Deportation Liability in New Zealand: How the 2025 Act and 2026 Amendment Bill are reshaping immigration risk
Faith Siaw
Deportation Liability in New Zealand: How the 2025 Act and 2026 Amendment Bill are reshaping immigration risk
New Zealand's deportation framework is undergoing its most significant reform since the Immigration Act 2009 came into force. The Immigration (Fiscal Sustainability and System Integrity) Amendment Act 2025 (2025 Amendment Act) and the Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill 2026 (2026 Bill), introduced on 18 March 2026, are reshaping how deportation liability is assessed and enforced. Together, they represent a clear shift toward stricter enforcement and reduced scope for discretionary relief.
At its core, this reform is framed around accountability, but the mechanisms through which that accountability is enforced are changing in ways that carry far-reaching consequences for non-citizens.
From Conviction to Conduct: The 2025 Amendment Act
The most pivotal change arrived with the 2025 Act, which took partial effect on 27 May 2026. Previously, deportation liability for residence class visa holders under section 161 of the Act required a formal conviction. Under the amendment, liability now also arises where a person has been "found guilty" or has "pleaded guilty" — even if the court subsequently grants a discharge without conviction.
This represents a material legal shift. Deportation liability can now arise earlier in the criminal process, at the point of a guilt determination or guilty plea, rather than at sentencing. Strategies that previously focused on avoiding a recorded conviction no longer provide the same protection in the immigration context.
"A discharge without conviction no longer shields a person from deportation liability. The focus has shifted from the technical outcome of criminal proceedings to the conduct that gave rise to them."
This change also responds to issues highlighted by the Supreme Court in Bolea v R [2024] NZSC 46. In that case, sentencing judges were required to consider immigration consequences when deciding whether to grant a discharge without conviction, which created practical tensions: similar offending could produce divergent outcomes depending on a person’s immigration status, raising issues of consistency and fairness. The 2025 Act removes that asymmetry: a discharge without conviction no longer shields a person from deportation liability.
The 2026 Bill: Expanding Deportation Exposure
The Immigration (Enhanced Risk Management) Amendment Bill proposes a further expansion of deportation liability.
Extending Deportation Timeframes
Under the current law, section 161 contains time-based thresholds that determine the window within which a residence class visa holder may become liable for deportation following criminal offending. The 2026 Bill proposes extending each of those thresholds:
| Offending Threshold | Current Period | Proposed Period |
| Offence punishable by 3+ months imprisonment | 2 years | 5 years |
| Offence punishable by 2+ years imprisonment | 5 years | 10 years |
| Sentence of 5+ years imprisonment | 10 years | 15 years |
| Certain serious offences (ss 350(1), 351, 351A) | 10 years | 20 years |
If enacted, these changes will substantially increase the period during which residence class visa holders remain exposed to deportation liability following an offence.
For many long-term residents, a reasonable working assumption has been that immigration risk gradually diminishes with time, that the longer a person has lived lawfully in New Zealand, the further they move from the reach of deportation. Under the extended timeframes, past conduct can carry immigration consequences well beyond the point at which many individuals would have considered themselves settled and secure.
Restricting Humanitarian Appeal Rights
The Bill also proposes restricting access to humanitarian appeals at the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) for certain temporary visa holders.
Under the current framework, many individuals facing deportation can appeal to the IPT on humanitarian grounds, allowing personal circumstances, family connections, and hardship factors to be weighed against the case for removal.
The Bill proposes removing access to humanitarian appeals for all visitor visa holders and for temporary visa holders, including work and student visa holders, whose deportation liability arises from criminal offending (that is, where the person has been convicted, found guilty, or has pleaded guilty).
What this means in practice
Taken together, these legislative developments reflect a government responding to identified operational gaps. What legislation cannot do is guarantee better outcomes in every individual case. As enforcement tightens and the space for discretion narrows, the margin within which individual circumstances can be considered reduces.
For advisers across all practice areas, these developments reinforce the importance of early, joined-up advice at the intersection of criminal law and immigration law, not only when problems arise, but as part of proactive planning for any client with immigration status in New Zealand.
With broader liability and stronger enforcement tools, understanding and managing immigration risk early can make a material difference to outcomes.
"Understanding and managing immigration risk early — before proceedings are commenced, before a plea is entered — can make a material difference to outcomes."
