A migrant worker who arranged for sex services through an online escort site with a girl he believed was 19, but who was actually 13, has been ordered to leave New Zealand.
Nishanth Parakudiyil Prahladan, 25, became caught up in an illegal Rotorua prostitution ring involving women and teenage girls, some as young as 13 and 14, uncovered in 2023.
Prahladan contacted the girl in January that year and requested commercial sexual services.
He travelled from Tauranga to Rotorua, where he met her and paid $250. He later messaged and attempted to call her but did not meet her again.
That same year, he was arrested and charged with entering into a contract for the provision of sexual services from a minor, to which he pleaded guilty.
The sentencing judge accepted Prahladan believed the girl was 19 and noted the offence was one of strict liability. Still, he was sentenced to six months and two weeks of home detention.
As a result of that conviction, Immigration New Zealand served him with a deportation liability notice. After a review was declined, Prahladan appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on humanitarian grounds.
Supporting mother’s cancer treatment
In a recently released decision, the tribunal noted Prahladan had filed an appeal against his conviction, claiming he pleaded guilty while in a state of emotional distress and under a misunderstanding of his legal position.
He argued that if the conviction was overturned, the basis for deportation would fall away.
According to the Court of Appeal, the appeal has now been heard and the decision has been reserved.
Prahladan told the tribunal he was sending money to support his mother, who was undergoing cancer treatment in India, and deportation would cut off that support.
He also claimed he would face stigma and ostracism if returned to India, as well as potential harm from vigilante groups, and would struggle to find work and accommodation.
Prahladan said deportation would destroy the life he had built in New Zealand, where he has lived for six years, completed a qualification and worked in a skilled job, and would have a significant impact on his mental health.
But the tribunal found those factors did not meet the high threshold required to establish exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, and dismissed the appeal.
It accepted Prahladan had settled into life in New Zealand through study and employment, but said that was not unusual for a temporary migrant, and being a reliable and skilled worker was not uncommon.
The tribunal also acknowledged he had been financially supporting his mother.
However, it stated that sending money home was also common among migrant workers and there was no evidence his family would be unable to meet basic needs without his support.
It accepted he would likely face stigma and difficulties if his conviction became known in India, but found the evidence of violence against offenders was isolated and Prahladan could relocate elsewhere in the country to make a fresh start.
While acknowledging Prahladan’s anxiety and distress, the tribunal said none of the issues he raised, either alone or combined, were strong enough to stop him from being deported.
“While having to depart New Zealand earlier than he had planned will be distressing and disappointing for the appellant, the tribunal considers that he has not established circumstances that, either individually or cumulatively, reach the high threshold of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature,” the tribunal ruled.
“Further, a return to India will be a return to the country with which he remains familiar and retains close familial and cultural ties.”
However, the tribunal granted Prahladan a six‑month work visa to allow him to remain in New Zealand temporarily to arrange his affairs and continue supporting his family before returning to India.
“There are clear indications that the appellant is unlikely to reoffend. As such he is unlikely to be a risk to the public during the further period of time that he will be able to remain here.”
