Defending a resident mother against deportation after a conviction

[Applicant A] is a Korean mother who has lived in Christchurch since 2016 with her husband and two daughters. The family gained residence in 2022, and her husband and both daughters later became permanent residents. She was left out of that permanent residence grant after Immigration New Zealand identified a drink-driving conviction, so her matter was routed separately. Both daughters are at school here, the elder is working towards a medical-school application, and she plays a central role supporting the family’s tiling business.

We lodged a detailed submission addressing each statutory weighing factor in turn: the genuine seriousness of the offending, set against published offending-seriousness data; that this was a single, first-time conviction; the personal circumstances behind it; her full compliance and rehabilitation; the time that had passed; and her deep family ties to a resident husband and two resident daughters. We also reminded Immigration New Zealand of the requirement to actually weigh and reason, not simply list factors, supported by personal letters from the family, character references, and the family’s financial and personal evidence.

The submission was lodged on 4 June 2025 and Immigration New Zealand decided to suspend the deportation liability notice for two years.

Many residents are surprised that a one-off conviction can put their status at risk. Because the liability can attach even where the penalty was modest, the response needs the same care as a far more serious matter.

The headline penalty rarely reflects the actual seriousness of the conduct. Using objective offending-seriousness data lets the decision maker see where this offending genuinely sits, which is far more persuasive than asserting it was minor.

A discretionary decision must be reasoned, not mechanical. By expressly inviting Immigration New Zealand to weigh and balance the factors rather than simply list them, the submission holds the decision to a proper analytical standard.

Where a person’s immediate family are settled residents, removing them causes real and lasting harm. Foregrounding those family ties, alongside the genuine seriousness of the offending and the rehabilitation, is what makes the disproportionate-harm argument compelling.