Immigration NZ Targets Visa Fraud as Shibani Kashyap Holi Overstayers Face Probe

(NEW ZEALAND) — Immigration New Zealand confirmed on Monday that 11 members of an Indian group linked to a Holi celebration featuring Bollywood singer Shibani Kashyap have become unlawful overstayers, as officials investigate suspected visa fraud tied to the visit.

INZ Visa Director Jock Gilray said in a March 9, 2026 statement that most of the 18 people who entered the country as part of the “Community Holi Celebration with Shibani Kashyap” group remained in New Zealand after their visas expired.

“Of the 18 individuals who entered New Zealand as part of the group, only three have departed the country. Of the remaining 15 individuals, four currently hold valid visitor visas, while the others became unlawful after their visas expired on March 6,” Gilray said.

The case has drawn attention because the group’s stated purpose centred on a community Holi event in Pukekohe, south of Auckland, but INZ said material from the programme raised questions about why 18 people travelled.

The event was linked to “Colours in the Park” in Pukekohe, where the group was ostensibly brought to perform. INZ said event footage and photographs indicated Shibani Kashyap was the sole performer, raising questions about the roles of the other 17 individuals.

Gilray framed the immediate response as a compliance and enforcement issue handled individually. “We are prioritising contact with those who are here unlawfully on a case-by-case basis. For privacy reasons, we are not able to go into any further detail,” he said.

He also pointed to the pressure on frontline decision-making in visitor processing. “This is a good example of the challenges INZ staff face every day as we strike the balance between risk management and facilitating visitors,” Gilray said.

The Shibani Kashyap Holi case also sits within what INZ has described as a wider integrity concern. Gilray previously confirmed a fraud investigation in a February 26, 2026 statement about how INZ assessed the group before travel.

“A robust and fair assessment process was applied to the individuals making up this group, including collaboration with our risk and verification teams in India. Nearly a third of visa applications connected to [the] group were either declined, withdrawn or flagged for concerns, including fraudulent documents,” he said.

INZ set out a detailed numerical account of the applications and outcomes connected to the travel. It said 27 Indian nationals applied as part of the “Community Holi Celebration with Shibani Kashyap.”

Officials approved 20 applications, split between 7 standard visitor visas and 13 “short-term limited visas” that INZ said were designed to mitigate identified risks.

INZ said 4 applications were declined and 3 were withdrawn due to concerns over fraudulent documentation. Eighteen individuals arrived in New Zealand between February 11 and February 24, 2026, INZ said.

The unlawful status issue crystallised after March 6, 2026, when INZ said visas linked to the group expired. As of March 9, 2026, INZ said 3 had departed New Zealand, 4 remained on valid visas, and 11 were unlawful overstayers.

The distinction between the visa types approved for the group matters to how INZ described its controls. INZ said it issued limited visas to 13 members after flagging risk before arrival, using conditions meant to restrict what holders can do while in New Zealand and to require departure by a set date.

In its summary of the case, INZ described limited visas as a specific visa type that forbids the holder from applying for any other visa type while in the country and requires them to leave by a set date.

INZ said the fact that 11 individuals remained in New Zealand after March 6 triggered an active enforcement operation and a wider probe into organisers and associated entities. The summary of the case identified the CD Foundation in India and local supporting associations as part of the scrutiny.

Questions around the wider group have persisted alongside the event’s public profile, driven in part by the prominence of Kashyap and the Holi-themed programme that brought attention to the visit. INZ’s account of the event materials focused on the mismatch between a performance-related rationale and the apparent presence of a much larger travelling party.

INZ said footage and photographs indicated Kashyap was the sole performer at the Pukekohe event. That detail has been central to why the travel became an immigration issue rather than remaining a routine visitor entry matter.

The agency has not provided public detail about the individual roles of the other 17 travellers. Gilray’s March 9 statement said INZ would not go further because of privacy reasons.

The case also illustrates why immigration authorities use limited visas as a risk-management tool and why alleged schemes tied to group travel can broaden into investigations beyond the travellers themselves. INZ’s description of the limited visa conditions emphasised time-bound permission with strict conditions, including the restriction on applying for any other visa type while in New Zealand.

INZ’s narrative of the case described a potential “performance group” scheme used to bypass standard immigration controls. In that framing, a group application linked to a public event can put pressure on visa processing systems that aim to facilitate legitimate visits while screening for misrepresentation and document fraud.

Gilray’s February 26 statement pointed to “collaboration with our risk and verification teams in India,” describing decision-making steps taken before travellers boarded flights. The same statement said “Nearly a third of visa applications connected to [the] group were either declined, withdrawn or flagged for concerns, including fraudulent documents.”

The March 9 statement, by contrast, focused on what happened after entry: only three departures, four people still lawful on visitor visas, and a larger cohort now unlawful after the March 6 expiries.

For those who became unlawful, INZ’s March 9 statement described a compliance response centred on direct contact and case-by-case action. Gilray did not describe specific enforcement steps, citing privacy reasons.

The summary of the case described legal exposure for the 11 individuals now in New Zealand unlawfully, saying they are liable for deportation. It also said that under New Zealand law, being unlawful in the country can lead to a period of prohibition from returning to New Zealand or traveling to other Five Eyes nations (including the U.S., UK, Canada, and Australia) due to data-sharing agreements.

The same summary outlined downstream implications that can follow an immigration breach, including for future visa applications in New Zealand and elsewhere. It framed those consequences as practical considerations for travel, given the role of immigration history in decision-making.

The March 9 account also addressed the position of the four individuals who remain on valid visas. INZ said they are under scrutiny but currently remain legal until their specific expiration dates.

Kashyap’s own status was not described by INZ in the March 9 statement, beyond the agency’s reference to her as part of the event branding and the observation that she appeared to be the sole performer in event footage and photographs.

In a separate “Impact on Affected Individuals” summary attached to the case outline, the material said Kashyap has visited New Zealand previously, “notably in August 2025,” and said her association with a group flagged for visa fraud and overstaying may impact her ability to secure future performance visas in various jurisdictions.

INZ did not announce any action against Kashyap in the March 9 statement, and Gilray did not link her directly to the alleged fraudulent documentation described in the February 26 statement. The agency’s public focus remained on the group’s visa processing, arrival, and compliance outcomes.

The episode has also become a test of how immigration agencies manage risk in visitor processing while handling community events that bring in overseas guests. Gilray’s March 9 statement described the case as “a good example” of the daily challenge of balancing “risk management” with facilitating visitors.

For INZ, that balance begins before travel, through screening and verification, and continues after arrival through compliance action when visa conditions are breached. The Shibani Kashyap Holi matter combines both phases, with INZ saying it tightened conditions for some travellers through limited visas, then moved to enforcement when 11 people remained past the March 6 expiry.

The numbers INZ provided also show that the group’s travel was shaped by adverse decisions before arrival as well as compliance problems after. Of 27 applicants, INZ approved 20, declined 4, and recorded 3 withdrawals tied to concerns over fraudulent documentation.

Eighteen people ultimately arrived, leaving a gap between approvals and arrivals that INZ did not explain in its summary. Gilray’s March 9 statement addressed only the 18 who entered New Zealand “as part of the group.”

While the investigation has been described publicly as a Visa fraud probe, Gilray has not released further detail on the nature of the suspected misrepresentation or which documents were considered fraudulent. The February 26 statement referred to applications that were “flagged for concerns, including fraudulent documents,” without identifying the material.

The scrutiny of facilitators and associated entities can become a defining feature of such cases, particularly where authorities suspect that a travel rationale did not match the activities undertaken in-country. INZ’s case outline said the wider probe extends to organisers, naming the CD Foundation in India and local supporting associations.

INZ has not published names of individuals in the group or described where the 11 unlawful overstayers are now located. Gilray’s March 9 statement said INZ was prioritising contact on a case-by-case basis and would not provide further detail for privacy reasons.

For readers tracking updates, INZ directed the public to official government channels for visa compliance information and developments. The case outline pointed to the Immigration New Zealand official site and the New Zealand Government News (Beehive), where dated statements and releases can change as investigations progress.