But their impending marriage would be the fourth for the man, who had already sponsored two former wives for residency, one in 2013 and the other in 2019, and could not do so again.
Despite disclosing that history in a sponsorship form submitted with her application, Immigration New Zealand (INZ) granted Goswami a temporary visa, recording there were “no concerns”.
She travelled to New Zealand on November 7, 2024, and the couple married 19 days later, only for her later application for a partnership-based work visa to be declined because her husband was not an eligible sponsor.
Her request for a reconsideration of the decision was also declined, and an interim visa was granted to her in April 2025.
That visa expired the following month, leaving Goswami unlawfully in New Zealand.
Then, in June 2025, she lodged an appeal with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) on humanitarian grounds.
Societal disapproval if separated from husband
According to the tribunal’s recently released decision, she submitted that deportation would bring the couple’s relationship to an end.
She said her husband, who is not named in the decision, had no ties to India and was unlikely to relocate, given he had lived in New Zealand since his teenage years after moving from Fiji, where he was born, and was the primary carer for his elderly parents.
Goswami is from a strict Hindu community and submitted that if she separated from her husband, she and her family would face societal disapproval in India, and her honour and identity would be lost.
In her submissions, it was argued that there was no evidence or suggestion that the couple’s relationship, or the husband’s previous marriages, “fit the rationale for the immigration instruction that prevents the husband sponsoring [Goswami].”
She submitted that she had a legitimate expectation that her husband would be permitted to sponsor her.
“Her intention to marry and have a future together with her partner was declared in her visitor visa application,” it was submitted.
“The appellant and her husband truthfully declared their true intentions to Immigration New Zealand, and he declared his previous partnerships.
“After her visitor visa was granted, the couple had a legitimate expectation that their partnership or life together would not be separated by a later denial.
“The actions of Immigration New Zealand have been inconsistent, unfair, and have breached natural justice.”
The tribunal said it could not overturn INZ’s visa decisions in a humanitarian appeal, but accepted Goswami’s situation appeared to have arisen “as a result of an Immigration New Zealand error”.
INZ, however, maintained that both of Goswami’s visa applications were correctly assessed under the rules in place at the time.
The tribunal instead focused on whether it would now be unfair to deport her.
Its decision outlined that Goswami was reliant on her husband for financial support and that there were no concerns about the genuine and stable nature of their relationship.
It stated she was under stress as a result of her immigration concerns.
A medical certificate recorded that she was not sleeping or eating well, and was constantly worrying and feeling dizzy.
It was accepted that if she returned to India as a married woman, separated from her husband, she and her family would face social stigma.
“She says that the emotional toll of being viewed as a ‘failure’ in the eyes of society, and the overwhelming shame that would come with it, would be unbearable,” the decision stated, referencing Goswami’s submissions.
The tribunal was satisfied there were exceptional humanitarian circumstances and that deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh.
It found that while her liability for deportation stemmed from her expired visa and her husband’s inability to sponsor her, she was not at fault for that situation.
In also finding that it would not be contrary to the public interest for her to remain in the country permanently, the tribunal granted Goswami a resident visa.
INZ acknowledges her distress
Chris Adamson, director for visas at INZ, acknowledged the distress caused to Goswami and the significant impact of the situation on her.
Adamson noted the IPT’s finding that Goswami’s circumstances appeared to have resulted from an INZ error, but maintained her visa applications were assessed correctly.
“As outlined in the IPT’s decision, in August 2024, Ms Goswami applied for a general visitor visa,” he told NZME.
“As part of that application, her partner […] was assessed as an acceptable financial sponsor. In this case, sponsorship refers to a financial guarantor, and [he] met the requirements to be a sponsor for Ms Goswami.
“She was subsequently approved for a general visitor visa in September 2024 because she met all the requirements.
“It is important to note that the requirements for being an acceptable financial sponsor are different from the requirements for supporting a partnership-based visa.”
Adamson said Goswami’s partner’s previous history of supporting partnership-based residence applications did not affect his eligibility to sponsor her visitor visa.
“At that time, his eligibility as a supporting partner was not assessed because the application was not made on partnership grounds.”
When Goswami later applied for a partnership-based temporary visa, her partner was again assessed as part of standard assessment processes for all partnership applications, Adamson said.
He did not meet the requirements because he had previously supported more than one successful residence visa application. This meant the application could not be approved, he said.
Adamson said partnership applications were carefully assessed and applicants must satisfy immigration instructions. Where requirements were not met, further information may be requested and details may be verified against INZ records.
“For all partnership-based applications, we assess a supporting partner’s eligibility. This includes validating any declarations made by the applicant or supporting partner against information in our records.
“We understand that Ms Goswami’s situation arose through no fault of her own and that she may have expected to continue living in New Zealand after being granted her initial visa.
“However, our position is that both applications were assessed correctly against the immigration settings at the time.”
Tara Shaskey is an assistant editor and reporter for the Open Justice team. She joined NZME in 2022 and has worked as a journalist since 2014.