22 April 2026
Vivian
[FYI request #34214 email]
DOIA-REQ-0029975
Tēnā koe Vivian
Thank you for your email of 23 March 2026 to the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment
requesting, under the Official Information Act 1982 (the Act), the following:
The Minister stated in public information released this month that the number of backlogged
asylum claim cases has already reached a historical peak. Therefore, please disclose the
following information:
1. Has the proposal made public in 2024 to increase staffing by 52 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) in
order to address the backlog of asylum claim cases still not been fully implemented as of now?
2. We note that, in the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting incident in Sydney, Australia, one person
risked his life to stop the gunman and was widely regarded as having helped save many lives;
there were also reports showing that persons with a refugee background also risked their lives
theto save people at the scene. Please disclose whether, when formulating this current policy
relating to asylum claim cases, refugee determination, or related policies, the New Zealand
government referred to cases in other Refugee Convention countries where asylum claimants or
persons already granted protection made positive contributions to society, as a reference factor
for policy judgment, risk assessment, or institutional design.
3. Does the government currently still have no further plan to increase staffing related to asylum
claim cases?
4. In light of the Minister’s public statements this month and the government’s future plans to
respond to the backlog of asylum claim cases, please disclose whether the government has
referred to the practices of other Refugee Convention countries in examining asylum claim cases.
5. Please disclose whether the government has comprehensively examined the causes of the
backlog of asylum claim cases reaching a historical peak, especially including the following
aspects:
(a) whether it is related to internal staff shortages;
(b) whether it is related to the excessive length of time taken by officers to examine each
individual case;
(c) whether it is related to the approval process for most asylum claim cases being excessively
stringent (with reference to the practices of other Refugee Convention countries for comparison).
6. In light of the Minister’s public statements this month and the government’s future plans to
respond to the backlog of asylum claim cases, the relevant approach appears to attribute most
of the responsibility and consequences for the backlog of asylum claim cases reaching a historical
peak to the asylum claimants themselves. Please disclose whether, when forming the above
policy, position, or plan, the government ever relied on data, research, risk assessments, legal
advice, or human rights impact assessments to analyse whether such an approach could cause
harm to persons who genuinely need international protection; and whether it ever assessed
whether such an approach could increase the possibility that some persons may be wrongly
refused, removed, or placed in situations where they may face torture, persecution, or other
serious harm.
If the government has conducted the above examinations, comparisons, or assessments, please
disclose the relevant documents, reports, opinions, briefings, analyses, or recommendations.
On 23 March 2026, you further wrote:
Further to point 2 of my original request, I would like to add the following clarification: the “cases
where asylum claimants or persons already granted protection made positive contributions to
society” referred to in point 2 also include domestic New Zealand cases.
We note that, according to public reporting, during the Christchurch mosque attack in New
Zealand, Abdul Aziz Wahabzadah, who has been reported as having a refugee background,
risked his life to confront the gunman and prevented him from re-entering the mosque to
continue harming people, and was therefore widely regarded as having saved many lives.
Please also clarify whether, when formulating the current policy relating to asylum claim cases,
refugee status determination, or related policies, the New Zealand government considered cases
of this kind — namely, cases in which persons with an asylum seeker, refugee, or protected
background made major positive contributions — as a reference factor in policy judgment, risk
assessment, or institutional design.
This clarification is intended only as an explanation and example under point 2 of the original
request, rather than a new request.
Our Response
Question 1
Has the proposal made public in 2024 to increase staffing by 52 Full-Time Equivalents (FTE) in order to
address the backlog of asylum claim cases still not been fully implemented as of now?
Recruitment to fill the additional 52 Full Time Equivalents (FTE) positions announced in 2024 occurred
throughout the 2024/2025 financial year. The Refugee Status Unit received 23 of the announced
positions (16 Refugee and Protection Officers (RPO), two Technical Advisors, two Managers, one
Business Advisor, one Interpreter Coordinator and one Support Officer). The remaining FTE positions
were shared between related parts of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment such as the
Privacy and Country Research and Open Source (CROS) teams and Work Visa Asylum (WVA) processing.
Question 2
We note that, in the 2025 Bondi Beach shooting incident in Sydney, Australia, one person risked his life
to stop the gunman and was widely regarded as having helped save many lives; there were also reports
showing that persons with a refugee background also risked their lives to save people at the scene. Please
disclose whether, when formulating this current policy relating to asylum claim cases, refugee
determination, or related policies, the New Zealand government referred to cases in other Refugee
Convention countries where asylum claimants or persons already granted protection made positive
contributions to society, as a reference factor for policy judgment, risk assessment, or institutional
design.
We are refusing this part of your request under section 18(e) of the Act as the document alleged to
contain the information requested does not exist or, despite reasonable efforts to locate it, cannot be
found. I do not consider that consulting with you would allow your request to be fulfilled.
With regard to refugee and protection status determinations, RPO’s assess each claim on its individual
merits. In making this decision, the RPO considers all information provided, alongside any other relevant
information available about the claim and the claimant’s country of origin. The assessment focuses on
whether the claimant’s statements are truthful and credible, and whether the claim meets the criteria
set out in Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention or qualifies for protected person status.
Question 3
Does the government currently still have no further plan to increase staffing related to asylum claim
cases?
The government does not have any plans at the current time to further increase the FTE involved in the
refugee status determination system.
Question 4
In light of the Minister’s public statements this month and the government’s future plans to respond to
the backlog of asylum claim cases, please disclose whether the government has referred to the practices
of other Refugee Convention countries in examining asylum claim cases.
Comparison with the practices of similar asylum receiving countries is a standard consideration when
reviewing New Zealand’s practices.
Question 5
Please disclose whether the government has comprehensively examined the causes of the backlog of
asylum claim cases reaching a historical peak, especially including the following aspects:
(a) whether it is related to internal staff shortages;
(b) whether it is related to the excessive length of time taken by officers to examine each individual case;
(c) whether it is related to the approval process for most asylum claim cases being excessively stringent
(with reference to the practices of other Refugee Convention countries for comparison).
Available information indicates that the increase in asylum claims is largely associated with the
reopening of New Zealand’s borders following the COVID-19 pandemic. This pattern aligns with
international experience, with OECD countries recording historically high levels of asylum applications
in the post-pandemic period.
In responding to the increase, officials considered all relevant operational factors, including staffing
capacity and processing timeframes, and took steps to increase resourcing and streamline processes.
The rigour of refugee and protection status determination was not identified as a contributing factor.
New Zealand’s decision-making framework remains consistent with practices in comparable Refugee
Convention countries, and approval rates have declined during this period. Comparative international
legal and operational settings are routinely considered when responding to changes in asylum demand.
Question 6
In light of the Minister’s public statements this month and the government’s future plans to respond to
the backlog of asylum claim cases, the relevant approach appears to attribute most of the responsibility
and consequences for the backlog of asylum claim cases reaching a historical peak to the asylum
claimants themselves. Please disclose whether, when forming the above policy, position, or plan, the
government ever relied on data, research, risk assessments, legal advice, or human rights impact
assessments to analyse whether such an approach could cause harm to persons who genuinely need
international protection; and whether it ever assessed whether such an approach could increase the
possibility that some persons may be wrongly refused, removed, or placed in situations where they may
face torture, persecution, or other serious harm. If the government has conducted the above
examinations, comparisons, or assessments, please disclose the relevant documents, reports, opinions,
briefings, analyses, or recommendations. Asylum seekers are individuals who fear persecution in their home country and seek protection in New
Zealand through the asylum system. Their claims for protection are assessed by Immigration New Zealand
(INZ) in the first instance. Claimants who do not meet the legal threshold for refugee status, but do have a
genuine need of international protection, may be granted protected person status. Successful claimants
are recognised as refugees or protected people and can apply for residence, which entitles them to the
same rights to education, healthcare and social services as citizens. Both refugees and protected people
can apply for residence, with the exception of protected people who have been excluded from the
Convention, in which case the Minister of Immigration must determine their immigration status
New Zealand’s international human rights obligations
New Zealand has obligations under various international instruments (the 1951 Convention Relating to the
Status of Refugees (the Convention) and its 1967 Protocol, the Convention Against Torture and Articles 6
and 7 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights) which are incorporated into the
Immigration Act 2009. These obligations prevent New Zealand from expelling or returning a refugee or
asylum seeker to any place where their life or freedom would be threatened on account of race, religion,
nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. They also prevent returning a
person to a place where they would be in danger of torture. New Zealand must consider and determine all
onshore refugee and protection claims in a manner that complies with our international obligations.
Data and evidence
New Zealand continues to experience large numbers of asylum claims and significant backlogs in
determinations, consistent with global trends. Since the border reopening in 2022, asylum claims have
increased significantly:
• As at 31 January 2026, there were 4,001 undecided claims, with 2,269 claims received in the
2024/25 year.
• Approval rates remain low, at 23.3 per cent for 2024/25 and 25.5 per cent for 2025/26 year to date
as at 31 January 2026.
• The IPT received a 60 per cent increase in refugee and protection appeals in 2024/25. It noted in
its 2024/25 Annual Report that its workload was impacted by the Refugee Status Unit (RSU)
increase in capacity and decision-making output and earlier immigration policy decisions which
changed temporary visa settings.
In forming the advice, officials consulted with:
• Agencies: Ministry of Justice (Human Rights team and the Services and Tribunals team), and the
Ministry of Foreign Affairs and Trade.
• International: counterparts in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada and the United Nations
High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR).
• Civil society: members of the immigration refugee bar (including representatives from the law
society and the law association).
Expected outcomes for genuine asylum seekers
The proposed amendments have been informed by the data, consultation with both refugee and human
rights law specialists and legal representatives. They balance upholding international obligations and
ensuring that those who genuinely need international protection receive it (and in a timely manner).
Please refer to the attached appendix that includes Annex Five of the briefing “Protecting the protection
system - additional asylum proposals to include in the lmmigration (Enhanced Risk Management)
Amendment Bill” that includes international comparisons of asylum settings.
Please note that some information has been withheld from the above document under the following
sections of the Act:
• 6(a) as its release would be likely to prejudice the security or defence of New Zealand; and
• 9(2)(f)(iv) to protect the confidentiality of advice tendered by Ministers and officials. I do not
consider that the withholding of this information is outweighed by public interest considerations in
making the information available.
You have the right to seek an investigation and review by the Ombudsman of this decision. Information
about how to make a complaint is available at
www.ombudsman.parliament.nz or freephone 0800 802
602.
If you wish to discuss any aspect of your request or this response, please contac
t [email address].
Nāku noa, nā
Fiona Whiteridge
General Manager Refugee and Migrant Services
Immigration New Zealand
Ministry of Business, Innovation & Employment
