Representation Seeking justice to great harm done to us by the authorities at various levels of…

Representation
Seeking justice to great harm done to us by the authorities at various levels of governance in New Zealand.
The following matter summarises what happened and when in our case:

  1. The Heart of the Matter
    a. We were granted Resident Visas (RVs) along with the explanatory letter (VISA APPROVAL LETTER) explaining the conditions behind these in 2010. To fulfill these conditions, we spent 184 days two times in two consecutive years during 2010-2012 to become eligible for our Permanent Resident Visas (PRVs). After becoming eligible for Permanent Resident Visas (PRVs), we applied for our Permanent Resident Visas (PRVs) but were instead granted Subsequent / Second Resident Visas (SRVs) in 2012. Strangely, no statutorily required explanatory letter (VISA APPROVAL LETTER) was issued to us. We believed these to be PRVs and accepted in good faith and simplicity.
    b. My passport expired in 2015 and I applied for visa transfer to my new passport but INZ Delhi advised me that our present resident visas had expired. And as guided by INZ, we filled another form and INZ cancelled our application for Subsequent / Second Resident Visas (SRVs). The reason was that INZ counted the 184 days backwards as per their calculations and thus, as alleged, we fell short of the requirement in the 2nd year.
    c. This all happened due to the INZ's not issuing us the statutorily required explanatory letter (VISA APPROVAL LETTER) in 2012 when we were granted Subsequent / Second Resident Visas (SRVs) while we had very clearly applied for our Permanent Resident Visas (PRVs) after fulfilling the requirement of spending more than 184 days two times in two consecutive years during 2010-2012.
    d. Now the real core issue is that had we been issued the statutorily required explanatory letter (VISA APPROVAL LETTER) as per our statutory right in 2012, we would have surely fulfilled the conditions NO matter what might have happened as we did in 2010 when we were granted the Resident Visas for the first time.
    Pages 12-14 of Guide for Resident and Former Resident Visa Holders (INZ 1176) downloaded from the link given as below give a clear picture of the duties and responsibilities of the INZ.
    https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/forms-and-guides/inz1176.pdf
    "(Page 12) Line: We............. application being declined. We will always provide you with a chance to comment on potentially prejudicial information that could lead to your application being declined.
    Page 14 Line : Your resident visa…………….. once you have met them.
    Your resident visa approval letter will contain DETAILS of any conditions you must meet and the process for having these conditions removed once you have met them."
    Thus, INZ was required to issue us the statutorily, mandatorily required visa explanatory letter (Visa Approval Letter) explaining our visa conditions in 2012. Fulfilling any conditions is possible only if the applicants are issued the visa explanatory letter (Visa Approval Letter) explaining the conditions in it. But it didn't issue it due to reasons best known to it.
    e. Thus the administrative inefficiency on the part of the INZ is solely responsible for this lapse, whereas we have been punished in the cancellation of our visas. This disproportionate award can't be called justice in any way.
  2. Approaching IPT and Hon'ble High Court – Only way out
    a. As advised by INZ, we approached the IPT.
    b. It regretted the non-issuance of the said Visa Approval Letter on the part of INZ but upheld the cancellation of our visas contributing further to the injustice and discrimination.
    ……. It is regrettable that Immigration New Zealand did not inform the appellant that, as a result, he had been granted an SSRV and not a PRV and that he could not have qualified for any other type of visa.
    Ref: [32] Immigration and Protection Tribunal Decision dated 18 January 2016
    c. So it also turned a sermoniser and counselled us to stay put in our homeland, thus glossing over its duty to deliver justice.
    d. The Hon'ble High Court, when approached, also upheld the cancellation of our Resident Visas refusing to deliver justice, as given below:
    [21] The starting point is the correctness of the premise upon which Mr Dahiya's argument is based. Although the Tribunal said it was “regrettable” that Immigration New Zealand did not advise Mr Dahiya and his wife of the true position, there is no statutory provision requiring Immigration New Zealand to provide visa holders with separate advice regarding the nature of their visas and the terms and conditions upon which they have been issued. …..
    But contrary is the provision as given in the link below:
    https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/forms-and-guides/inz1176.pdf
    "(Page 12) Line: We............. application being declined. We will always provide you with a chance to comment on potentially prejudicial information that could lead to your application being declined.
    There is clear contradiction as is clear from statutory guideline given below:
    https://www.immigration.govt.nz/documents/forms-and-guides/inz1176.pdf
    "(Page 12) Line: We............. application being declined. We will always provide you with a chance to comment on potentially prejudicial information that could lead to your application being declined.

[22] Secondly, the Tribunal invited Mr Dahiya and his wife to provide it with details of the steps they would have taken if they had been aware of the true position. Mr Dahiya declined to take up that invitation. The Tribunal and the Court are therefore left to speculate how Mr Dahiya and his wife have been disadvantaged by the fact that they were not aware they had been issued with SSRV's rather than PRV's.
It is highly shocking to note the comment of the Hon’ble High Court Judge that we “declined to take up that invitation”.
Note: We are yet to get till date that very particular invitation letter from Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) even after numerous requests and reminders.
e. To add salt to the injury, it also imposed costs on us amounting to NZ $6738.50.
Ref: [21], [22], The Hon'ble High Court Decision dated 8 June 2016
f. It also attributed several lies onto us thus making us more guilty in the eyes of the law and overlooked our presentation, appeal and merits of the case as presented by us from time to time.
g. The trial transcript is an eye-opener showing how the judiciary works in New Zealand as there are no appropriate references to the things in the transcript which appear in his decision.
Note: We are yet to get till date that very original Audio-Video recording from the Hon'ble High Court Judge even after numerous requests and reminders which would reveal the truth.

  1. Our Grievance
    a. INZ's not issuing us the Visa Approval Letter (Visa Explanatory Letter) in 2012 -- a major comment on the INZ Working -- excused through a 'mere regrettal' while our hard-earned Resident Visas were cancelled. This is most unfair, unjustifiable and greatly prejudiced.
    b. Issuing of Visa Approval Letter (Visa Explanatory Letter) is statutorily mandatorily required as per the statute given in the link given above.
    c. Imposing of costs on us is the height of injustice, harassment and discrimination as it contravenes the statutory provisions.
    d. The following link states that a contract needs to be signed between the parties before costs are imposed. The Crown solicitor or the Honb'ble High Court Judge are yet to provide us the very signed agreement, contract if any.

[5] I see no reason to take a different view when considering the issue of costs. I consider that the usual principles should apply, and that Mr Dahiya as the unsuccessful party should be required to contribute to the costs incurred by the Chief Executive as the successful party.

Ref: [5], The Hon'ble High Court Decision on Costs dated 9 August 2016
“A judge will order the unsuccessful party to pay costs on a solicitor-client basis if the parties have entered into a contract with a clause stating that, in the event of litigation, the unsuccessful party will pay the successful party's costs on that basis.”
Ref: https://www.justice.govt.nz/courts/going-to-court/without-a-lawyer/representing-yourself-civil-high-court/costs-and-disbursements/
Home > Courts> Going to court > Going to court without a lawyer > Representing yourself in a civil case in the High Court> Costs & disbursements...........
.......
Note:
• The Award of Cost judgement has been made by completely flouting the statutory guidelines that a signed agreement, contract is required before awarding cost judgement.
• We are yet to get till date that very signed agreement, contract if any from the Crown solicitor or the Honb'le High Court Judge even after numerous requests and reminders.
e. Why is every time raised the absence of the 'question of law' and the matter not being of 'public importance' when we are also the people, the public and have suffered at the hands of these various authorities?
f. Why doesn't the matter NOT attract the attention of the relevant authorities when such mis-governance is pointed out?
g. The Hon'ble Court of Appeal also acted like the Hon'ble High Court and upholding its decision also imposed further costs, the second time.

  1. Our Appeal
    a. Injustice meted out to us be rectified and the cancellation of our hard-earned resident visas be withdrawn.
    b. We must be allowed to live with our son and his family through the revival of our cancelled resident visas.
    c. Costs imposed on us by the Hon'ble High Court, Hon'ble Court of Appeal be withdrawn as these contravene the statutory provisions and symbolise gross injustice.
    d. Enough Compensation be granted in lieu of mental torture, gross harassment and discrimination for our right to justice caused to us for which we are not at all fault. On the contrary we are the victims of the lapses in the system.
    e. A thorough investigation be undertaken and lapses that occurred be not allowed to occur so that the fair name of the country remains intact in the eyes of the world.
Costs & disbursements | New Zealand Ministry of Justice
false