... if the Minister is satisfied that granting a certificate of New Zealand citizenship to the applicant would be in the public interest because of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian or other nature relating to the applicant. In exercising his or her power under s 9(1)(c) the Minister is permitted (but not required) to have regard to the criteria in s 8 governing “citizenship by grant”.37 Clearly, though, s 9(1)(c) contemplates some degree of departure from one or more of the s 8 criteria – the question being how much departure the Minister is prepared to countenance in the circumstances of the given case. Awards of citizenship under s 9(1)(c) are rare. According to the Department of Internal Affairs, in the nine years from 2008 to 2016, an average of around 15 such grants were approved annually (constituting a tiny fraction of the 30,000 or so grants of New Zealand citizenship made each year).38 In each case, the decision to grant citizenship under s 9(1)(c) is made by the Minister following individual consideration of the file.39 That said, ministers will naturally be heavily dependent on the advice and recommendations they receive from their departmental officials. No judicial guidance is available as to the meaning of s 9(1)(c),40 nor is any assistance to be derived from the legislative history. Academic commentary on the section is also extremely limited.41 On the other hand, concepts such as “exceptional humanitarian circumstances” and “public interest” have been extensively construed by the New Zealand courts in the partially analogous context of immigration law, where they have been used for many decades to guide the exercise of various humanitarian discretions.42 In their current iteration, the relevant criteria are found in s 207(1) of the Immigration Act 2009. It authorises the Immigration and Protection Tribunal to allow an appeal against liability for deportation if it is satisfied that: (a) there are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported from New Zealand; and (b) It would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant to remain in New Zealand. Against that backdrop, we can turn to consider the meaning of s 9(1)(c), and its implications for Mr Kun’s case. - Exceptional humanitarian or other circumstances Eligibility under s 9(1)(c) depends on a proper understanding of two legislative concepts, and of the relationship between them – “exceptional humanitarian or other circumstances” and, “public interest”. Let us begin by picking apart the first, and considering its application to Mr Kun’s circumstances. As in s 207(1) of the Immigration Act, the circumstances on which an applicant relies to ground a s 9(1)(c) application must be “exceptional”. In the immigration context, the Supreme Court has said that for circumstances to be “exceptional”, they must be “well outside the normal 37 Section 9(2)(a). Additionally, the Minister must have regard to requirements of the Act relating to any disqualifying convictions: s 9(2)(b). 38 “Citizenship grants” (23 February 2017) The Department of Internal Affairs <www.dia.govt.nz>. 39 See “New Zealand Citizenship – Operational Policy”, above n 11, at 16–17. 40 Section 9(1)(c) was discussed in passing, but without any helpful elucidation of its terms, in: Dacar (aka Shire) v Police [2012] NZHC 1740; Hammond v Minister of Internal Affairs HC Wellington CIV-2009-485-148, 9 October 2009; Yan v Minister of Internal Affairs [1997] 3 NZLR 450 (HC); Rajan v Minister of Immigration [1996] 3 NZLR 543 (CA). 41 But see KE Dawkins “New Zealand Citizenship Redefined” (1978) 4 Otago LR 201; Doug Tennent (with Katy Armstrong and Peter Moses) Immigration and Refugee Law (3rd ed, LexisNexis, Wellington, 2017). 42 See especially Helu, above n 13; Ye v Minister of Immigration [2009] NZSC 76, [2010] 1 NZLR 104. 8 Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=3094731