An Indian man who argued his 11 years in New Zealand had given him strong ties to the country will have to leave after the country's top tribunal has found seven of those years were spent trying to avoid or offset the consequences of his offending.

The man, whose identity is protected, arrived in New Zealand on a student visa in late 2015.

But since his arrest on money-laundering charges in 2019, he had spent more than half his time in the country defending criminal charges, serving a prison sentence and pursuing two unsuccessful claims for refugee and protected-person status, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal said in a recent judgment.

“While it is true that the appellant has lived in New Zealand for 11 years, he has spent the past seven years seeking to avoid or offset the impact of his offending upon his ability to remain here lawfully,” the judge ruled.

“In that context, his nexus to New Zealand is undermined.”

The tribunal declined his humanitarian appeal against deportation. It also refused to delay his deportation, grant him a further temporary visa or reduce the period during which he will be prohibited from returning.

$40,000 moved through his accounts

The man was born in the western Indian state of Gujarat and later moved with his family to Punjab in the north. He completed an undergraduate degree in India and worked for about two years before coming to New Zealand.

He completed a Level 7 diploma in computer-related studies in 2016, enrolled in another course and later obtained work at a fast-food restaurant. He was granted a series of temporary work visas.

In July 2019, an associate in India transferred approximately $40,000 into his New Zealand bank account. The money was then moved between accounts in irregular amounts before being paid in further irregular sums to unidentified people.

The man pleaded not guilty to three money-laundering charges but was convicted after a trial in 2020 and sentenced to 17 months in prison.

The trial judge rejected his explanation that he had trusted the associate, finding that the splitting and intermingling of the money would have made the suspicious nature of the transactions relatively obvious.

The judge found that the man had enabled the money to be concealed and disguised through the use of bank accounts and did not accept that he had received no payment for his role.

He became liable for deportation because of the convictions and was served with a deportation liability notice in December 2020.

The man also disclosed that he had been convicted of further offending in 2025 for driving under the influence of alcohol and driving while disqualified.

Two refugee claims rejected

The man made his first claim for refugee and protected-person status in early 2021. He claimed he would face harm in India from his father and from the associate involved in the money-laundering offending.

Although the tribunal accepted that parts of his account were credible, it found he did not face a real risk of serious future harm.

In May 2023, he asked the immigration minister to cancel his deportation liability and grant him residence. That request was declined.

He lodged a second refugee claim in 2024, again arguing that he faced harm from the associate.

The tribunal rejected that claim, finding his central account unreliable and saying he had shown himself willing to give untrue evidence when it suited his purposes.

It found no credible evidence that either he or his family in India had received threats since his first appeal was decided.

‘Overwhelming’ prospect of starting again

In his humanitarian appeal, the man said he had spent most of his adult life in New Zealand and that the prospect of starting again in India after 11 years was overwhelming.

He said he had about $30,000 in debt from legal expenses, credit obligations and other liabilities.

He would lose his job, career prospects, community connections and the life he had built in New Zealand, he argued.

His mother and unemployed sister lived together in rented accommodation in India, and he said he did not know how he would support himself or repay his debts after returning.

The tribunal accepted that he would have become accustomed to life in New Zealand and would experience disappointment and sadness at losing the opportunities available to him here.

But it said he had spent his first 22 years in India, where he was born, raised, educated and employed. His mother and sister also remained there and could provide moral and at least some short-term practical support.

Finding employment and accommodation would be among the ordinary difficulties facing an adult moving to a new place, it said.

Time here did not establish a stronger claim

The tribunal said the man had always held temporary immigration status and had never been guaranteed the right to remain permanently, even before his offending.

It found that the strength of his connection to New Zealand was “fundamentally tempered” by what had happened during most of his time here.

More than half of his 11 years had been spent defending charges that led to convictions and imprisonment, followed by two refugee claims – one declined and the other found to rely on evidence that was not credible.

The tribunal said his offending had interrupted his genuine engagement with the New Zealand community.

“He may have to contemplate the consequences of his choices and the impact that may have had on his inability to remain in New Zealand,” it said.

His circumstances were not sufficiently exceptional to make deportation unjust or unduly harsh. The appeal was declined.