New Zealand Immigration Officer Making Wild Claims

[scoobert]

the good news is he can replace his boat for $5000
For Sale: Catalina 27- $5000 - Cruisers & Sailing Forums
not really a big loss.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

What he does have, is the right to detain the OP and deport him. Nothing more.

Section 315/1/e:
Rather than causing a person who is liable for arrest and detention to be arrested under section 313, or making an application for a warrant of commitment under section 316, 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:

(e)undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

In other words the immigration officer can tell the guy to do anything the immigration officer thinks will expedite their departure from New Zealand. In this case getting his boat inspected for seaworthiness.

If the OP declines to do this, the immigration officer cannot force him to (that section is by mutual agreement between the OP and immigration officer).
However, the immigration officer is within his rights to jail and deport the OP by any convenient means (air ticket to the US). If he is less than 12 months overstaying that's a 2 year ban from New Zealand (section 179) and may not re-enter until the costs of deportation has been repaid (section 180).

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by ternmarine

Bristol27.com » Hull # – Alexandra

Those pics certainly show a disgusting pig-sty of a boat and the rigging also looks like it won't stand up to severe weather. If NZ authorities want to do this right all they have to do is get the right official acting on the authority of a specific law that empowers them to detain the boat. I sense they have not made provision in law for pleasure craft such as this. Maybe time to do so but until such time as they do they don't have a legal foot to stand on.

[Intuitive]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

All not a problem, except for the highlighted para a) No person with the correct authority under any law has made a determination in accordance with a law and therefore there is a craft available to take him out of the country (his own sailing vessel).

... which continues to conveniently overlook the fact that the vessel has to be safety certified regardless before being permitted to leave NZ - and legally that has to happen prior to expiry of the thread initiator's visa.

Ultimately this is the thread initiator's problem - he's failed (for whatever reason or reasons) to (1) manage his time in NZ and (2) his ability to leave NZ within the terms and period of the visa granted him.

It is the individual's responsibility to inform themselves of the legal and other requirements of the jurisdiction they reside in, whether in their homeland, or countries they may visit - by sail - or any other means. And yes, in the case of NZ that includes operating and maintaining one's vessel such that it can be certified safe to depart again - within the period of the visa.

Overstaying one's visa leaves one open to deportation. That is not rocket science - ever, anywhere. Attempting to leave NZ in a sub-standard vessel leaves it open to being detained until any defects are made sound. That is the regulation in NZ irrespective of whether it's practised elsewhere or not.

In this case, both deportation and detention of the vessel may yet occur necessitating the thread initiator arranging the repair of his craft from outside NZ and for it to be delivered to him by a third party owing to his inability to return to NZ for 2 years owing to deportation. And this is why I think the Immigration officer is being more than fair - certainly compared to the way other countries would deal with this. Others have cited detention centres and immediate expulsion.

I've just seen the pictures of the boat. It's clear there are a number of things very obviously needing doing - quite aside from whatever else might need attending to - and it's equally clear that in spite of the lengthy overstay the initiator has done little or nothing to maintain the vessel nor show any respect for the visa process and their obligations under that process. We all know how governments the world over deal with those who simply don't try to meet their obligations, let alone achieve them.

I understand different countries have different regulations and some of NZ's may seem alien to visitors in particular, but that doesn't change the fact they can and will administer their borders and the safety of both people (residents and visitors alike) and the environment in the way they deem appropriate. What I would ask is where's the surprise in that?

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by pdf27

Section 315/1/e:
Rather than causing a person who is liable for arrest and detention to be arrested under section 313, or making an application for a warrant of commitment under section 316, 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:

(e)undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

In other words the immigration officer can tell the guy to do anything the immigration officer thinks will expedite their departure from New Zealand. In this case getting his boat inspected for seaworthiness.

If the OP declines to do this, the immigration officer cannot force him to (that section is by mutual agreement between the OP and immigration officer).
However, the immigration officer is within his rights to jail and deport the OP by any convenient means (air ticket to the US). If he is less than 12 months overstaying that's a 2 year ban from New Zealand (section 179) and may not re-enter until the costs of deportation has been repaid (section 180).

Unfortunately, the operative wording there is "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:


(e)undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

If the OP does not agree then immigration don't have the right to detain his boat. They still then only have the right to either let him leave with the boat and if he does not do that, they can detain him (not his boat), and have a Judge issue an order to deport him. Once again, I repeat, a good attorney will put a case forward to a jusge saying that his client wishes to leave but is being prevented illegally by Immigration themselves by detaining his boat. Nothing in what you have listed changes the fact that immigration have no rights to detain his boat and demand that he have a seaworthiness suryey.

[Bluewaters2812]

[QUOTE=Intuitive;1276947]... which continues to conveniently overlook the fact that the vessel has to be safety certified regardless before being permitted to leave NZ

That is for commercial vessels. I have not seen anything to that effect relating to pleasure craft? Have you?

[Wand]

I've just come to this thread and what a hilarious thread it is. Some joker complains that he is being refused an exit visa from NZ. In a flash, all the 'no nanny state' ranters (usually the ones with their hands out) come out of the woodwork, shouting that it's illegal to detain a US citizen (how bluddy dare they!) and declare that they'll go see their congressman to knock some heads together, while others of that ilk cross NZ off their list and vow never to set foot in such a terrible place.

Of course, there's more to the story. Turns out that the joker is somewhat less than truthful (has overstayed his visa by a long, long way), admits to having acted unlawfully with respect to wi-fi access, and altogether has sponged on NZ's 'nanny state' provisions for a large part of his stay.

Then the authorities move on his deportation in an entirely reasonable way. They could put him on the first plane out; in doing this, the fact that his $200 boat would remain in the country is properly something of no concern to them at all. That's the way visa overstayers are treated in every country when they are located - first plane out. But no, they are giving him a chance to get his boat in order so that he can sail out. It's an magnanimous offer any fair reading of this case suggests that he doesn't deserve.

Yet there remains at least one poster who still seeks to defend his countryman, with the line of argument that the furnishing of this option is unlawful. And he takes this line despite the efforts of those who have posted the detail that provides clear refutation of his line. Can't read maybe?

As I said - hilarious...

[pdf27]

He's been in New Zealand since at least January 2012.

As a US citizen, he is entitled to a 3 month visa waiver on entry. If he actually applied for a visitor visa, that entitles him to a maximum of 9 months in the country, which may be extended by another 3 months in exceptional circumstances. So he has overstayed his visa by at least 6 months and probably 15 months. In the latter case he's liable to a 5 year ban.

[pdf27]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

If the OP does not agree then immigration don't have the right to detain his boat. They still then only have the right to either let him leave with the boat and if he does not do that, they can detain him (not his boat), and have a Judge issue an order to deport him. Once again, I repeat, a good attorney will put a case forward to a jusge saying that his client wishes to leave but is being prevented illegally by Immigration themselves by detaining his boat. Nothing in what you have listed changes the fact that immigration have no rights to detain his boat and demand that he have a seaworthiness suryey.

If he's overstayed by 15 months (as seems plausible) and it's winter with a plausibly unseaworthy boat, the immigration lot will probably assume he isn't going to leave but just move down the coast a bit and stay illegally longer.
So in the circumstances I don't think he has any automatic right to leave on his boat - the NZ authorities are entitled to deport him at their convenience...

[atoll]

Originally Posted by Bluewaters2812

Unfortunately, the operative wording there is "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:


(e)undertake any other action for the purpose of facilitating the person’s deportation or departure from New Zealand.

If the OP does not agree then immigration don't have the right to detain his boat. They still then only have the right to either let him leave with the boat and if he does not do that, they can detain him (not his boat), and have a Judge issue an order to deport him. Once again, I repeat, a good attorney will put a case forward to a jusge saying that his client wishes to leave but is being prevented illegally by Immigration themselves by detaining his boat. Nothing in what you have listed changes the fact that immigration have no rights to detain his boat and demand that he have a seaworthiness suryey.

the op's best bet,if he wants to keep his boat is to get an air ticket out the country,volantarily,make his peace with immigration,put his boat in bond if nessacary,go home get a job ,save some money,then come back when he has the funds to do so,he will no doubt be able to get a further 12 months stay when he returns,in which time he can fix his boat to an acceptable standard of seaworthyness.

failing to do this he will get thrown out,with his boat on the hard,if he fails to pay storage fee's the yard will be in their right to auction the boat off.
plus he will probably be banned from returning to nz.,

[Viking Sailor]

Originally Posted by Intuitive

Actually no. Being hostaged in jail (as you put it) - or rather risking it - was in this instance due to the individual in question overstaying his visa as I understand it. I think you'll find that's standard practise pretty much anywhere.

The vessel not being allowed to leave NZ for international waters prior to being declared safe is administered by Maritime NZ Safety Inspectors under an act of parliament.

The relevant act has aready been posted... but there's an outline of the process here should you care;

Maritime safety inspectors - Maritime New Zealand

Maritime safety inspectors (MSIs) inspect all international and New Zealand vessels for safety and seaworthiness. They attend the scene of any maritime accidents or incidents in New Zealand waters and also provide advice to the public.


Maritime safety inspectors are based at all of the major ports around New Zealand. They are on-hand to help with information and advice for example about: marine laws, vessel registration, safety matters and occasionally even arbitrating between disgruntled boaties .

All Maritime safety inspectors are practical seafarers; having served at sea in senior positions, either in the engine room or on deck.


Ship safety inspections are a pivotal part of the work that Maritime safety inspectors do. They check for anything that could endanger the lives of a ship’s crew or which could put the marine environment at risk. This includes checking:

• for unacceptable deterioration of the ship's structure
• the qualifications of officers and crew
• that operating practices are being followed, such as the maintenance of lifesaving and firefighting equipment.

If a vessel fails to meet safety standards, the Maritime safety inspectors have the power to detain the vessel in port until repairs are made to make it seaworthy.

In case anyone cares the overriding authority for the above is the Law of the Sea treaty to which New Zealand is a signatory. The relevant definitions are --

The law set the limit of various areas, measured from a carefully defined baseline. (Normally, a sea baseline follows the low-water line, but when the coastline is deeply indented, has fringing islands or is highly unstable, straight baselines may be used.) The areas are as follows:

Internal waters
Covers all water and waterways on the landward side of the baseline. The coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Foreign vessels have no right of passage within internal waters.

Territorial waters
Out to 12 nautical miles (22 kilometres; 14 miles) from the baseline, the coastal state is free to set laws, regulate use, and use any resource. Vessels were given the right of innocent passage through any territorial waters, with strategic straits allowing the passage of military craft as transit passage, in that naval vessels are allowed to maintain postures that would be illegal in territorial waters. "Innocent passage" is defined by the law as passing through waters in an expeditious and continuous manner, which is not "prejudicial to the peace, good order or the security" of the coastal state. Fishing, polluting, weapons practice, and spying are not "innocent", and submarines and other underwater vehicles are required to navigate on the surface and to show their flag. Nations can also temporarily suspend innocent passage in specific areas of their territorial seas, if doing so is essential for the protection of its security.

[Bluewaters2812]

Originally Posted by pdf27

If he's overstayed by 15 months (as seems plausible) and it's winter with a plausibly unseaworthy boat, the immigration lot will probably assume he isn't going to leave but just move down the coast a bit and stay illegally longer.
So in the circumstances I don't think he has any automatic right to leave on his boat - the NZ authorities are entitled to deport him at their convenience...

Like I said, it isn't rocket science. Give him his boat and tell him to get out of there. If he doesn't they have full powers to detain him and have a judge issue an order to deport him.

Speculation that he might just move down the coast on your part. Even if he did, they can then detain him because he didn't take the opportunity to leave. Nothing changes the law. Immigration are NOT legally entitled to detain his boat or force him to have a survey done, full stop. It seems this is too difficult for some to understand so I'm out of here.

Anyone supporting officialdom that oversteps their powers and/or authority needs to sit back and get the grey matter working.

[valhalla360]

All the folks defending this fools right to be an idiot and endanger to himself and others don't seem to realize, he is the exact type of example, they will point to when the polititians implement more rules and regualtions on cruisers.

[Boatguy30]

Based on this thread there is no way this guy would have satisified the INZ requirements for an extended tourist Visa. Which requires the evidence of at least a decent amount of funds in a bank account.

As an American and NZ resident, I fully support not allowing unfit vessels to sail into harms way and deporting law breakers.

[Factor]

Originally Posted by Wand

I've just come to this thread and what a hilarious thread it is. Some joker complains that he is being refused an exit visa from NZ. In a flash, all the 'no nanny state' ranters (usually the ones with their hands out) come out of the woodwork, shouting that it's illegal to detain a US citizen (how bluddy dare they!) and declare that they'll go see their congressman to knock some heads together, while others of that ilk cross NZ off their list and vow never to set foot in such a terrible place.

Of course, there's more to the story. Turns out that the joker is somewhat less than truthful (has overstayed his visa by a long, long way), admits to having acted unlawfully with respect to wi-fi access, and altogether has sponged on NZ's 'nanny state' provisions for a large part of his stay.

Then the authorities move on his deportation in an entirely reasonable way. They could put him on the first plane out; in doing this, the fact that his $200 boat would remain in the country is properly something of no concern to them at all. That's the way visa overstayers are treated in every country when they are located - first plane out. But no, they are giving him a chance to get his boat in order so that he can sail out. It's an magnanimous offer any fair reading of this case suggests that he doesn't deserve.

Yet there remains at least one poster who still seeks to defend his countryman, with the line of argument that the furnishing of this option is unlawful. And he takes this line despite the efforts of those who have posted the detail that provides clear refutation of his line. Can't read maybe?

As I said - hilarious...

Nicely put. Pretty fair and reasonable summary.