New Zealand’s Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) has warned of a growing pattern of migrants seeking refugee protection after taking on substantial private debts to finance overseas study and employment, only to find themselves unable to repay the loans.
The observation came in a decision dismissing the refugee appeals of an Indian Sikh couple whose original NZ$56,000 loan allegedly grew to nearly NZ$336,000, amid threats from an unlicensed moneylender and legal proceedings in India.
As per Awaaz, in its 29 October decision, tribunal member B L Burson identified indebtedness to private and unlicensed moneylenders as a structural feature of the Indian economy, noting that harassment by debt recovery agents was common.
He observed that migrants who borrow heavily to fund overseas education or employment were increasingly bringing similar protection claims before the tribunal.
The couple’s financial difficulties began in Punjab, where the wife planned to pursue further education overseas.
It is reported that in December 2015, she borrowed money from a bank to finance her studies. Her father-in-law provided land ownership documents as security, while the family also borrowed from relatives.
After her New Zealand student visa was approved in January 2016, her husband and father-in-law borrowed the equivalent of NZ$56,000 from an unlicensed moneylender in March that year to repay earlier debts.
The loan carried interest of two per cent a month and was expected to be repaid within two years. The husband joined his wife in New Zealand in May 2016.
However, the debt remained unpaid. By 2018, the lender had begun demanding repayment, with requests for money allegedly escalating into threatening phone calls and messages.
The husband’s father eventually signed an affidavit disowning the couple from his property. In March 2024, the moneylender allegedly assaulted the father and threatened to kill him and his son.
Following a complaint to the local village council and police, a compromise was reached under which the lender agreed to stop pursuing the father and deal only with the husband.
The following month, the lender sent the husband a calculation showing that the outstanding amount had increased to nearly NZ$336,000.
The couple applied for refugee protection in New Zealand in April 2024.
The husband continued receiving threatening messages from the lender, who claimed to have powerful connections across India. The lender also threatened to initiate multiple court cases and prevent the husband from leaving prison.
The moneylender subsequently initiated proceedings in India after two cheques issued by the husband were dishonoured because of insufficient funds.
However, the tribunal dismissed the couple’s appeals without an oral hearing, finding them manifestly unfounded.
Burson concluded that the dispute arose from a loan default rather than persecution connected to a ground recognised under the Refugee Convention. He also found insufficient evidence that the couple faced a real risk of serious harm meeting the legal requirements for refugee or protected-person status.
In considering the threats, Burson reasoned that killing the husband would undermine the lender’s efforts to recover the debt.
The tribunal also considered that the couple could seek protection from Indian police and pursue legal remedies through the country’s legal system.
While acknowledging the couple’s difficult circumstances, Burson said New Zealand’s international protection obligations were not intended to address every form of hardship.
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.
