v v Refugee Protection Officer

NOTE: THE CONFIDENTIALITY OF THE NAME OR IDENTIFYING PARTICULARS OF THE APPELLANT AND OF THEIR CLAIM OR STATUS MUST BE MAINTAINED PURSUANT TO S 151 OF THE IMMIGRATION ACT 2009.

SEE

IN THE HIGH COURT OF NEW ZEALAND AUCKLAND REGISTRY

I TE KŌTI MATUA O AOTEAROA TĀMAKI MAKAURAU ROHE

CIV-2024-404-002287

[2025] NZHC 853

UNDER

the Judicial Review Procedure Act 2016

BETWEEN

V

Applicant

AND

REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER

Respondent

Hearing:

31 March 2025

Appearances:

Applicant in person

S P Jerebine and E J J McCarthy for Respondent

Judgment:

9 April 2025

JUDGMENT OF PRESTON J

This judgment was delivered by me on 9 April 2025 at 3.30 pm, pursuant to r 11.5 of the High Court Rules

Registrar/Deputy Registrar

Date……………

V v REFUGEE PROTECTION OFFICER [2025] NZHC 853 [9 April 2025]

Introduction

[1]                 The applicant V seeks judicial review of the decision (the June 2024 decision) of a refugee and protection officer (the RPO) to refuse to consider her fourth claim for refugee and protection status under s 140(3) of the Immigration Act 2009 (the Act).

[2]                 V, who is self-represented, asks the Court to annul the decision—that is to declare it invalid—on grounds that, among other matters, the RPO did not consider all the information submitted in support of her fourth claim.

[3]                 V further requests that this Court itself determine her refugee status rather than remit the decision back to the RPO. Alternatively, she seeks an order directing the RPO to reconsider her fourth claim with certain ancillary “specific and detailed instructions” as to the RPO’s conduct of that reconsideration.

[4]                 The RPO, through counsel Ms Jerebine, agrees that relief is appropriate on the basis it is not clear from the June 2024 decision that all information submitted to the RPO was considered. The respondent accepts the Court should direct the RPO to reconsider the fourth claim, on the entirety of the material V submitted in support (and any other relevant material V wishes to promptly submit). This concession was only available to counsel for the respondent following review of V’s late-filed bundle of evidence on the judicial review application. An offer was responsibly then advanced to V during the week prior to the hearing, on an open basis by exchange of correspondence.

[5]                 V declined the offer. She maintained her request that the Court instead determine her most recent application for refugee status and protection. She filed a memorandum entitled “Application for RSU disqualification and Judicial Review” seeking a further alternative: that the decision be referred to “an independent evaluator” to determine her refugee status. V contends these remedies are available in the Court’s inherent jurisdiction and are justified in the particular circumstances of her case. V emphasised that she has “lost confidence” in the ability of the decision maker to fairly and competently consider her claim.

[6]So the matter came before me for hearing.

V’s circumstances

[7]                 V is 66 years old. She is a Chilean citizen, born in [a city] in the Republic of Chile. She…