An Indian woman who became unlawfully present in New Zealand after an immigration oversight failed to identify her husband’s previous residency sponsorship history has been granted residence after the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) found her situation involved exceptional humanitarian circumstances, The New Zealand Herald has reported.
The tribunal found Aradhana Goswami’s circumstances appeared to have arisen “as a result of an Immigration New Zealand error”, after her visitor visa was approved despite her future husband having previously sponsored two former partners for residency — a factor that later made him ineligible to support her partnership-based visa application.
However, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has maintained that Goswami’s visa applications were assessed correctly under the immigration settings at the time.
Goswami arrived in New Zealand from India on November 7, 2024, after travelling on a visitor visa to meet her partner for the first time. The relationship had been arranged after approval from both families, who had also matched their horoscopes, The New Zealand Herald reported.
In her visitor visa application, Goswami told immigration officials that her purpose was to spend time with “the love of her life” before “entering into a lifelong commitment”.
The couple married 19 days after her arrival.
However, her husband, who is not named in the tribunal decision, had previously supported two former wives’ successful residency applications — one in 2013 and another in 2019 — meaning he could not support another partnership-based residence application under immigration rules.
Despite that history being disclosed in a sponsorship form submitted with Goswami’s visitor visa application, INZ approved the visa and recorded that there were “no concerns”.
Goswami later applied for a partnership-based work visa, but the application was declined because her husband did not meet the requirements to be an eligible supporting partner.
Her request for reconsideration was also declined. She was granted an interim visa in April 2025, but when it expired the following month, she became unlawfully present in New Zealand.
In June 2025, she appealed to the IPT on humanitarian grounds.
The tribunal heard that Goswami argued deportation would separate her from her husband and effectively end their relationship.
She submitted that her husband had no meaningful ties to India and was unlikely to relocate, having lived in New Zealand since his teenage years after moving from Fiji, where he was born. He was also the primary caregiver for his elderly parents, The New Zealand Herald reported.
Goswami told the tribunal she came from a strict Hindu community and believed returning to India as a married woman separated from her husband would result in social stigma for both her and her family.
She submitted that her honour and identity would be affected if the relationship ended.
Her representatives argued there was no evidence that the couple’s relationship, or her husband’s previous partnerships, “fit the rationale for the immigration instruction that prevents the husband sponsoring [Goswami].”
They said Goswami had a legitimate expectation that her husband would be allowed to support her application.
“Her intention to marry and have a future together with her partner was declared in her visitor visa application,” it was submitted.
“The appellant and her husband truthfully declared their true intentions to Immigration New Zealand, and he declared his previous partnerships.
“After her visitor visa was granted, the couple had a legitimate expectation that their partnership or life together would not be separated by a later denial.
“The actions of Immigration New Zealand have been inconsistent, unfair, and have breached natural justice," The New Zealand Herald quoted.
The tribunal said it did not have the authority to overturn INZ’s visa decisions through a humanitarian appeal, but it considered whether deporting Goswami would be unjust or unduly harsh.
It found she was financially dependent on her husband and accepted there were no concerns about the genuineness or stability of their relationship.
The decision also noted Goswami had experienced significant stress due to her immigration situation.
A medical certificate provided to the tribunal stated she was not sleeping or eating well, was constantly worrying and experiencing dizziness, The New Zealand Herald reported.
The tribunal accepted that if she returned to India separated from her husband, she and her family would face social consequences.
“She says that the emotional toll of being viewed as a ‘failure’ in the eyes of society, and the overwhelming shame that would come with it, would be unbearable,” the decision stated.
The IPT concluded that exceptional humanitarian circumstances existed and that deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh.
It found Goswami was not responsible for the circumstances that led to her liability for deportation, which arose from her expired visa and her husband’s inability to sponsor her.
The tribunal also found it would not be against the public interest for her to remain in New Zealand and granted her a resident visa.
INZ says visa decisions were correctly assessed
Chris Adamson, director for visas at INZ, acknowledged the impact the situation had on Goswami but said the agency stood by its assessment process.
Adamson said the IPT’s finding that Goswami’s circumstances appeared to have resulted from an INZ error was noted, but maintained both applications were assessed correctly.
“As outlined in the IPT’s decision, in August 2024, Ms Goswami applied for a general visitor visa,” he told NZME.
“As part of that application, her partner [...] was assessed as an acceptable financial sponsor. In this case, sponsorship refers to a financial guarantor, and [he] met the requirements to be a sponsor for Ms Goswami.
“She was subsequently approved for a general visitor visa in September 2024 because she met all the requirements.
“It is important to note that the requirements for being an acceptable financial sponsor are different from the requirements for supporting a partnership-based visa," as quoted by The New Zealand Herald.
Adamson said Goswami’s husband’s previous history of supporting partnership-based residence applications did not affect his eligibility to sponsor her visitor visa because the visitor visa application was not assessed on partnership grounds.
“At that time, his eligibility as a supporting partner was not assessed because the application was not made on partnership grounds.”
He said when Goswami later applied for a partnership-based temporary visa, her husband was assessed under the standard process and was found not to meet the requirements because he had previously supported more than one successful residence visa application.
“For all partnership-based applications, we assess a supporting partner’s eligibility. This includes validating any declarations made by the applicant or supporting partner against information in our records.
“We understand that Ms Goswami’s situation arose through no fault of her own and that she may have expected to continue living in New Zealand after being granted her initial visa.
“However, our position is that both applications were assessed correctly against the immigration settings at the time," The New Zealand Herald quoted.
ISSUE
Leave a Comment