit made an application for residence under the Family (Partnership) category, supported by Tui. He left New Zealand on 8 August 2016 to attend his sister’s wedding in India. Ranjit’s resident visa application was granted on 20 August 2016, while he was in India. He re-entered New Zealand on 10 September 2016 using his resident visa.

13. Tui and Ranjit’s relationship ended in late December 2016, when he informed her that he was returning to India to live. Tui does not know whether Ranjit did indeed return to India to live. She has not had any subsequent contact with him, or known his whereabouts, since he ended their relationship. With hindsight, she suspects that he was using her to gain a resident visa.

14. Tui is an only child and is very close to her parents, who are in their early seventies and live about 15 minutes’ walk from Tui’s home. Her mother is well, but her father has dementia. Tui helps her mother to care for her father. She also works part-time as a domestic cleaner and hopes to find full-time employment when Mia starts school. Tui has struggled financially while raising Nikau and Mia without support from either of the children’s fathers.

Pieter’s residence application

15. On 2 September 2021, Pieter applied for residence under the Family (Partnership) category. He declared his criminal convictions. He provided ample evidence that he and Tui are living together in a genuine and stable partnership and have been since early June 2019. Tui completed the Partnership Support Form for Residence (NZ1178). At question A15 of the form, she ticked “yes” and gave Ranjit’s name and date of birth.

16. On 3 November 2021, INZ wrote to Pieter. It accepted that he and Tui were living together in a genuine and stable partnership. It also set out the details of his two convictions and advised that he was ineligible for a residence class visa, unless granted a character waiver, because he was caught by A5.25(e) and (g) of the instructions.

17. Pieter rang the INZ case officer the following day. He confirmed that the details of his convictions were correct and asked what information he should provide to obtain a character waiver. The officer undertook to write to Pieter enclosing the relevant character waiver instructions (A5.25.1) and did so on 5 November 2021.

18. On 10 November 2021, Pieter responded to INZ providing information in support of the grant of a character waiver.

19. Pieter made a statutory declaration setting out the circumstance of both offences and the sentences he received. With regard to his first offence, he explained that he and his then partner were both only 20 years old at the time of his offending. They had a very volatile relationship. He deeply regrets his actions and his suspended sentence was never activated (in other words, he never served any prison time). He has tried to obtain further information, such as a summary of facts or sentencing notes from the South African court system, but has had no response.

20. With regard to his second offence, Pieter explained that he believed his colleague was stealing tools from his work place. He confronted the man and there was a fight involving a lot of pushing and shoving and a couple of punches. He gave the man a black eye. About three months later, the man was fired for theft. Pieter gave INZ a copy of correspondence from the South African Courts system confirming that he had paid the fine in full.

21. Pieter also provided INZ with letters of support from Tui, Nikau, and Tui’s mother, setting out the family circumstances described above and how important Pieter is to the family. As well, Pieter provided character references from his employer, Fred Dagg, CEO of Dagg’s Buses and two of his current work mates, Bruce Pearson and Bruce Todd. All three emphasised Pieter’s commitment to his work and to Tui and her children. Mr Dagg explained how difficult it is to recruit experienced diesel mechanics, whether in New Zealand, or from overseas.

22. On 10 January 2022, Pieter received a letter from INZ raising concerns that Tui was not an eligible supporting partner because, at the time Pieter’s residence application was made, it had not been five years since Tui had acted as a partner in a successful residence application(citing F2.10.10(a)(ii) and (b)(i)).

23. Two days later, Pieter responded enclosing a letter from Tui. Tui explained that she and Pieter were aware of the 5-year stand-down period for supporting partners and that is why they had delayed making Pieter’s application. Tui had telephoned the INZ call centre before Pieter made his residence application to establish when the 5-year period would expire. She was advised that it would expire 5 years after Ranjit’s residence application had been granted. His residence application had been granted on 20 August 2016; Pieter’s application was not made until 2 September 2021. Tui explained that the officer processing the residence application must have made a mistake.

24. On 31 March 2022, INZ declined Pieter’s application. It had completed a character waiver assessment (dated 28 March 2022) and declined to grant Pieter a character waiver. A copy of the character waiver assessment was attached to the decline decision.

25. A summary of the character waiver assessment follows (you should treat this summary as complete, accurate, and as using the precise wording used in the actual waiver assessment): INZ acknowledged Pieter’s family connection and emotional ties to New Zealand through Tui, his New Zealand-citizen partner. However, it observed that he had two convictions for violence. All violent offending is serious. While one of the offences was historical, the other was quite recent. Pieter had served six months’ imprisonment for the historical offence. Pieter’s contribution to New Zealand as a diesel mechanic was a modest one. Pieter’s serious violent offending was not outweighed by his potential contribution to New Zealand, or his partnership with a New Zealand citizen.

Interview with the couple

26. You interview the couple with a view to preparing submissions and evidence in support of the appeal.

27. Tui says that her relationship with Pieter has made a huge difference to her life and to the lives of her children. She no longer faces a constant battle to pay the bills and provide necessities for her children. Nikau finally has a stable male role model in his life. Mia is very strongly bonded with Pieter as he has been a part of her day-to-day life since she was 2 years old. She calls Pieter “daddy”. Pieter is very much a family man and she and the children are his focus. The couple is currently saving to buy their own home. 

28. Pieter reiterates that he very much regrets his offending against his partner in South Africa (the first offence). He describes the altercation with his work colleague (the second offence) as very minor and says he was prosecuted and fined largely because his colleague had a visible injury (a black eye). Pieter says he will be very distressed if he cannot settle permanently in New Zealand with Tui and her children. He has built a great relationship with Nikau. Nikau has just started work with Dagg’s Buses (his first job since leaving school at 16 years of age) and is helping out in the workshop. Pieter thinks of Mia as his own child. He has a lot of respect for how Tui has raised her children without support from their fathers.

Your task
You are to write submissions to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, appealing the decision of INZ declining Pieter’s residence application. Your submissions must include a schedule of evidence. You must also prepare the relevant appeal form.

Remember, you can appeal if you consider that the INZ decision is wrong because Pieter did satisfy the residence instructions; or because Pieter has special circumstances that mean the Minister of Immigration should consider an exception to the instructions. Both grounds of appeal can be  argued, but only one needs to be accepted for the appeal to be successful. Please ensure you appeal on both grounds and make submissions addressing each ground.

Submissions are arguments (which usually must be supported by evidence). The evidence you are relying on is all either already on the INZ file, or included in the supporting documents listed in your schedule of evidence. You should not record all of the evidence in your submissions, but you may select certain pieces of evidence to draw to the Tribunal's attention. Similarly, there is no need to repeat all of the details in the Case Study in your submissions (most of those details will be found on the INZ file or in the evidence on appeal). Don’t copy parts of the text of the Case Study! You need to think carefully about what details need to be included or highlighted in your submissions and what will already be clear to the Tribunal from the INZ file and the evidence on appeal.

Before writing your submissions, you should consider:

• Whether INZ’s decision is correct in terms of the Immigration Instructions? Has INZ correctly assessed whether to grant a character waiver?
• Even though it was not relied on as a ground for declining the application, you will also want to address Tui’s eligibility as a supporting partner. This is because, even if the Tribunal finds that INZ’s character waiver assessment was incorrect, it may nevertheless find that the decline decision was correct because Tui was not an eligible supporting partner. Did the five-year period begin running when Ranjit was granted residence, or when he first entered New Zealand as the holder of a resident visa?
• Whether Pieter has special circumstances? Remember, this consideration can include the circumstances of anyone affected by the outcome of the appeal and should include the best interests of any child who will be affected by the Tribunal’s decision.
• Whether Pieter can apply again for residence under the Family (Partnership) category and what would be the likely outcome of such an application.
• When the appeal needs to be submitted by.
• What documents could be included to support the appeal? Keep in mind the rules concerning the admissibility of evidence (set out in section 189 of the Immigration Act).

LEARNING OUTCOMES:
LO1: Explore and apply the professional skills required of a licensed immigration adviser in relation reviews and appeals.
LO5: Communicate to a professional standard with stakeholders. 

ASSESSMENT AIM
This assessment will provide you with the opportunity to prepare submissions in support of an appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal against the decline of a residence application, including a list of supporting documents, and complete a residence appeal form. 

This LAWS7016 Law Assignment has been solved by our Law Expert at My Uni Paper. Our Assignment Writing Experts are efficient to provide a fresh solution to this question. We are serving more than 10000+ Students in Australia, UK & US by helping them to score HD in their academics. Our Experts are well trained to follow all marking rubrics & referencing Style. Be it a used or new solution, the quality of the work submitted by our assignment experts remains unhampered. 

You may continue to expect the same or even better quality with the used and new assignment solution files respectively. There’s one thing to be noticed that you could choose one between the two and acquire an HD either way. You could choose a new assignment solution file to get yourself an exclusive, plagiarism (with free Turn tin file), expert quality assignment or order an old solution file that was considered worthy of the highest distinction.