Resident Visa Granted: Humanitarian Appeal After Family Violence

When a partnership visa ends because of family violence — not because of anything the visa holder did — the immigration consequences can feel like a second punishment. This case is about what happens when the right legal strategy and the right evidence are presented to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.

The Circumstances

Our client came to New Zealand after an arranged marriage. She moved into the family home and, from early in the relationship, was subjected to physical, sexual, and emotional abuse by her husband and his wider family. Her immigration status in New Zealand was entirely dependent on her husband’s sponsorship. When she finally left the relationship, that sponsorship was withdrawn.

She had no independent pathway to a visa. Her work visa, granted on the basis of her partnership, expired while she was unlawfully present. She faced deportation. She came to us after her visa had already expired.

Our Approach

The first decision was which legal pathway to pursue. Immigration New Zealand operates a work visa category specifically for victims of family violence, which was available to our client. We advised against it. That visa is valid for six to twelve months and is renewable, but it does not lead to residence — it provides temporary relief while leaving the underlying situation unresolved.

Our client had been formally diagnosed with PTSD. Her psychologist assessed that meaningful recovery would require six to twelve months of consistent treatment in stable circumstances.

A short-term work visa would have expired before that recovery was complete, leaving her to either repeat the application process or face the same deportation liability again, this time without the same humanitarian circumstances to rely on.

The humanitarian appeal to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal under section 207 of the Immigration Act 2009 was the stronger long-term path, even though it meant proceeding from a position of unlawful presence. A successful humanitarian appeal can result in a resident visa, which is what we sought and what we obtained.

The statutory test is a high one: exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make deportation unjust or unduly harsh, and no contrary public interest in allowing the person to remain. The case had to be built to meet that standard.

The second decision was how to build the evidentiary case. We focused on corroborating evidence from independent sources rather than relying on our client’s account alone. The most valuable was a formal psychological assessment through ACC’s sensitive claims process, which produced a clinical PTSD diagnosis following multiple sessions with a registered psychologist. Because ACC had already accepted the claim independently of the immigration proceedings, the report carried a weight that advocacy submissions cannot replicate. The psychologist documented the abuse, its timeline, and its ongoing impact with clinical precision, including a total disability score that quantified the functional impairment.

We supplemented this with a police complaint confirming a sexual assault investigation was on foot, hospital and medical records documenting the physical consequences of the relationship, a social worker’s statutory declaration confirming that family violence had occurred, evidence from a former colleague about her condition at work, and a letter of support from a family member overseas setting out relevant background. Each document came from a source with no stake in the immigration outcome. Taken together, they told a consistent story that did not depend on the Tribunal accepting any single piece of evidence.

We addressed the consequences of return directly, drawing on recent IPT case law on the vulnerability of separated women in her country of origin and country information from the Australian Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade. We also argued the remedy explicitly — requesting a resident visa rather than leaving it to the Tribunal’s discretion. A temporary visa of up to twelve months was the only other option available. Given the stage of her treatment and the challenges she would face on return, a temporary visa would not have provided the stability her recovery required. The Tribunal agreed.

Submissions were filed promptly after the visa expired, and we provided a medical update in mid-2025 confirming that her condition remained acute and that her recovery was dependent on continuity of treatment and stable circumstances.

The Result

The Tribunal granted the appeal and ordered that our client be granted a resident visa. It found that her inability to obtain a further visa was not her fault, but the direct result of family violence. It accepted that the combination of her circumstances in New Zealand and the difficulties she would face on return gave rise to exceptional humanitarian circumstances, and found no public interest concerns standing in the way.

She now has residence in New Zealand. She has returned to work in the aviation industry and, by her own account, has recovered well — both mentally and physically.

If your visa has been affected by family violence

Partnership visas depend on a sponsor. When that relationship breaks down because of abuse, the immigration consequences can compound the harm of leaving. There are legal options — including pathways specifically designed for victims of family violence and, where those are unavailable, humanitarian appeals to the Tribunal.

The right pathway depends on the individual circumstances. The choice between a family violence work visa and a humanitarian appeal involves considerations that are not always obvious, and getting that decision right at the outset matters.

If your visa situation has been affected by domestic violence, contact us to discuss what options may be available to you.