Photo: 123RF
A man who overstayed his visa in the 1990s went on to pay taxes and register with several government agencies without being discovered.
The Ghanaian man, who unsuccessfully applied for asylum in 1993, only became liable for deportation after putting forward a new refugee claim two years ago.
The immigration and protection tribunal rejected the second claim.
But it said the 54-year-old would now find it hard to resettle in Ghana and to get medication he needed for a stroke. As a result, he has been granted permission to stay.
His lawyer told the tribunal he had a "genuine dread" of returning, and stayed here in part to support himself, and his four children living in Ghana.
"He has never tried to hide his presence from the New Zealand authorities or avoid his other social responsibilities," the tribunal was told.
"He has paid tax to the Inland Revenue Department and has had interactions with agencies such as the Land Transport Authority and New Zealand Qualifications Authority so as to qualify as a taxi driver and be granted the required operation license.
"The appellant has now lived in New Zealand for 30 years without ever departing. On an emotional, social and practical level, New Zealand is his home."
The tribunal agreed and said, while obstacles to resettling in Ghana were not insurmountable, he would lack social networks and could find it hard to access medication for a stroke he suffered in 2005.
The "perilous" state of the economy could make imported medications more expensive and prevent him finding work.
"He has worked here in both employed positions and self-employment and has lived a quiet life, with a small social network of friends and neighbours. The appellant wishes to remain in New Zealand because it is his home, and he believes his health and safety would be jeopardised if he returned to Ghana," the tribunal said.
"There is also a public interest concern in having individuals who do not have entitlement to remain in New Zealand leave in a timely manner. However, the tribunal also observes that he has had dealings with many government agencies in that time, and no effort was ever made to enforce his departure. It seems [he] has never tried to hide his presence here or otherwise deceive the authorities."
He had contributed through work and taxes, it ruled.
"He has not been a significant draw on New Zealand's public purse and he has not, beyond choosing to stay here with no immigration status, acted wrongfully.
"As noted above, the potential consequences of his deportation from New Zealand include the risk of a further stroke (which in turn would imperil his ability to work and provide for himself), a lack of social connection and the emotional distress involved in leaving the country which he now considers to be home."
