New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[salticrak]

what will you do?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Yep, I agree to disagree absolutely. Don't try and put a diaper/nappy on me or tell me if I am allowed to jeopardise my own safety or not etc etc. Those that choose to put themselves at risk to help others do it because they enjoy it, not because they are forced to. I was one of those for quite some time, only age tempers my ability to be so adventurous and capable of helping others in need.

Time to stop this rubbish that armchair PC correctness tries to force down our throats.

Try waxing your legs.. get a breast implant and wear a tight skirt...
Oh... breast and butt implants are a bonus...
Face it... there's chancers.. and there's morons.. sometimes its hard to differentiate.... I'm a chancer...
Tho' many on CF consider me a moron...

[hellosailor]

Being unable to find the NZ Immigration Act online, I'm baffled. I only see references that it defines powers for an immigration officer when someone is trying to enter NZ as an immigrant or refugee, and the OP seems to be trying to LEAVE not ENTER making it curious that "immigration" powers are being applied.

On the bright side, when a US citizen has had property confiscated and is being placed under formal notice for arrest, detention, or expulsion...that's usually time when the embassy can be forced to lend legal counsel and explain wtf is going on.

Forced, as in, if they say "Sorry, we can't help you" that's when you gently and diplomatically remind the diplomat "You know how this is going to reflect on you, when I lose my boat, get deported back to the States, write to my Congressman and go on the evening news? Would you like to reconsider that?"

[ternmarine]

Originally Posted by boat_alexandra

this is the official document

Are we correct in assuming from this document that your VISA to stay in NZ has expired?

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by ternmarine

Are we correct in assuming from this document that your VISA to stay in NZ has expired?

ROTFLMBO... and they call us 'Whinging Poms'...

[sctpc]

Originally Posted by ternmarine

Are we correct in assuming from this document that your VISA to stay in NZ has expired?

Would it matter?
A. The question should be was it expired when you first tried to leave.
B. The guys boat should have no influence on his visa. Should it?
And if the boats so unsafe why not do it 18 months ago when he arived.

[ternmarine]

Now we get to the crux of the problem.

The Op has been detained by Immigration because he has to leave the country as his visa has expired , not because his vessel is "unseaworthy".

At least they have given him the chance to confirm that his life , and the lives of others ( rescuers), is not being placed in danger by allowing him to depart from the port in his vessel.

NZ Immigration do not just take this sort of action the day , or even the week after a visitor's visa expires , it takes a lot longer than that.

How about we get given the full story instead of leading everyone on the forum to believe that you have been unlawfully , or illegally detained or halted by an Immigration officer for no other reason than he suspects that your vessel is unsafe?

27 pages later we finally get closer to real problem.

[ternmarine]

Originally Posted by sctpc

Would it matter?
A. The question should be was it expired when you first tried to leave.
B. The guys boat should have no influence on his visa. Should it?
And if the boats so unsafe why not do it 18 months ago when he arived.

copy of the section of the Act on his notice:

1. Rather than causing a person who is liable for arrest and detention to be arrested under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009 or making an application for a warrant of commitment under section 316 of the Immigration Act 2009, an immigration officer and the person liable for arrest and detention may agree that the person will do all or any of the following things:
2. reside at a specified place;
3. report to a specified place at specified periods or times in a specified manner;
4. provide a guarantor who is responsible for:
   • ensuring the person complies with any requirements agreed under this section; and
   • reporting any failure by the person to comply with those requirements;
5. if the person is a claimant, attend any required interview with a refugee and protection officer or hearing with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal (the Tribunal);
6. undertake any other action to facilitate the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.
7. A decision as to whether to offer or agree residence and reporting requirements is a matter for the absolute discretion of an immigration officer.
8. An immigration officer may at any time vary any residence or reporting requirements at the request or with the agreement of the person.
9. The agreement or variation of any residence or reporting requirements must be in writing and must:
10. list any requirements agreed under (a) or (c) above; and
11. include a warning that, if the person fails to comply with any agreed requirement, the person may be detained under section 312 of the Immigration Act 2009 or arrested and detained under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009.
12. An immigration officer may at any time, in the officer’s absolute discretion, decide to end any agreement made under (a) above.
13. A person may be detained under section 312 of the Immigration Act 2009 or arrested and detained under section 313 of the Immigration Act 2009:
14. if an immigration officer determines that the person, without reasonable excuse,
    • has failed to reside at the specified place; or
    • has failed to comply with other agreed requirements; or
15. if an immigration officer ends an agreement under (e) above; or
16. in order to execute a deportation order or place the person on the first available craft leaving New Zealand.
17. An agreement under this section lapses and the person ceases to be bound by it when the person leaves New Zealand or otherwise ceases to be liable to arrest and detention under Part 9 of the Immigration Act 2009.

[Steve Pope]

I would say that the writ is an attempt to justify what they are doing,Though it doesn't actually say what that is. If he has overstayed his visa they are at liberty to do that. If it is a ploy to pressure him to clean up his act / boat then that is another matter. If they want to find something wrong with his boat you can be sure that they will.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by Steve Pope

I would say that the writ is an attempt to justify what they are doing,Though it doesn't actually say what that is. If he has overstayed his visa they are at liberty to do that. If it is a ploy to pressure him to clean up his act / boat then that is another matter. If they want to find something wrong with his boat you can be sure that they will.

Spoken as a true USA citizen who's CG at the largest CG station in NC could/would not answer to a distress call 5 miles out off Beaufort Inlet... Go Hero's...

[NoTies]

It would have been nice to get the full facts from the OP. Now it sounds like he was playing the "my boat is a POS so I can't leave, even though my visa is long expired" card.

[Steve Pope]

As I read the writ there is no mention of overstaying his visa, but everything to do with getting his boat into a seaworthy state, I can only think he has pissed someone off in a big way, hence the heavy treatment using the immigration act as back up.

[NoTies]

From the form it appears he is essentially being booted out but given some slack to get his boat up to speed. People generally get booted out for breaking visa requirements, overstaying or committing crime.

[bobsadler]

"This is the hand written section of the document:

Requirements:

The above named is to reside at “Onboard his yacht “Alexandra” at Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua. Dependant on the result of a seaworthy survey to be carried out by Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua, Mr. D’Epagnier is to either: A) depart NZ within one week of passing the seaworthy inspection in his yacht “Alexandra” or B) remain in NZ for up to two weeks to rectify any repairs necessary to bring his yacht up to a seaworthy state or C) if his yacht is unlikely to obtain a seaworthy state without spending either one month to repair (or $1000) then Mr. D’Epagnier is to contact Kerry Sweetman from INZ to discuss his outward flight options (within one week of survey results). Please note: if repairs are needed to be done then Mr D’Epagnier must leave NZ within one week of completing those repairs and obtaining a seaworthy state for his yacht."

Given that D'Epagnier appears to have broken NZ's immigration laws I would suggest that his treatment by the NZ authorities is a model of reasonableness. Further I would suggest that if the tables were turned and D'Epagnier was a NZer in a similar situation in the USA then Homeland Security may not have been quite so obliging.

[boatman61]

Originally Posted by bobsadler

"This is the hand written section of the document:

Requirements:

The above named is to reside at “Onboard his yacht “Alexandra” at Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua. Dependant on the result of a seaworthy survey to be carried out by Ashby’s Boatyard, Opua, Mr. D’Epagnier is to either: A) depart NZ within one week of passing the seaworthy inspection in his yacht “Alexandra” or B) remain in NZ for up to two weeks to rectify any repairs necessary to bring his yacht up to a seaworthy state or C) if his yacht is unlikely to obtain a seaworthy state without spending either one month to repair (or $1000) then Mr. D’Epagnier is to contact Kerry Sweetman from INZ to discuss his outward flight options (within one week of survey results). Please note: if repairs are needed to be done then Mr D’Epagnier must leave NZ within one week of completing those repairs and obtaining a seaworthy state for his yacht."

Given that D'Epagnier appears to have broken NZ's immigration laws I would suggest that his treatment by the NZ authorities is a model of reasonableness. Further I would suggest that if the tables were turned and D'Epagnier was a NZer in a similar situation in the USA then Homeland Security may not have been quite so obliging.

And now we get closer to the truth of the matter... being a US person does not make you special... any more than anyone entering/leaving the states...
If your a US citizen.. you aint got a clue what we have to put op with.
Personally... this is gonna be my last visit here... its just not worth the insults... and if you say go fug yourself... that's fine..
I'll just sit n laugh my tits off when you guys get screwed by Schengin... coz you think your so clever...
If you want Allies... don't stick us... coz u can be damn sure when you ask for help we are gonna say.... FOA....