Tribunal says circumstances make it 'unjust or unduly harsh' to be deported
A former hospital employee who was convicted for purchasing personal items using patients' credit cards has escaped deportation from New Zealand.
The 33-year-old former employee, who came from the Philippines before becoming a resident in New Zealand in 2018, was convicted in April 2021 in the Wellington District Court.
He was sentenced to six months of community detention for 19 offences related to his personal use of patients' credit cards for buying clothes and gadgets.
He became liable for deportation under the Immigration Act 2009, but he appealed on humanitarian grounds under the section 206(1)(c) of the law.
Employee's appeal
The former employee cited his family's current situation in his appeal to stay in New Zealand.
His wife, who was also from Manila who became a New Zealand resident, is pregnant with the couple's second child at the time of the deportation hearing.
Their first daughter, who was born in February 2021, was also born prematurely. She is currently undergoing developmental tests and is expected to reach normal weight and markers by the age of two.
According to the appellant, his wife will likely not accompany him when he gets deported to the Philippines as she is also supporting her family at home.
He is also concerned that their potential separation because of the deportation will "destroy their marriage."
The appellant also supports his family in the Philippines, where his mother has diabetes. When he was still a hospital employee, he would send them between NZ$300 to 500 per week.
Currently, he is now a self-employed driver who is working when his wife is not at work so they can share caring responsibilities for their daughter.
At the time of the hearing, he was also paying $50 per week to his victims after he was ordered by the court to pay reparation of $2,500.
He has also attended counselling every month to reflect on his violations, stressing he had no plan to start reoffending as he attributed his previous offence to "not thinking" about the harm and consequences.
'Not exceptional'
The minister of immigration, however, maintained that it was not a case of "exceptional humanitarian circumstances."
The minister, who was the case respondent, said emotional upset due to family separation is "inevitable" and inconvenience and hardship as a result of this is "not exceptional."
Being separated from his family in New Zealand is also a "matter between them," the respondent added. He could remain connected via telephone, email, or video technology. His family would also be able to travel to the Philippines to visit him.
The former employee would also be able to readjust to life in the Philippines after living there until he was 25 years old, according to the minister. Having his mother and siblings there with him would also mean assistance for reintegration.
'Exceptional circumstances'
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal sided with the appellant in the case, citing his current situation.
"There are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature," the tribunal said in its decision. "Those exceptional humanitarian circumstances make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand."
The tribunal accepted that deporting the man to the Philippines would result to serious adverse developmental consequences for their daughter.
"Put simply, it would not be in her best interests to be separated from a loving, involved parent to whom she is bonded," the tribunal said.
The tribunal also cited the gravity of the former employee's offence in New Zealand. It noted that the court did not impose a sentence near the maximum for offending, despite considering the number of offences made.
"The Tribunal does not trivialise the offending," it said. "At the same time, however, a degree of reality needs to be brought to clear."
"The tribunal is satisfied that the court did not view the offending, including in its totality, as at the more serious end of the scale."
