A man brought to New Zealand when he was six has won residence after spending almost 20 continuous years without a visa, with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal finding this country is “for all intents and purposes” his own.

The 31-year-old Tuvaluan, whose identity is suppressed, arrived with his parents and siblings in May 2001. The family had come to join his maternal grandparents after his grandfather’s health deteriorated.

He initially held a series of visitor visas, interspersed with brief periods of unlawful status. But from June 2004, when he was nine, until January 2024, when he was 29, he did not hold a visa.

The prolonged lack of legal status affected almost every part of his life. He attended several primary schools but was denied entry to high school because he was unlawfully in the country, bringing his formal education to an end at 13.

He later found casual work where he could and has more recently worked in construction. The tribunal said his ability to gain qualifications, develop skills and contribute more broadly had been hindered by his immigration status.

The man was granted a work visa as an exception to normal immigration instructions in January 2024, and another one in March 2025. When the second visa expired in September last year, he again became unlawfully present and liable for deportation.

He appealed on humanitarian grounds the following month. The tribunal has now ordered that he be granted a resident visa, finding deportation would be unjust or unduly harsh and that allowing him to remain would not be contrary to the public interest.

The man has lived in New Zealand for 25 years and has not returned to Tuvalu since leaving at six. His wife and three children are New Zealand citizens, while his parents and all four siblings are either citizens or permanent residents.

He was the only member of his immediate and wider family without the lawful ability to remain in New Zealand indefinitely.

His children were aged 10, five and nine months when the Tribunal considered the case. His five-year-old son has learning and developmental difficulties and requires significant support.

The tribunal found the children’s interests lay in remaining in their settled New Zealand home with both parents and their extended family. Deporting their father alone would deprive the children of him and leave their mother caring for three young children, including a baby and a son with additional needs.

Moving the entire family to Tuvalu would expose them to an unfamiliar environment, likely poverty and separation from their education, grandparents and wider support network, it said.

The tribunal said the man could not be blamed for the years he spent unlawfully in New Zealand while he was a dependent child.

It also recognised that growing up without secure status had shaped his later life and likely contributed to his difficulties maintaining lawful status as an adult.

“The appellant cannot be held responsible for the years of unlawfulness when he was still a dependent child of his parents,” the decision said.

“The Tribunal is additionally cognisant that this extended unlawful start to his life in New Zealand has, understandably, defined his continued experience.”

The immigration minister had intervened on four occasions since 2002 to give the man temporary visas as an exception.

His parents, older sister and younger brother had separately won residence through successful humanitarian appeals before the tribunal in 2024 and 2025.

The tribunal said the man would effectively have to establish himself from scratch if sent to Tuvalu. He had no close or reliable support there, little understanding of life in the country and would probably struggle to find work.

His experience of Tuvalu was limited to his first six years, while his formative years and almost his entire life had been spent in New Zealand.

“By all accounts, New Zealand is the appellant’s only home,” it said.

The decision was not uncomplicated. The man had convictions for two drink-driving offences, unlawfully carrying a firearm, possessing cannabis, driving while disqualified and providing false details.

The Tribunal said the alcohol and firearm offending in particular posed a serious risk to public safety and counted against allowing him to remain.

However, the offending occurred between five and 11 years ago, when he was aged between 20 and 25. He had paid his fines, expressed remorse, changed his social circle and had not offended since the birth of his second child.

The tribunal assessed his risk of reoffending as relatively low and found it did not outweigh his connection to New Zealand, the interests of his children and the wider humanitarian considerations.

It said residence would give him and his family the stability and certainty they had lacked, while enabling him to work lawfully and provide more fully for his children.