NZ HERALD
A Nigerian man involved in an international drug-smuggling cartel is fighting to be allowed to stay in New Zealand, saying deporting him would send him to an “environment of extreme hardship”.
David Ikenna Obiaga was found guilty of importing and possessing methamphetamine for supply after a lengthy trial in 2015, and sentenced to 15 years and 10 months in jail.
The 53-year-old, who was released last December on parole, was one of several people involved in an international cartel that tried to import $2.5 million of methamphetamine. Obiaga and the others were rounded up after a drug mule arriving from Papua New Guinea was caught at the airport, and agreed to help police.
Judge Susan Thomas said at his sentencing that he had played a “vital role” in the cartel, entrusted with the pick-up and delivery of drugs.
The 69-year-old drug mule, an Auckland man, who was arrested at the airport was acquitted after a jury accepted that he did not know what was in the suitcase he was carrying. Judge Thomas said this increased Obiaga’s culpability.
He was served with a deportation liability notice in 2017, while still in prison, but appealed against it to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal.
The tribunal has now turned him down, making him liable to be expelled from the country.
However, an Immigration New Zealand spokesperson said Obiaga has not yet been deported, as he awaits a date to hear his High Court challenge to the tribunal’s decision
Obiaga, who was born in Nigeria in 1970, moved to Australia in 2007, where he met and married a New Zealand citizen. They had a daughter in 2011.
He was unable to get a long-term Australian visa but secured a residence visa in New Zealand, where he moved, splitting the family up, apart from short visits.
One of Obiaga’s arguments against being deported from New Zealand was that it would permanently separate him from his Australian-based daughter. This would be “devastating” for him and contrary to her interests, he told the tribunal.
He said he would be returning to an “environment of extreme hardship” in Nigeria after 15 years away, with virtually no family support.
He has no savings or assets, did not know how to support himself, and even if he found work, he had little productive life available to him.
His involvement in the drug smuggling scheme was his only offence.
“The appellant submits that these circumstances would make it unjust or unduly harsh for him to be deported,” an Immigration and Protection Tribunal decision said.
“He submits that, because his risk of reoffending is low, and considering the best interests of his daughter, it would not be contrary to the public interest for him to remain in New Zealand.”
The tribunal found the opposite, however – that it would be contrary to the public interest for him to remain.
“Even if it was to be accepted that the appellant’s risk of reoffending is sufficiently low that the public interest is not engaged, that is only one aspect of the public interest,” the decision said.
“It is outweighed by the fact that the appellant committed such serious offending, and that he offended less than two years after he first held a resident class visa.
“To provide context, the holder of a resident visa could be liable for deportation if convicted of an offence that attracted a sentence of imprisonment for three months or more.
“The appellant’s offending could have attracted a life sentence, and he was in fact sentenced to more than 15 years’ imprisonment.”
