Having NZ children no bar to overstayers being kicked out

Illegal immigrants have been warned they can still face removal from this country even if they have New Zealand-born children.

The best interests of a New Zealand-citizen youngster do not necessarily determine whether the parents can stay here, says the Removal Review Authority in a new decision.

Having a child who is a New Zealand citizen does not give them a right to reside or remain in this country, says the head of Immigration New Zealand, Nigel Bickle.

He said the agency did not have figures on how many parents with New Zealand-citizen children had been removed or deported, because no statistics were kept on the matter.

Children born in New Zealand before 2006 received automatic citizenship, but now at least one parent has to be either a New Zealand citizen or resident for them to acquire citizenship.

Ruling on the appeal of a 39-year-old Indian who is fighting to remain here with his 5-year-old son, a citizen, the Removal Review Authority said "the best interests of the children are not necessarily determinative" to whether the parents can remain in New Zealand.

Vinod Kumar Patel had his work permit revoked after Immigration New Zealand found that his wife, Bharatibahen Jashubhai Patel, 32, had lied about being single. They were already married and had a daughter when she lodged her application as a dependent child of her mother under the family category in 2001.

The couple had their second child, Deep Vinodbhai Patel, in 2005 in New Zealand.

According to court documents, Ms Patel said she and her mother believed she was single and without children because she was separated from her husband and did not have custody of her daughter.

But she failed to convince the Deportation Review Tribunal and the High Court. Her permanent residence was revoked in 2006 and Immigration Minister Jonathan Coleman has said he is not prepared to intervene.

The authority said in its decision of her appeal: "The reality is that the family cannot remain together as a family unit in New Zealand because of the mother's history.

"The upheaval confronting the family essentially flows from the consequences of the mother's misconduct."

Last year, in a case involving Chinese overstayer parents with citizen children, the Supreme Court criticised immigration officials for their lack of consideration of how the children are affected when they or their overstayer parents are removed.

Former Immigration Minister Tuariki Delamere, now a licensed immigration adviser, said then that the court decision meant all deported parents who had New Zealand-citizen children could have their cases reopened.

But Immigration New Zealand said the Immigration Act states that any decision has to be challenged within 28 days.

Mr Bickle said permanent residency was often revoked because of applicants providing misleading information to the service.

Before people unlawfully in New Zealand were removed, they were provided with the opportunity to present reasons they should not be sent away, he said.

"If the person has a New Zealand-citizen child, the best interests of the child will form a primary part of the consideration as to whether or or not removal should go ahead," Mr Bickle said.

"The arrangement as to where a New Zealand-citizen child will reside is a matter for the parent."