The Tribunal found there was an exceptional humanitarian circumstance in his case and ordered the man be granted a 12-month work visa. Meaning there was still a possibility he could be deported at a later date.
How the man came to live unlawfully in New Zealand and the life he subsequently established has been set out in a recently-released decision.
He arrived in the country in 1994 on a short-term visitor permit of up to nine months, to enable him to be involved in a choir performance.
Following his performance, he travelled to Auckland to visit family and gave his passport to a family member on the understanding they were going to apply to extend his visa.
But his visitor visa was never renewed and he recently told the Tribunal he did not know why an application was not made.
In 1997, the man met a Kiwi woman and the couple went on to marry and have two children together.
But he faced difficulties within his marriage and behaved violently towards his wife, which led to a number of convictions and a prison sentence of 15 months.
While in jail, his wife and two children left New Zealand and he lost contact with them.
The man eventually took steps to regularise his immigration status through visa applications, but every effort was knocked back.
In 2010, he met a new woman, a New Zealand citizen who was born in Samoa, and the pair went on to have two children together, who are presently 10 and 3.
A further attempt for a work visa was made in 2020 and after that was also declined, he lodged a humanitarian appeal, heard by the Tribunal.
In the case, the man argued he had lived in New Zealand continuously for 27 years and during that time he had established a home.
For the past 11 years, he and his current partner have been living together in a genuine and stable relationship, the decision stated.
If the appeal was unsuccessful, he would be forced to return to Samoa and leave his partner and children in New Zealand, it said.
"The two children are likely to have limited contact with their father and (therefore) to be deprived of an ongoing and meaningful relationship with him."
Both children were born in New Zealand and have lived here all their lives. Their best interests lie strongly in remaining in the country and with both parents in their current family environment, it was argued.
In support of his appeal, a number of letters were tendered from extended family who described the man as family-oriented and someone who worked extremely hard to provide for his family.
His partner also penned a letter, in which she stated she could not provide for their children without his support as he was "the core and centre" of their family.
"He is our provider, our carer, our foundation for me and the kids. He is our chief, our shopper, our cleaner, our driver, our deliverer, our Uber, our comedian, our protector and security," she said.
The Tribunal said it did not condone the man's actions of remaining in New Zealand unlawfully.
While understanding his desire to remain here, he had not met immigration requirements, it pointed out.
"However, while he did not leave New Zealand voluntarily, over the very lengthy period in which he has been here – from October 1994 to the present time – it appears from Immigration New Zealand's electronic records that there have been no active steps taken to deport him."
As a result, the man had become entrenched in his life in New Zealand.
Having considered relevant factors, including that he had not reoffended for around 20 years and the promise of employment by a family member, the Tribunal ruled it was not contrary to public interest for him to remain in the country.
"The Tribunal finds that it is in the best interests of the appellant's two children that he remains in New Zealand at least at the present time."
He was granted a 12-month work visa which the Tribunal said would allow him the opportunity to test his eligibility for a Partner of a New Zealander Resident Visa.
