Immigration Consistency

I swear that trying to understand the internal thought processes of the Immigration bureaucracy is challenging to say the least. I especially have problems trying to understand the consistency of these two cases:

Person A was charged with conspiring to committ a kidnapping. He was found guilty. This is a very very serious crime. He was sentenced to prison. The Deportation Review Tribunal has said he is okay to stay in New Zealand, despite not being a citizen.

Person B has never been found guility of any crime. In face he has never been charged with any crime. He has not even been arrested. His ‘crime’ is involvement 15 years or so ago with a US publication that has been ruled objectionable. The level of involvement is hotly disputed as ranging from having been interviewed for it, to being its publisher. I do not want a repeat of the debate on that issue.

What I fail to understand, is how a convicted kidnapper can possibly be deemed suitable to stay in NZ, if the criteria are so strict in other cases?