Date of judgement: 4 June 2014
Court: Immigration and Protection Tribunal of New Zealand
Citation(s): [2014] NZIPT 501370-371
Short summary
The appellants, spouses from Tuvalu who resided in New Zealand unlawfully were granted residence visas following a humanitarian appeal against their deportation. It was deemed unduly harsh to deport the appellants when considering the best interests of their children and their ties to the country. Climate change was not a determinative issue for the Tribunal, but it was acknowledged that effects of climate change constitute a broad humanitarian concern.
Summary by: Erin Gallagher
Click here to open the case in PDF format
Weight of decision
Decisions of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal of New Zealand bear significant weight in the country, especially due to the nature of the appeal (humanitarian grounds).
Key facts
The appellants were a husband and wife from Tuvalu who made humanitarian appeals against their deportation from New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009.
They had left Tuvalu because the effects of climate change and overpopulation were making life increasingly difficult. Their home islands were particularly vulnerable to inundation due to rising sea-levels causing coastal erosion that made it arduous to grow crops.
The wife lost her job when the school she taught at closed due to lack of funding. The appellants lost two babies at late stages of pregnancy, which they attributed to lack of comprehensive medical services in Tuvalu.
The couple arrived in New Zealand in 2007 holding visitor visas. The husband was twice rejected for a work permit, and further rejected for a residence visa, and was thus unlawfully resident. The couple went on to have two children who were both born in New Zealand.
Previous instances
The appellants lodged claims for asylum, but the Tribunal dismissed this in the first instance (AC (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 800517-520) after finding that the appellants did not fulfil the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention: any adverse conditions they faced in Tuvalu did not arise by reason of their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group, or political opinion.
Summary of holding
In their appeal, the appellants claimed that if they were deported to Tuvalu, they would be separated from the husband’s side of the family who were all living in New Zealand. They further claimed that they would be at risk of suffering the adverse impacts of climate change.
The Tribunal had to decide whether the combination of separation from family and risk of exposure to the adverse effects of climate change amounted to exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would then allow the family to remain in New Zealand.
The grounds for granting a humanitarian appeal against liability for deportation are:
- There are exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature that would make it unjust or unduly harsh for the appellant to be deported; and
- It would not in all the circumstances be contrary to the public interest to allow the appellant(s) to remain.
Continued on the next page…