Acceptable sponsor requirements for New Zealand visas

What is an acceptable sponsor?

Some visa applications require a sponsor. In order to sponsor a residence class visa, a sponsor must meet specific requirements and be ‘deemed acceptable’ by the Minister of Immigration or an immigration officer.¹

The core requirements that an individual must meet in order to be an eligible sponsor for a residence class visa are set out at Immigration Instructions R4.5. Some of these requirements are that a sponsor:

• Must be a New Zealand citizen or resident;
• Must hold citizenship or a residence class visa for at least three years immediately preceding the lodgement of the residence application;
• Must be ordinarily resident in New Zealand; and
• Must not be liable for deportation.

There are also additional requirements that the sponsor must meet relating to the specific residence category the applicant is applying under. For example, a sponsor under the Parent residence category must meet a minimum income requirement.

Both the core requirements and the additional specific residence category requirements are clear and objective. Many residence applications are declined without controversy because a sponsor does not meet one of these requirements. However, meeting these requirements alone is not sufficient. A sponsor must also be ‘deemed acceptable’ by the Minister of Immigration or an immigration officer.

¹ Immigration Act 2009, s48(6)

'Deemed acceptable’

There is no guidance in immigration legislation or policy on the factors a decision maker should consider when determining whether a sponsor is also deemed acceptable. The Minister of Immigration or an immigration officer exercises absolute discretion when making this assessment.² In practical terms this means that the decision maker may reach any decision that is reasonable in the circumstances.

Appeal rights and absolute discretion

Section 48(7) of the Immigration Act 2009 provides that no appeal lies against a decision made in the exercise of absolute discretion to find a sponsor unacceptable. However, despite this statutory bar, relevant appellate bodies retain jurisdiction to review limited aspects of such decisions. A recent Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) decision summarised the circumstances in which an absolute discretion decision can be reviewed:

Whilst the Tribunal cannot review the decision regarding the son’s eligibility as a sponsor, it is entitled, and here required, to assess whether the process in which the discretion was exercised was a fair and reasonable one. Furthermore, whilst Immigration New Zealand holds absolute discretion, any such decision cannot be “irrational”, or based on incorrect facts: JW (Sibling and Adult Child) [2017] NZIPT 203614 at [38]. As the Court of Appeal stated in Zhang v Associate Minister of Immigration [2016] NZCA 361 at [23], an absolute discretion is open to review if Wednesbury unreasonableness is identified. This refers to the decision of the English Court of Appeal in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd v Wednesbury Corporation [1948] 1 KB 223 (CA) which noted that such a decision is reviewable if it is so unreasonable that no reasonable decision-maker, properly appraised of the facts, could have made it.³

Immigration and Protection Tribunal decisions

Reviewing IPT decisions can assist to understand the circumstances in which Immigration New Zealand may exercise its absolute discretion to find a sponsor unacceptable.

JB (Parent) [2015] NZIPT 202467

The case of JB (Parent) [2015] NZIPT 202467 involved a Parent residence application. Immigration New Zealand declined the application as it deemed the sponsor to be unacceptable. Immigration New Zealand determined that the sponsor was unacceptable as the sponsor had provided false and misleading information to obtain his own resident visa. The sponsor admitted to obtaining residence under false pretences, claiming his uncle was his father.

The IPT determined that Immigration New Zealand’s exercise of discretion was fair, noting that the appellant had been notified of the concern regarding the sponsor and the reasons for the concern. This decision is unsurprising given the sponsor obtained residence by deception.

JW (Sibling and Adult Child) [2017] NZIPT 203614

A similar situation arose in JW (Sibling and Adult Child) [2017] NZIPT 203614. In this case Immigration New Zealand determined that the sponsor was not acceptable as she was not entitled to residence when it was granted to her. This was because the sponsor had declared only two or her four children in her residence application. This meant that the family’s centre of gravity was not in New Zealand and the sponsor was not entitled to residence under the Parent category (under the requirements in place at the time). The IPT concluded: 

… the Tribunal understands in this case why Immigration New Zealand did not consider that the appellant’s mother, who retains a status to which she is not entitled and who purports to use that status in order to sponsor a family member whom she personally never disclosed, should be able to sponsor that person’s residence in New 3 RP (Parent) [2026] NZIPT 207491 at [43] Zealand. It follows that, in the Tribunal’s view, Immigration New Zealand’s decision that the appellant’s mother was not an acceptable sponsor was not “irrational.”⁴

^{4 JW (Sibling and Adult Child) [2017] NZIPT 203614 at [42]}

KN (Parent) [2016] NZIPT 202766

In the case of KN (Parent) [2016] NZIPT 202766, Immigration New Zealand declined the Parent residence application as it determined the appellant did not meet the good character requirements and she did not have an acceptable sponsor. This was because the appellant and the sponsor had provided three forged letters from the Inland Revenue Department (IRD) with the application.

The IPT upheld Immigration New Zealand’s decision noting that the appellant had been advised on two occasions of the concern, the reason for the concern, and the sponsor’s explanation for the IRD letters was implausible. Given this, “Immigration New Zealand was at liberty to find that the appellant’s sponsor was not acceptable in terms of R4.5.a and b.”⁵

^{5 KN (Parent) [2016] NZIPT 202766 at [49]}

RP (Parent) [2026] NZIPT 207491

The recent IPT decision of RP (Parent) [2026] NZIPT 207491 is noteworthy because the ground on which Immigration New Zealand determined the sponsor to be unacceptable does not appear to have previously arisen in an appeal before the Tribunal. The basis of the decision was that the sponsor was involved in migrant exploitation and the sponsorship funds were not legally acquired. This was because:

• The sponsor was involved with companies whose employer accreditation had been revoked or declined;
• There was an exploitation warning on the sponsor;
• The sponsor was facing active charges;
• 60 funds transfers had been made by 11 of the sponsor’s employees to his mother’s (the appellant’s wife) overseas bank account; and
• Funds transferred from the father (the appellant) to the sponsor appeared to derive from the money transfers made by the employees.

   

The family maintained the funds transfers were legitimate and related to charity donations, property investment, living assistance and to cover cash payments made to the employees in New Zealand.

On appeal the Tribunal found that Immigration New Zealand conducted a “fair process, and the conclusion it arrived at was one available to it based on the evidence it had.”⁶ The IPT explained:

Given the size, nature and extent of the payments the son’s employees had made to his mother and the fact that it had clearly warned the appellant of its concerns and afforded him adequate opportunity to respond, it was then entitled, after full consideration of the response, to exercise its discretion (R4.5.b) to deem the son an unacceptable sponsor (F4.15.1.d.ii and F4.35).⁷

Immigration New Zealand was able to justify its decision through clearly identifying specific concerns, providing adequate time for the concerns to be addressed, and articulating the reasons for the decline in detail with reference to the evidence. While Immigration New Zealand’s decision to deem the sponsor unacceptable is unsurprising given the Government’s focus on reducing migrant exploitation over the last few years, the decision stood up to scrutiny due to the sound process that was followed.

Conclusion

There is a risk that the use of absolute discretion in assessing sponsor acceptability may result in questionable decisions. However, the decisions discussed above uphold the integrity of the immigration system and delivered sound outcomes for New Zealand. In making these decisions, immigration decision makers effectively balanced the rights of individuals with the national interest, in accordance with the purpose of the Immigration Act 2009.

Appley Boyd, Licensed Immigration Adviser and Director, Star Immigration