After an appeal, however, the tribunal found INZ’s decision to deny residency correct, but said the case involved special circumstances.
It asked the Minister of Immigration to consider granting residency as an exception.
The decision, which does not name the family, detailed how the boy moved to New Zealand with his mother and sister after his father had already relocated.
The father arrived a few years ago on a work-to-residence visa and later successfully applied for residency for himself, his wife and daughter.
The boy was initially included in that application but was removed after INZ medical assessors found he did not meet the acceptable standard of health required for residence.
He remained in the country on a series of visitor visas before the separate residency application was lodged last year and subsequently declined by INZ.
The most recent visa application was made in May this year.
Associate Immigration Minister Cameron Brewer, when asked about a potential outcome, told the Herald he would not comment on specific details of individual cases or the considerations that inform his decisions.
Labelled a ‘curse’
The tribunal decision outlined evidence from the boy’s mother describing the discrimination the family faced while trying to access healthcare in his homeland.
On several occasions, medical professionals claimed her son’s condition was a punishment for sins she had committed in a previous life, she said.
People in hospital waiting rooms said her son was going to bring bad luck to them and aggressively insisted that he leave.
Other patients would be prioritised over the boy, with hospital staff suggesting other patients were “normal” or “deserved treatment” ahead of him, she said.
After waiting all day, she and her son would sometimes leave without seeing a doctor.
The mother also recalled being blamed for her son’s condition and him being labelled a “curse”.
The boy’s grandmother, a family friend and a hospital worker provided evidence of the discrimination the boy faced.
His mother’s extended family and her husband’s family mistreated the parents because of their son, a letter from the family friend said.
The Immigration and Protection Tribunal asked the Immigration Minister to consider granting residency to a boy with Down syndrome. Photo / 123rf
The hospital worker recalled one encounter where the boy and his mother were “verbally attacked” to the point where they had to leave the clinic without treatment.
Academic articles and reports, cited in the decision, confirmed that disabled people faced serious discrimination in their homeland.
The mother also told the tribunal that during a trip home to visit her father, she asked if the special school her son had previously attended would consider readmitting him if the family had to return.
The principal said the school would no longer be able to provide the specialised care he required, the decision stated.
The finding
The tribunal found that it was not merely a case of the boy having fewer opportunities in his home country, but one involving “discrimination that goes to the heart of access to basic needs such as healthcare and education”.
Since arriving in New Zealand, the boy has been unable to access special education because he does not hold a student visa. His parents have privately funded speech and language therapy, and he has learned English from his sister.
The tribunal found it was in the boy’s best interest to remain in New Zealand.
It also found that separation from his father and sister, with whom he has close relationships, would negatively affect him.
The boy’s parents and grandmother expressed concern that if he could not remain in New Zealand, the family would be split between the two countries.
In a written statement to the tribunal, his sister said she loved her brother, who is her “whole world”, and she wanted the family to stay together in New Zealand.
If granted residency, the boy would likely become eligible for funding “which comes at significant costs to New Zealand for services that are already struggling to meet the demand”, the tribunal stated.
However, it found that access to support and specialised services while living with his family was in his best interests.
While no explanation was given for why the boy was removed from his father’s residence application, the tribunal said that regardless of the reason, he was not responsible for the decision and was nevertheless affected by it.