By last July, 162 claims were identified as being part of the group – 122 of them from Indonesian nationals, a marked increase from previous years.
The applicants were people already in New Zealand on temporary visas.
Their claims raised concern because they all bore striking similarities to one another including:
• They all feared harm from moneylenders or from involvement in pyramid schemes;
• Their claim forms were completed in a similar manner;
• They all lived in the same city and region in New Zealand which was withheld by a tribunal;
• And they shared the same legal representative.
MBIE said organised schemes of this size and nature, designed to exploit the refugee and protection system, were relatively uncommon in New Zealand.
Small schemes involving low numbers of claims had been detected more frequently. Larger schemes in recent years had involved Chinese and Indian nationals.
MBIE said claimants suspected of being part of the Indonesian/Malaysian scheme were informed about the concern and told their claims might not be successful.
As a result, a significant number of claims were withdrawn.
As of February, 107 of the group of claims had been determined by the RSU – 60 were unsuccessful, 45 were withdrawn, and two Malaysian claimants were unsuccessful on other grounds.
Of the 60 unsuccessful claims, 26 claimants did not appear at the RSU interview.
All but a handful of the overall group's claims had now been resolved.
If claims were withdrawn before a determination, the claimant might be able to pursue other immigration pathways depending on their personal circumstances, MBIE said.
If a claim was declined after appeal, the claimant was expected to leave New Zealand.
An Indonesian woman, in her 40s, who recently appealed her claim was believed to have been part of the scheme due to similarities between hers and other claims.
She lived for seven months at the same address as two other applicants and similarly claimed she was at risk of persecution from moneylenders if she returned to Indonesia, having run up debt while operating a food stall.
But the Immigration and Protection Tribunal, which hears appeals, found the woman's claim was not credible and a photograph she produced allegedly showing moneylenders approaching her mother at the stall, was likely staged to support the application.
The tribunal did not dispute problems with moneylenders that existed in Indonesia but entirely rejected the woman's claim, finding her evidence was inconsistent, vague, and implausible.
The Indonesian woman's counsel accused the RSU of taking a common perspective on the claims, which encouraged predetermined decision-making that was dangerously "flawed".
But an RSU officer who gave evidence rejected it, saying claims were decided on their merits. She pointed to the two successful claims among the larger group.
An individual claimant involved in such a scheme could still have a valid refugee and protection claim for reasons unrelated to the scheme, MBIE said.
