Farhan is originally from Afghanistan. He was approved residence in New Zealand after being granted refugee status two years ago. Before leaving Afghanistan, he married Rahaf. After marriage, the couple lived together for six months before Farhan escaped to New Zealand, fearing for his life. Since Farhan came to New Zealand the couple have maintained their relationship, but have not lived together again. If Rahaf applies for residence under Partnership Category, immigration instructions require her to prove that she has lived in a genuine and stable relationship with Farhan for at least 12 months. If she applies for residence, could Immigration New Zealand approve her residence as an exception to instructions, considering she has not yet lived with Farhan for 12 months?

Question

BlackTom AI · Accepted Answer

Immigration instructions require 12 months’ cohabitation as the baseline evidence of a genuine and stable partnership for Partnership Category residence, and exceptions to that rule are tightly limited.

1. Relevant knowledge points and concepts
- Partnership residence normally requires demonstrable cohabitation for at least 12 months (or other specified proof such as an equivalent marital/civil union status where the rules allow).
- Exceptions to instruction requirements are unusual and reserved for clear, compelling reasons (e.g., serious humanitarian or protection grounds) — they are not a routine substitute for statutory or instruction-based evidence.
- “Maintaining a relationship” while separated (by distance) does not meet the cohabitation requirement unless the instructions explicitly allow alternative evidence in specific circumstances.

2. Step-by-step reasoning
- Timeline: Farhan and Rahaf married, lived together for 6 months, then Farhan fled to New Zealand. Since then they have not lived together again, though they have maintained the relationship.
- The instruction requires at least 12 months’ cohabitation; Rahaf only has 6 months of cohabitation with Farhan.
- Two years’ lapse since Farhan’s arrival does not create additional cohabitation time; physical cohabitation requirement remains unmet.
- An exception would require very strong, documented reasons meeting the narrow exception criteria. The scenario gives no such extraordinary grounds (for example, immediate life‑threatening risk to Rahaf if she remained or a legal impossibility that is recognized by instructions).

3. Calculations/intermediate steps
- Required cohabitation: 12 months
- Actual cohabitation: 6 months
- Shortfall: 12 − 6 = 6 months (i.e., Rahaf is 6 months short of the explicit instruction threshold)

4. Why the correct answer is correct
Because the instruction’s explicit 12‑month cohabitation requirement is not satisfied (only 6 months lived together) and no exceptional circumstances are provided that would meet the tightly defined grounds for an exception, Immigration New Zealand could not properly approve her residence as an exception to instructions.

5. Why the other option is incorrect
- Option a (Yes) is incorrect because simply being married and maintaining contact from overseas does not automatically waive the 12‑month cohabitation rule, and routine humanitarian considerations do not substitute for meeting the instruction unless they are exceptional and clearly documented.

Conclusion: Rahaf does not meet the 12‑month cohabitation requirement and there is no basis shown for an exceptional waiver; therefore the correct answer is b. No, matching the provided answer.

Similar Questions

Ismail is currently in New Zealand holding a student visa. He has applied for a further student visa to take a second course of study. You have assessed that Ismail qualifies for residence under Partnership Category. Can he apply for residence while holding a student visa?

Buta and Isha's son Hameed lives in New Zealand. You have assessed that Hameed is an eligible sponsor under the Parent Category, and Buta and Isha will meet all requirements to be approved residence under that category. Can they apply directly for residence?

Which specific Immigration Instruction states that a practical step toward achieving fairness and natural justice is to distinguish fact from rumour, opinion, allegation or assumption? (1 mark)

Which statement is correct about the definition of potentially prejudicial information for applicants outside of New Zealand? (1 mark)

More Practical Tools for Students Powered by AI Study Helper

Homework AI Solver

Stylized AI Paper Writer

Plagiarism Checker Assistant

Citation AI Academic Writing Tool

In-Class Translation Assistant

AI Note Generator

AI Quiz Answers

Past Exam Questions from University Test Bank

Smart Practice Assistant

Adaptive Practice

Making Your Study Simpler