4 April 2022
Terry Bourke
[FYI request #18102 email]
Ref: DOIA 2122-1351
Dear Terry Bourke,
I refer to your email of 7 March 2022 requesting clarification of an Official Information Act 1982
response sent to you dated 14 February 2022:
“Question 1 has not been answered - how many temporary class visa holders did MBIE become
aware of....
Question 3 - Table 2 - the first column heading makes no sense - DLN cancel ed / no / yes / total.
Question 3 - Table 2 - what does 'Other' encapsulate?
Question 5 has not been answered - how many residence class visa holders did MBIE become aware
of....
Question 7 - Table 3 does not make sense. Example - year 2016, only 6 x DLN's were served, but 134
were suspended. Do you mean pre-DLN service that liability was suspended perhaps?”
Our Response
Question 1 has not been answered - how many temporary class visa holders did MBIE become aware
of....
The original response letter stated:
Please note that it is only possible for Immigration New Zealand (INZ) to col ate the number of cases
where a DLN has been served, not just those that may have a driving offence noted. This is because
it is only possible to search INZ’s case management systems for results where a DLN has been served.
This applies to questions 1 and 5 of your request.
We can further advise that Immigration New Zealand’s case management system does not record all
temporary visa holders who are ‘driving offenders’. This is because INZ is only able to report on
driving offenders if there is a record created for Compliance activity related to that offending. This is
the data provided in question 2 of the original response.
Question 3 - Table 2 - the first column heading makes no sense - DLN cancel ed / no / yes / total.
The original question asked for the number of people served, or deemed served, what was the
outcome, DLN cancel ed, DLN suspended or deported.
There is no ability to suspend a Deportation Liability Notice (DLN) for a temporary entry visa so there
are no results for this.
The table in the original response shows the number of DLNs cancel ed (either ‘Yes’ or ‘No’) and the
outcomes.
There were 93 DLNs served or deemed served (the answer from the original question 2). Ten (10) of
those 93 were cancelled, meaning there were 83 that were not cancelled. Thirty-five of the
remaining 83 either resulted in a deportation or a self-deportation, leaving 48 with an outcome of
other (see below).
Question 3 - Table 2 - what does 'Other' encapsulate?
‘Other’ encapsulates the following alternatives to deportation or self-deportation:
- Voluntary departure,
- Ministerial or Immigration and Protection Tribunal directives,
- immigration status regularised,
- no longer liable for deportation,
- could not be located,
- no further action, or
- outcome not recorded.
Question 5 has not been answered - how many residence class visa holders did MBIE become aware
of....
Please refer to the response to question 1 in this letter as the information provided is also applicable
to residence visa holders.
Question 7 - Table 3 does not make sense. Example - year 2016, only 6 x DLN's were served, but 134
were suspended. Do you mean pre-DLN service that liability was suspended perhaps?
When a decision-maker decides to suspend a resident class visa holder’s liability for deportation they
are served with a deportation liability notice and a suspension notice at the same time. The
suspension notice overrides the deportation liability notice so when the decision is recorded by INZ
it is recorded as “DLN suspended” rather than being recorded under both “DLN served” and “DLN
suspended”.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review of my response by the Ombudsman, whose
address for contact purposes is:
The Ombudsman
Office of the Ombudsman
P O Box 10-152
WELLINGTON
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request or this response, please contact
[email address].
Yours sincerely,
Geoff Scott
General Manager – Verification and Compliance
Immigration New Zealand
Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment