Navigating Potential Deportation Cases: Key Considerations and Success Stories

Deportation cases are among the most challenging aspects of immigration law, requiring a nuanced understanding of both legal frameworks and the personal circumstances of those involved. At MK Law, we have successfully assisted clients in avoiding deportation, ensuring that their unique situations were carefully considered and defended. Here, we discuss important considerations in navigating potential deportation matters and highlight how our expertise has made a difference.

Our Success in Defending Against Deportation

Recently, we represented clients in two complex potential deportation cases at the INZ Resolutions Branch. In both instances, through meticulous legal strategy and a comprehensive presentation of the clients’ personal situations, we successfully helped them avoid the execution of deportation. These cases underscore the importance of a thorough approach in handling deportation matters.

1. Understanding the Legal Framework

Deportation liability for residence class visa holders is governed primarily by the Immigration Act 2009. Specific sections of this Act outline the grounds on which deportation can be based, such as:

• Section 158(1)(b)(ii): Involves cases where fraudulent or misleading information may have been supplied during the visa application process.
• Section 161(1)(b): Pertains to criminal convictions occurring within a specified period after obtaining a residence visa.

Additionally, the Evidence Act 2006 plays a crucial role in these proceedings, emphasizing that only relevant evidence that has the potential to prove or disprove significant issues should be admissible.

2. Evaluating Allegations and Evidence

When faced with potential deportation due to allegations such as false job offers or misconduct, it is essential to scrutinize the evidence objectively. In one of our cases, a client’s job offer was questioned due to its sudden pay increase and eventual withdrawal. We demonstrated that these factors, in isolation, were not indicative of deceit and required a more nuanced analysis.

Moreover, we challenged the notion that a history of false job offers from an employer automatically implicates every subsequent offer as fraudulent. By carefully dissecting the facts, we established that our client’s case should be considered on its own merits.

3. Assessing Client’s Culpability and Intent

Understanding the client’s knowledge and intent is fundamental in determining their culpability. In cases where a client may have unknowingly provided incorrect information, we argued that this reduced their culpability and should not form the basis for deportation.

In another case involving a criminal conviction, we highlighted the client’s background and the context of the incident. This approach allowed us to show that the client’s actions were influenced by factors beyond their control, leading to a more favorable assessment of their situation.

4. Humanitarian Considerations

Deportation not only affects the individual but also their family and community. Under Section 207 of the Immigration Act, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal considers whether exceptional humanitarian circumstances exist that would make deportation unjust or unduly harsh.

In our cases, we successfully argued that the strong family ties, emotional and psychological impacts, and contributions to the community made deportation an excessively harsh measure. By presenting compelling evidence of our clients’ deep roots in New Zealand, we were able to demonstrate that deportation would have far-reaching and disproportionate consequences.

5. Mitigating Factors and Rehabilitation

A key component in arguing against deportation is demonstrating the client’s rehabilitation and positive contributions to society. Our clients have shown significant efforts to integrate into New Zealand, both through professional development and community involvement.

In the case involving criminal conviction, we emphasized our client’s remorse and understanding of their actions. By highlighting their commitment to adapting to New Zealand’s legal and social norms, we made a strong case for why deportation was not an appropriate response.

6. Challenging the Reasoning of Immigration Authorities

It is vital to critically examine the reasoning and processes of Immigration New Zealand (INZ). In one of our cases, we challenged the basis of INZ’s concerns and the evidence they relied upon. By questioning the validity and relevance of certain evidence, we were able to weaken INZ’s case and strengthen our client’s position.

7. Ensuring Procedural Fairness

Proper investigation and due diligence by immigration authorities are paramount. In our submissions, we highlighted instances where there was an absence of concrete evidence or where INZ had not followed due process. By ensuring that our clients were given a fair opportunity to present their case, we safeguarded their rights throughout the proceedings.

Conclusion

Deportation cases require a holistic and strategic approach that not only addresses the legal criteria but also delves into the personal, humanitarian, and rehabilitative aspects of the client’s situation. At MK Law, our successful outcomes in recent deportation cases demonstrate our dedication to providing comprehensive representation.

If you or someone you know is facing potential deportation, contact us and seek experienced legal advice. Our team is here to assist and advocate for your rights and interests throughout the process, drawing from a proven track record of success in preventing deportation.