A Hong Kong national has been ordered to leave New Zealand after he injured his pet cat while trying to toilet train and shower it, leaving it with 13 fractures and needing to be put down.
A Hong Kong national has been ordered to leave New Zealand after he injured his pet cat while trying to toilet train and shower it, leaving it with 13 fractures and needing to be put down.
A man with an autism disorder has been ordered to return to Hong Kong after injuring his cat.
He appealed on humanitarian grounds, but the tribunal found no exceptional circumstances to allow him to stay.
The tribunal noted his community ties but deemed the challenges of returning to Hong Kong were not insurmountable.
A Hong Kong national has been ordered to leave New Zealand after he injured his pet cat while trying to toilet train and shower it, leaving it with 13 fractures and needing to be put down.
The cat’s broken bones were among a list of ailments, which the man blamedon his mental health issues and autism diagnosis for failing to recognise, that led to him being convicted on an animal welfare charge and ultimately served with a deportation notice.
The tribunal said in dismissing the appeal that there were no exceptional humanitarian circumstances in his case.
It did not name the man on the grounds of what it said was his mental health condition, but allowed him a brief window to leave on his own accord. This meant his return to Hong Kong would be voluntary rather than as a deportee, which could impede future visa applications for travel.
The fractured bones of the cat, not pictured here, were among a list of ailments that led to the man being convicted on an animal welfare charge, and ultimately served with a deportation notice. Photo / 123RF
The lawyer who represented AJ, Rebecca Carruthers, told NZME she was unable to say whether he had returned by the deadline because of client confidentiality.
The 27-year-old Hong Kong citizen arrived in New Zealand in 2016 on a student visa and then gained a business degree here.
He then worked in a variety of different jobs, including as a labourer and in hospitality.
In March 2021, AJ adopted a cat, which lived in his room in shared accommodation.
A flatmate noticed a few months later that the cat was not well, so they took AJ and the cat to a vet.
The vet found the cat in poor condition with a list of ailments, including severe dehydration and fractured teeth. The SPCA was alerted and uplifted the animal.
A further inspection found it had 13 fractured bones and was euthanised.
AJ explained the cat’s broken bones might have been caused by him being “too forceful” when trying to toilet train or shower it.
He claimed he was never violent but would apply force when it tried to get away, and “she may also have been injured in cat fights”.
In January last year, he was convicted and sentenced in a district court to seven months of home detention on a charge of failing to ensure that an animal received necessary treatment to relieve it from pain or distress.
The following month, he was served with a deportation liability notice, which prompted his appeal on humanitarian grounds.
The tribunal noted AJ had taken full responsibility for the offending, but he argued that because he was having issues with his mental health at the time, and due to his autism spectrum disorder traits, he did not recognise the cat’s distress and would have likely asked for help had he been more aware.
At the time, he was an international student and reliant on his parents’ financial support, so he felt ashamed to ask for more money for the cost of vet care.
The tribunal said that based on photos and supporting documents, it was reasonably clear that, towards the end, the appellant had suffered some mental health issues that impacted his ability to care for the cat.
AJ argued in his appeal against the deportation notice that he had strong connections to New Zealand, was actively involved in the community through his sport and volunteer roles at church and Christian clubs.
He had many friends whom he considered family.
AJ was afraid to return to Hong Kong because of his beliefs.
The tribunal noted that political activism in Hong Kong was “significantly constrained” and religious institutions were expected to avoid activity considered by the Chinese Government to be “political”.
However, there was no evidence showing AJ had ever been politically active, either in Hong Kong or in New Zealand, and there was no suggestion that he wished to be politically active in the future.
In its assessment, the tribunal said the appellant had no partner or children, his employment in this country had been sporadic, and he had spent no longer than six months with one employer until his most recent job, which he had held for a year.
Despite letters from his friends expressing their strong support for him to stay in New Zealand, the tribunal said separation from friends and acquaintances was inherent in migration and the sadness and sense of loss were likely to be transient, not enduring.
AJ said he had “somewhat” lost touch with his parents, which the tribunal said was to be expected after living away for a number of years, but they had “clearly been supportive” of him because he talked of their financial support during his studies.
The tribunal accepted that returning to Hong Kong from New Zealand would be a wrench for him, but none of the challenges presented were insurmountable.
Tracy Neal is a Nelson-based Open Justice reporter at NZME. She was previously RNZ’s regional reporter in Nelson-Marlborough and has covered general news, including court and local government for the Nelson Mail.
