Indian migrant wins another round in deportation case

Staff Reporter

Proceeding rendered moot with the cancellation of deportation liability notice

Mr Singh had been issued with a Deportation Lability Notice last year, and later followed by a Deportation Order.

He challenged these Immigration New Zealand (INZ) decisions (out of time) by way of judicial review filed in the High Court through his lawyer Gurbrinder Aulakh, Barrister & Solicitor based in Auckland.

The Crown contested the judicial review proceeding and the delay in time.

The High Court, after hearing from Mr Aulakh and the Crown, granted an interim stay to  Mr Singh and directed that the “The Crown ought to take no steps to deport the applicant, pending the final determination of the judicial review proceeding.”

(Singh v Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (2018) NZHC 673.

Liability Notice cancelled

Meanwhile, the delegated decision-maker, on behalf of the Minister, cancelled the Deportation Liability Notice that had been issued to the applicant, and granted him a visa to regularise his unlawful status.

The Crown then contended that since the decisions being challenged were no longer in operation, there was no order to be reviewed any more, and therefore, the proceeding was now moot and should be withdrawn.

The applicant sought adjournment of the proceeding till such time as the determination of appeal filed by Crown in Li v Chief Executive Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment (2018) NZHC 1171.

Public importance

Arguing on behalf of the applicant, Mr Aulakh said that this matter raised a question of wider public importance went beyond the issues raised in Li  v  Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment (2017) NZHC 2977; and Liu v Immigration New Zealand (2014) NZHC 195; and Machida v Immigration and Protection Tribunal (2015) NZHC 2649 at (27),(35) and (36)

The question and issue of wider public importance, as contended by the applicant, were the implication of the decisions in Li and Liu, and s 249 (1) of the immigration Act on a person who has been deprived of his right to an appeal (as was the case here, prior to the decision by the delegated authority).

Moot Proceeding

However, the High court observed that the proceeding was now moot, and required to be concluded, as the applicant may run the risk of increased costs.

Keeping in view the observations of the Honourable High Court, the applicant initiated the steps for the discontinuance of the proceedings.

Meanwhile, the Appeal filed by Mr Singh on the decision of the District Court has now been allocated a firm fixture at the High Court.

Photo Caption: Gurbrinder Aulakh (Supplied)

Sharing is caring!

Related posts

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: