out the Department’s policy in relation to the various “special cases” criteria found in s 9. In a brief discussion of s 9(1)(c), it noted succinctly of the public interest requirement: Assessment of whether it would be in the public interest for a person to be granted citizenship requires that the public interest factor: arise directly from the applicant’s exceptional circumstances, and provide some advantage, or positive benefit to New Zealand. The second document, entitled “Information sheet: Exceptional circumstances for citizenship” stated the test in similar terms and then expanded on it in the following way: The Minister can take into account the applicant’s wider situation (including the amount of time they have spent in New Zealand, their commitment to New Zealand in ways other than presence in New Zealand, and what benefit they have provided to New Zealand in the past), however there must be some positive benefit or advantage for New Zealand to gain if the applicant was granted citizenship, and that benefit or advantage must be obtained based on the exceptional circumstances surrounding the applicant. The language of “positive benefit or advantage” found in these documents was strongly suggestive of an expectation that the applicant bring with them assets or attributes of some kind that would be of direct material benefit to the New Zealand community – such as, for example, highly specialised skills or expertise, or significant wealth. This reading of the Department’s approach is consistent with the conclusions reached by Doug Tennent in his leading textbook on New Zealand citizenship and migration law.50 Drawing on his discussions with the Department,51 he suggested that one natural reading of s 9(1)(c) is that the public interest requires “some positive contribution that the appellant could make to New Zealand”, and he then elucidated the Department’s approach as follows:52 Consequently it is the position of the Department of Internal Affairs those applications which are looked upon favourably are:   people representing New Zealand in some sporting event and who require New Zealand citizenship in order to be able to represent New Zealand; people who are going to be undertaking work overseas and who need to be employed by New Zealand citizens. As will immediately be apparent, this narrow conception of public interest (as positive benefit or advantage) is extremely unreceptive to applications grounded in humanitarian circumstance. Indeed, bearing in mind the nexus requirement, it is difficult to imagine how the humanitarian predicament of a particular individual could ever give rise to a positive benefit or advantage of the kind envisaged. The nexus requirement means that the public interest must arise out of the exceptional circumstances. But the Department’s view was that exceptional humanitarian circumstances did not, in themselves, give rise to a positive benefit or advantage of the kind required. No information is available as to how many awards of citizenship under s 9(1)(c) have in fact been grounded in the humanitarian circumstances of the applicant.53 When pressed by journalists in 50 Tennent, above n 41. This passage is unchanged from the second edition of Tennent’s book, published in 2014, suggesting that the relevant discussions with the Department pre-dated determination of Mr Kun’s application: see Doug Tennent Immigration and Refugee Law (2nd ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2014) at [3.2.6(c)]. 52 At [3.2.6(c)]. To be clear, Tennent did not necessarily accept that this was the correct approach: see below n 81 and accompanying text. 53 In response to requests under the Official Information Act 1982 for a breakdown of the reasons why citizenship is granted under s 9(1)(c) (made by journalists in the context of the Peter Thiel controversy), the Department of Internal Affairs indicated that this information is too difficult to collate: see Tom Pullar-Strecker 51 11 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731