An Indian man, Nishant Parakudiyil Prahaladan, is facing deportation from New Zealand after he pleaded guilty to 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 tried to call the girl again by sending a message but could not find her. As soon as the gang was busted, he was arrested and charged with contracting a minor to provide sexual services, to which he pleaded guilty.In 2025, he asked for release without conviction because it would affect his visa status. But he was convicted and sentenced to six months and two weeks of home detention. As a result of that conviction, Immigration New Zealand served him a deportation liability notice. After the review was refused, Prahladan appealed to the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on humanitarian grounds.Prahladan filed an appeal and said that he confessed to his crime without understanding. He said he was sending money for his mother’s cancer treatment in India. He also said that if he returned to India he would face stigma and boycott. He may become a victim of vigilante groups and will struggle to find work in India.The tribunal decided that these factors were not strong enough to cancel his deportation and decided that he would be repatriated to India. The tribunal said he could face stigma if his conviction in India became known, but said he could relocate elsewhere in India to make a fresh start.The Tribunal ruled, “Leaving New Zealand earlier than he planned would be distressing and disappointing for the Appellant, but the Tribunal considers that he has not established circumstances which, individually or cumulatively, reach the high threshold of exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature.” “Furthermore, the return to India would be a return to a country with which he is familiar and maintains close family and cultural ties.“However, the tribunal granted a six-month work visa to allow Prahladan to stay in New Zealand temporarily to organize his affairs and continue supporting his family before returning to India. “There are clear indications that the appellant is unlikely to re-offend. Therefore, he is unlikely to pose a risk to the public in the further period in which he will be able to reside.”