Delamere signs up 50 for lawsuit over removal of citizen children

Former Immigration Minister Tuariki Delamere says he will represent 50 Samoan parents with citizen children who claim to have been removed illegally from this country in a class action against the Government and Immigration New Zealand.

Mr Delamere, a licensed immigration consultant, has written to the Prime Minister and Immigration Minister asking them to fix the problem, but will file proceedings in the High Court if he does not get an "acceptable response".

Mr Delamere went to Samoa last month to advise former overstayers there that they may be able to appeal against their removal from NZ after a Supreme Court decision in July involving two Chinese overstayer parents with citizen children highlighted legal flaws in Immigration NZ's handling of the cases.

The court criticised immigration officials for their lack of consideration for how the children, who are New Zealand citizens, are affected when they or their overstayer parents are removed.

Children born in New Zealand before 2006 received automatic citizenship, and some have been removed from the country with their overstayer parents.

"What I will be fighting for are the rights of the citizen children to live in New Zealand, and the right to live with mum and dad," Mr Delamere said.

"The Supreme Court's decision is not a guarantee that those overstayers who have already been removed will be able to return to New Zealand. However, it may offer hope for their eventual return. It is the light in the tunnel."

Immigration NZ said that although the Supreme Court ruling meant decisions going back 15 years can be reviewed, the Immigration Act states that any decision has to be challenged within three months.

Immigration lawyer David Ryken dismissed as "rubbish" Mr Delamere's claim that all overstayers with citizen children could have their cases reopened based on the Supreme Court decision.

"The humanitarian test referred to requires exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make the removal unduly harsh or unjust," Mr Ryken said.

"Given the generosity of the most recent ministers and associate ministers, it is unlikely that there are many who truly had exceptional circumstances and who have been removed."