An Indian woman who became unlawfully present in New Zealand after an immigration oversight has been granted residency after the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) found her case involved exceptional humanitarian circumstances.
As per New Zealand Herald, the tribunal ruled that Aradhana Goswami’s situation appeared to have arisen “as a result of an Immigration New Zealand error”, after her visitor visa was approved despite her future husband’s previous residency sponsorship history making him ineligible to support her later partnership-based residence application.
However, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) has maintained that both of Goswami’s visa applications were assessed correctly under the immigration rules in place at the time.
Goswami arrived in New Zealand from India on 7 November 2024 on a visitor visa to meet her partner for the first time. The relationship had been arranged with the approval of both families, who had also matched their horoscopes.
In her visitor visa application, Goswami told immigration officials that she wanted 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 was not named in the tribunal decision — had previously supported two former partners’ successful residency applications, one in 2013 and another in 2019. Under New Zealand immigration rules, this meant he could not support another partnership-based residence application.
The tribunal noted that this history had been disclosed in a sponsorship form submitted with Goswami’s visitor visa application, but INZ approved the visa and recorded 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.
After her reconsideration request was also rejected, she was granted an interim visa in April 2025. When that visa expired the following month, she became unlawfully present in New Zealand.
INZ director for visas Chris Adamson acknowledged the impact of the case on Goswami but defended the agency’s assessment process.
Adamson said Goswami’s visitor visa application was assessed correctly because her husband met the requirements to act as a financial sponsor for that type of visa.
He said the rules for a financial sponsor on a visitor visa were different from those applying to a supporting partner in a partnership-based visa application.
“When Ms Goswami later applied for a partnership-based temporary visa, her partner was assessed under the standard process and did not meet the requirements because he had previously supported more than one successful residence visa application,” Adamson said.
“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.”
In June 2025, Goswami appealed to the IPT on humanitarian grounds, arguing that deportation would separate her from her husband and effectively end their relationship.
She told the tribunal 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.
Goswami, who comes from a strict Hindu community, argued that returning to India as a married woman separated from her husband would result in social stigma for both her and her family.
Her representatives argued that the couple had acted honestly by declaring their intentions and the husband’s previous partnerships to immigration authorities.
“Her intention to marry and have a future together with her partner was declared in her visitor visa application,” they submitted.
“The appellant and her husband truthfully declared their true intentions to Immigration New Zealand, and he declared his previous partnerships.”
The tribunal said it did not have the power to overturn INZ’s visa decisions through a humanitarian appeal but considered whether deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh.
It found there were no concerns about the genuineness or stability of Goswami’s relationship and accepted that she was financially dependent on her husband.
The tribunal also considered evidence of the emotional distress caused by her immigration situation, including a medical certificate stating she was experiencing poor sleep, reduced appetite, constant worry and dizziness.
It accepted that returning to India separated from her husband could expose Goswami and her family to social consequences. The decision stated:
“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 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 deportation liability and determined that allowing her to remain in New Zealand would not be contrary to the public interest.
The tribunal granted her a resident visa.
Support our Journalism
No-nonsense journalism. No paywalls. Whether you’re in Australia, the UK, Canada, the USA, or India, you can support The Australia Today by taking a paid subscription via Patreon or donating via PayPal — and help keep honest, fearless journalism alive.
