A teenager who uses a wheelchair and needs help with daily tasks such as eating, bathing and dressing has been ordered to leave the country or face deportation.
Her resident family will likely have to leave New Zealand with her, after the teen’s appeal against deportation on humanitarian grounds failed.
The teen, who has cerebral palsy, spastic quadriplegia, vision impairment and an intellectual disability, arrived in New Zealand from the Philippines in December 2024, having been granted a special visitor visa after a failed first attempt.
She then overstayed her visa by almost a year, making her liable for deportation.
An appeal lodged on her behalf was declined.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal found last month that the teen, whose name and identifying details are suppressed, had not established that there were exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature.
However, given her dependence on family for daily care, the tribunal allowed the family four months to make arrangements for the teen’s departure and “potentially their own”.
The family also needed time to arrange care for the teen on her return to the Philippines, tribunal member Natalie Small said.
The teen’s father arrived in New Zealand in late 2017 on an essential skills work visa, followed by her mother and two siblings in 2020 on work and student visas.
The high-needs teen remained in the Philippines while the family sought ways for her to join them in New Zealand.
In November 2021, the father lodged an application for a resident visa under the Accredited Employers category and included his wife and all three children.
The application was withdrawn a few months later and replaced with one under the “Special” category.
The application included medical evidence disclosing the teen’s condition.
Small said the father withdrew the teen from the application in August 2022. In March 2023, the parents and two siblings were granted resident visas and became permanent New Zealand residents in 2025.
Special visitor visa granted on second attempt
An application was lodged on the teen’s behalf in January 2024 for a six-month visitor visa but was turned down when Immigration New Zealand found she did not have an acceptable standard of health because she required fulltime care.
The family tried again in May 2024. Four months later, the Minister of Immigration granted her a nine-month special visitor visa.
In evidence presented to the minister, it was noted that the teen’s mother had travelled back to the Philippines in 2023 to take care of her daughter.
The pair then travelled to New Zealand in December 2024.
Small said the teen’s visitor visa expired on September 7, 2025, meaning she had been unlawfully in New Zealand since then while being cared for by her family.
Teen’s case ‘did not meet statutory test’
In making its decision, the tribunal focused on whether exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature would arise from deportation.
Small said the teen’s case did not meet the statutory test.
“This is because it has not been demonstrated that the appellant’s health needs, or any inability to provide for those health needs, has arisen out of, or as a consequence of her liability for deportation.”
Small said the teen appeared to have been adequately cared for in the Philippines after her mother and siblings left in 2020, possibly by the parents’ large, extended families who were still there.
“There is nothing exceptional about a person who arrives in New Zealand with a pre-existing medical condition who has had adequate support in their home country,” Small said.
She said it appeared that the teen’s cerebral palsy had been a constant feature in her life and that of her family, and that she would need ongoing assistance.
“That is true whether she is in New Zealand or in the Philippines.”
Small said the evidence suggested the family had been able to make adequate care arrangements for her in both countries.
“In this case, there is no evidence to establish that the appellant cannot access daily support and/or medical support in the Philippines should she require it.”
Small said the teen’s family, as permanent residents, could leave New Zealand and return at any point.
The fact that her parents were faced with difficult choices was a result of their earlier decisions to move to New Zealand and obtain residence status here.
“They have long known that the appellant will not meet the eligibility requirements for residence and so there is nothing unexpected or uncommon in the requirement that the appellant must go home while they have the ability to remain in New Zealand,” Small said.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
Join the NZ Herald’s Open Justice team for Case by Case, a video and podcast series examining the disputes and decisions making headlines across New Zealand.
