Deportation suspended for a resident father after a conviction

[Applicant A] is a permanent resident who had built a settled life in New Zealand with his wife, [SPOUSE], and their children, and held steady employment. After a criminal conviction that carried a home detention sentence, Immigration New Zealand notified him that he was liable for deportation because the offending fell within the period after he first gained residence. For a family who had made New Zealand their home, the prospect of removal put everything at risk.

We prepared a comprehensive submission asking Immigration New Zealand to withdraw the liability or, failing that, to suspend it so he could remain with his family. We placed the offending in context using the Ministry of Corrections published seriousness scale, which showed it sat far below the most serious offending. We set out his completed sentence and rehabilitation, supported by his probation officer and his church, and provided strong references including from his employer, who knew the full circumstances and still supported him. We also pointed to decided cases where people in comparable situations had been allowed to stay.

On 14 March 2019 Immigration New Zealand suspended his deportation liability for five years, allowing him to remain in New Zealand with his family on condition of no further offending. The submission’s careful framing of seriousness, rehabilitation, and family ties carried the decision.

The headline maximum penalty for an offence often makes a conviction look worse than the actual conduct. A core part of the submission was demonstrating, with evidence, where this offending genuinely sat on the scale of seriousness rather than letting the maximum penalty speak for it.

Objective benchmarks are persuasive because they are neutral. By using the Ministry of Corrections published seriousness data, we could show in concrete terms that this offending sat far below the most serious end, which reframed how the decision maker viewed it.

Rehabilitation is only convincing when it is documented. A completed sentence, a supportive probation officer, a church reference, and an employer who knew the full picture and still backed him together painted a credible picture of someone who had moved on.

Where removal would break up a settled family with children in New Zealand, the harm of deportation weighs heavily. Foregrounding those family ties, alongside the rehabilitation and the true seriousness of the offending, is what allowed Immigration New Zealand to suspend the liability rather than proceed.