Indian man Nishanth Parakudiyil Prahladan faces deportation from New Zealand after he admitted having sex with a 13-year-old girl he thought was 19. The 25-year-old migrant worker contacted the girl once in 2023 and paid her $250. He texted and tried to call the girl again but didn’t see her. As the ring was unraveled, he was arrested and charged with contracting to provide sexual services to minors, to which he pleaded guilty.He sought discharge in 2025 without conviction as his visa status would be affected. But he was convicted and sentenced to six months and two weeks of home detention. As a result of this conviction, Immigration New Zealand issued him a Deportation Liability Notice. After the review was refused, Prahladan appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on humanitarian grounds.Prahladan appealed and said he had unknowingly pleaded guilty. He said he was sending money to his mother to get cancer treatment in India. He also said he would face shame and ostracism if he returned to India. He may become a victim of vigilante groups and find it difficult to find work in India.The court found these factors insufficient to quash his deportation and decided to send him back to India. The court said he could face disgrace if his conviction became widely known in India, but said he could move elsewhere in India and start over.The tribunal ruled: “While the appellant will be distressed and disappointed by having to leave New Zealand earlier than originally planned, the tribunal considers that he has not established that his circumstances, individually or cumulatively, meet the high threshold of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature.” “Furthermore, returning to India will be a return to a country with which he remains familiar and maintains close family and cultural ties.“However, the court granted Praradhan a six-month work visa, allowing him to temporarily stay in New Zealand to arrange his affairs and continue to support his family, before returning to India. “There are clear indications that the appellant is unlikely to re-offend. It is therefore unlikely that he will pose a risk to the public for some time to come while he is able to remain here.”
