An Indian man, Nishanth Parakudiyil Prahladan, faces deportation from New Zealand after he pleaded guilty to having sought sex from a 13-year-old girl whom he thought was 19. The 25-year-old migrant worker contacted the girl in 2023 once and paid $250. He messaged and attempted to call the girl again but did not meet her. As the ring got busted, he was arrested and was charged with entering into a contract for the provision of sexual services from a minor, to which he pleaded guilty.In 2025, he sought a discharge without conviction as his visa status would be affected. But he was convicted and 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.Prahladan filed an appeal and said he pleaded guilty without understanding. He said he was sending money for his mother’s cancer treatment in India. He also said he would face stigma and ostracism if he returned to India. He may become a victim of vigilante groups and would struggle in India to find work.The tribunal decided that these factors were not strong enough to cancel his deportation and decided that he would be sent back to India. The tribunal said he may face stigma if his conviction became known in India but said that he could relocate to somewhere else in India to make a fresh start.“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.”
