[ ]

Tag: ClimateMigration

Posted on

 CAA de Bordeaux, 2ème chambre, 20BX02193, 20BX02195

Date: 18 December 2020

Court: Court of Administrative Appeal of Bordeaux 

Citations: N° 20BX02193, 20BX02195

Short summary  

In this judgement, the Court overturned the deportation order issued by the French department, Prefect of Haute-Garonne (“Prefect”), against Mr. Sheel on the grounds that it would subject him to a real risk of harm and even death given the high levels of air pollution in Bangladesh and the lack of access to adequate health care services, medication, and respiratory assistance equipment. 

Summary by: Jodie Tang 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

Though an individual judgment, this decision holds immense weight in France because it was the first time the courts extended protection to someone fearful of returning home due to environmental conditions.  

Key facts 

Mr. Sheel, a name given to him by the media, is a Bangladeshi national who entered France in 2011 and lodged an asylum application. His application was rejected in 2013, but he was granted a temporary residence permit due to his state of health from 2015 to 2017. In June 2019, the Prefect refused to renew his residence permit and required Mr. Sheel to leave France within 30 days and return to Bangladesh. This decision was overturned by the Administrative Court of Toulouse, which was appealed by the Prefect to the Court of Administrative Appeal of Bordeaux. 

Mr. Sheel suffers from a severe form of asthma and sleep apnea. Throughout his cases, however, the Prefect argued that medical evidence submitted by Mr. Sheel was inadequate to establish that he would not receive appropriate healthcare services in Bangladesh to treat his respiratory disease. He responded that, regardless of where he lived in Bangladesh, he would be unable to access appropriate medication, could not operate respiratory assistance devices in Bangladesh’s hot climate, and would have difficulty avoiding harmful air pollution.

Previous instances

On 15 June 2020, the Administrative Court of Toulouse annulled the decree of 18 June 2019 issued by the Prefect, where he refused to renew Mr. Sheel’s residence permit, ordered him to leave France and return to Bangladesh. The Court also overturned the decision of 5 August 2019 by the Prefect where he refused to grant Mr. Sheel’s request for family reunification with his wife. The Court ordered the Prefect to grant Mr. Sheel a residence permit pursuant to provision 11° of Article L.313-11 of the Code for the Entry and Residence of Foreigners and the Right to Asylum (“Provision 11”) and ordered the State to pay 1,500€ to Mr. Sheel’s counsel.  

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Ioane Teitiota decision, CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016

Date of judgement: 23 September 2020

Court: United Nations Human Rights Committee

Citation(s): CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016; Views adopted by the Committee under article 5 (4) of the Optional Protocol, concerning communication No. 2728/2016

Short summary 

In its first ruling on a complaint by an individual seeking asylum from the effects of climate change, the United Nations Human Rights Committee found that states may not deport individuals who face climate change-induced conditions that violate the right to life.

Summary by: Makaela Fehlhaber

Link to original Judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision is significant in that it is one of the first to acknowledge climate change-induced conditions as drivers of asylum claims. The Committee is responsible for holding states to account for upholding the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, however, its decisions are not binding. 

Key facts

The applicant sought asylum (and in the alternative, to be regarded as a protected person) on environmental grounds and argued that this was within the scope of the 1951 Refugee Convention. 

Further, the applicant contended that deportation back to Kiribati would violate Art. 6 (the right to life) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The applicant sought determination by the Committee on the basis that he had exhausted all available domestic remedies (para. 8.3), a fact not disputed by the State party. 

New Zealand’s primary arguments surrounded the lack of evidence put forth by the applicant to support the argument that there was an imminent risk to his right to life, and that the claim should be deemed inadmissible. 

The Committee was asked to determine whether New Zealand had breached its obligations under the ICCPR by deporting the applicant back to Kiribati on the basis that the evidence did not support a finding that the applicant would face the risk, or would likely face the risk of arbitrary deprivation of life upon his return to Kiribati. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2 3
Posted on

Beauboeuf v. Canada

Date: 21 October 2016 

Court: Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada (Immigration Appeal Division) 

Citation(s): 2016 CarswellNat 8691  

Short summary  

A 71-year-old Haitian applicant successfully appealed a refusal letter denying her permanent residency in Canada. While she was originally denied a visa because of the potential for her health conditions to cause excessive demand on health or social services in Canada, she demonstrated compelling humanitarian and compassionate grounds that warranted special relief. A major element of her humanitarian and compassionate claim was the devastation ensuing from the 2010 earthquake in Haiti. 

Summary by: Erin Levitsky 

Link to original judgement  

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision is not binding on Canadian courts because it comes from a tribunal. It is persuasive, however, and the fact that it is an appeal decision gives it greater weight. 

Key facts 

The appellant, Yamiley Beauboeuf, and her husband were both born in Haiti and are both citizens of Canada. They have two sons who are also Canadian. The family lives in Ottawa.  

Following the devastating earthquake in Haiti in 2010, Beauboeuf’s mother, Rose Marie Yolaine Napoléon came to visit her family in Canada and never left. Beauboeuf and her husband co-sponsored Napoléon for permanent residence (PR) as a member of the family.

Previous instances 

In October 2012, Napoléon received a procedural fairness letter containing the opinion of a medical officer who determined that her medical condition—diabetic illness complicated by chronic kidney disease—might cause excessive demand on health or social services in Canada. Napoléon provided additional submissions and documents but Citizenship and Immigration Canada (CIC) ultimately issued a refusal letter in April 13 refusing her PR citing the same concern, pursuant to § 38(1) of the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act (IRPA). Beauboeuf appealed the decision. 

Summary of holding 

Rather than contest the legal validity of the refusal letter, the appellant argued there were “sufficient humanitarian and compassionate considerations, taking into account the best interests of the children directly affected by the decision and the other relevant circumstances of her case” (¶ 3) to justify special relief pursuant to ¶ 67(1)(c) of the IRPA. The Minister argued the threshold for relief based on humanitarian and compassionate grounds was not met. 

The Immigration Appeal Division (IAD) allowed the appeal, holding that while the refusal letter was legally valid, the humanitarian and compassionate considerations put forward were sufficient to warrant special relief. 

The IAD considered several factors to determine whether humanitarian and compassionate considerations were sufficient, including: 

“(i) the relationship of the sponsor to the applicant and the strength of that relationship; (ii) the reasons for the sponsorship; (iii) the overall situation of both the sponsor and the applicant; (iv) the family support in Canada; (v) the existence of dependency as between the applicant and the sponsor; (vi) the best interests of any children directly affected by the decision; and (vii) the objectives of the IRPA” (¶ 5). 

The IAD considered the fact that the main reason Beauboeuf sponsored her mother was to keep her alive. It held that being deported would be akin to a death sentence, as dialysis, the medical treatment she required, was not available in Haiti.  

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

AC (Tuvalu)

Date: 04 June 2014

Court: New Zealand: Immigration Protection Tribunal

Citation: AC (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 800517-520

Short summary  

A family appealed their immigration cases to New Zealand’s Immigration and Protection Tribunal, claiming their rights to life and protection would be violated if returned to Tuvalu because of climate change impacts. The Tribunal dismissed their claims, finding that they could not meet their evidentiary burden in qualifying as protected persons, nor in demonstrating that the government of Tuvalu failed to meet its duty to address the known effects of climate change on its populace.

Summary by: Keri Pflieger 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is an expert forum administered by the New Zealand Ministry of Justice. It primarily assesses immigration and protection claims under New Zealand’s Immigration Act 2009, which codifies the Refugee Convention (§ 129), Convention Against Torture (§ 130), and the ICCPR (§ 131). The Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s decisions hold significant weight in New Zealand. Decisions may only be appealed to the domestic High Court on issues of law. 

Key facts

The Appellants were a Tuvaluan family (husband, wife, and two children) living in New Zealand who appealed the denial of their immigration cases and sought protected person status under New Zealand’s Immigration Act 2009.

The husband and wife each noticed the effects of climate change in Tuvalu, including increased land inundation, sea level rise, difficulties growing food, coastal erosion, and droughts. Prior to their departure from Tuvalu, they lost two late-term pregnancies, one of which they attributed to the quality of medical care in Tuvalu.

The husband and wife left Tuvalu for New Zealand in 2007, after the husband’s family home was demolished and the wife’s workplace shut down from insufficient funding.

The husband expressed fear for his family’s safety if returned to Tuvalu, due to minimal employment opportunities and lack of access to clean drinking water free from contamination. In addition to sharing her husband’s concerns, the wife also feared the quality of medical care facilities and availability of medicine access for her children, sea level rise’s negative effects on vegetation growth, and not having pathways to land ownership.

Previous instances

In November 2012, Appellants applied for refugee and/or protected person status. However, their claims were dismissed on 17 March 2013 by the Refugee Status Branch. Appellants appealed this dismissal under § 194(1)(c) of the Immigration Act 2009 with the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on 03 April 2014. This case, AC (Tuvalu), is the Tribunal’s assessment of that appeal.

AC (Tuvalu) is a joint appeal issued contemporaneously with AD (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 501370-371. Under that appeal, appellants challenged deportation on humanitarian grounds under § 194(5) & (6), and § 196(6) & (7) of the Immigration Act 2009 to prevent separation of the husband’s family living in New Zealand. Appellants succeeded under that appeal.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413

Date: 25 June 2013

Court: New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal

Citation(s): AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413, New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal, 25 June 2013

Short summary

Sea level rise and storms in Kiribati did not create a claim to protection under the Refugee Convention, the Convention Against Torture, or the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. These environmental disasters may create circumstances in which persecution can occur, and that persecution might give rise to a protection claim.

Summary by: Joseph Lavelle Wilson

Link to original judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

This is the decision of an administrative tribunal and holds moderate weight within the jurisdiction.

Key facts

AF, a citizen of Kiribati, requested protection and/or refugee status from the government of New Zealand after changes to his home country’s environment caused by sea level rise associated with climate change.

Kiribati is a small nation in the Central Pacific Ocean made up of 33 atolls. The tribunal reviewed evidence regarding the situation in Kiribati. A 2007 National Adaptation Programme of Action filed by Kiribati under the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change provided a bleak picture of the impact of sea level rise on the islands of Kiribati. According to the programme the maximum height of the atolls is three-four meters above sea level, flooding and erosion are rife, and the primary source of potable water for most people in Kiribati – lenses of freshwater floating on seawater at the centre of some atolls – is at increasing risk of saltwater intrusion from storm surges.

AF’s testimony about his life in Kiribati was also reviewed by the tribunal. He was born in the 1970s on a small islet north of Tarawa, the main island and capital of Kiribati. He moved to Tarawa after finishing his schooling. In the early 2000s, more people from other atolls began moving to Tarawa, resulting in overcrowding and conflict. Flooding and erosion worsened over time, causing significant hardship to AF and his family. Eventually AF moved to New Zealand where he made his claims for protection.

Summary of holding

Although climate-based claims to protection may be possible, in this case the tribunal found that there was no evidence to support AF’s claim that he had a well-founded fear of persecution on the basis of a protected ground, and so his claims to protection were dismissed.

Important judgement points:

  • AF’s evidence about the situation in Kiribati was accepted: The tribunal found that the South Tarawa area of Kiribati was struggling to carry its population due to the compromising effects of population growth and urbanization which were exacerbated by sudden onset environmental events (storms) and slow-onset environmental processes (sea level rise).
  • Internally displaced people cannot meet the requirements of the Refugee Convention: AF submitted that he was an internally displaced person, and that this grounded a right to claim refugee status in New Zealand. The tribunal found that the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement referred to by AF in his argument were a soft-law instrument not relevant to AF’s situation, as he was by definition no longer internally displaced.
  • Persecution within the legal definition of ‘refugee’ requires human agency: The tribunal rejected AF’s formulation of ‘refugee’ as one that was broader than the legal concept of ‘refugee’, which it confirmed requires some aspect of human agency in terms of persecution on one of the five protected grounds. At the same time, the tribunal stated that this doesn’t mean environmental degradation could never create pathways into the Refugee Convention jurisdiction.

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom 

Date: 11 December 2012 

Court: European Court of Human Rights 

Citation(s): Chagos Islanders v. the United Kingdom, ECHR, Application no. 35622/04 (11 December 2012) 

Short summary  

Former inhabitants of the Chagos Islands and their descendants brought an action to contest the U.K.’s bar on resettling the islands. The European Court of Human Rights affirmed previous judgments from U.K. courts barring the plaintiffs’ petitions for resettlement, in part due to the risks of climate change to the Islands. 

Summary by: Luke Hancox 

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

The European Court of Human Rights is the sole body positioned to adjudge claims lodged under the European Convention on Human Rights. Its rulings are generally, though not universally, recognized as valid and enforceable by European parties to the Convention.  

Key facts 

Between the mid-1960s and mid-1970s, the United Kingdom enacted legislation to expel or bar the return of the inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. This was done to facilitate the construction of a United States military base on the island of Diego Garcia. This action was brought by those former inhabitants and their descendants (1,786 people). The applicants brought their action under Articles 6 & 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights (ECHR). 

The litigation of this case involves multiple cases in domestic U.K. courts over the past 50 years regarding the events surrounding the colonization and eventual expulsion of inhabitants of the Chagos Islands. 

On 8 November 1965, the British Indian Ocean Territory (BIOT) Order in Council (SI 1965/120) established a new colony, including the Chagos Islands and other islands formerly part of the Colony of Mauritius and of the Seychelles. When agreeing to give the U.S. military access to the islands, the

U.K. treated the islands as having no permanent population in order to avoid obligations under the United Nations Charter. They claimed the population was overwhelmingly migrant workers who no longer had jobs because the plantation operated on the islands had been acquired by the U.K. government to transfer to the U.S. 

As a result of the above acquisition, the islands’ inhabitants were evacuated. The BIOT Commissioner passed an ordinance in 1971, making it unlawful and a criminal offense for anyone to enter or remain in the territory without a permit. The evacuation caused immeasurable damage to these communities by uprooting their lives and forcing resettlement elsewhere. The U.K. government paid 650,000 pounds sterling (GBP) to Mauritius to aid the resettlement effort.  

A 1975 case brought in the High Court of London led the U.K. government to settle all claims with the islanders. The settlement resulted in monthly payments of 2,976 GBP a month to 1,344 Chagossians between 1982 and 1984. In 2000, a case challenging the 1971 Order was brought in London. The court held that the islanders had no permanent right to the land or its use but that the Order was nevertheless invalid as outside the scope of authority of the BIOT Commissioner. This led to the bar on entry to the islands by the former inhabitants being lifted. However, none of these inhabitants went to live on the islands afterward. The U.K. government also began a study to determine the viability of resettlement of the islands after this case. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia 1168 

Date: 10 December 2009  

Court: Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia

Citation(s): 0907346 [2009] RRTA 1168

Short summary 

Australia does not have an obligation to accept climate migrants with no fear of specific persecution in their home country as refugees under its domestic adoption of the Refugee Convention. 

Summary by: Lucas Robinson  

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

This decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia bears moderate weight in immigration cases in the Commonwealth of Australia. 

Key facts 

The applicant was a citizen of Kiribati who arrived in Australia in 2007 and applied for a Protection visa under §65 of the Migration Act 1958 in May 2009. The application was denied by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship in August 2009. 

The applicant claimed that the environmental and economic changes in Kiribati caused by rising sea levels made it impossible for him to earn a living there. In his application, he claimed that some of the islands in Kiribati had already disappeared, and saltwater was springing up through the ground and spoiling the drinking well water, as well as devastating food crops. The applicant’s health had been directly impacted because of the loss of food crops on Kiribati.  

The applicant submitted that these impacts on him constituted persecution that should trigger protections under the 1951 Refugee Convention and the Migration Act 1958.  

Previous instances

The application for review by the RRTA was sought after the decision made by a delegate of the Minister for Immigration and Citizenship to refuse to grant the applicant a Protection Visa under §65 of the Migration Act 1958. 

Summary of holding 

The RRTA affirmed the Minister’s decision not to grant the applicant a Protection Visa, finding that in the absence of a discriminatory motivation, Australia’s protection obligations were not triggered. The Tribunal held found that the continued production of carbon emissions that cause climate change is not sufficient to constitute persecution under the Refugee Convention as there was no evidence that the persecution the applicant was fearing was occurring because of his membership to any particular group (or any other protected ground for refugee status). People affected by climate change were not recognized as a cognizable group of people in need of protection. Because the applicant was not part of a particular group, he did not fit the convention definition of a refugee. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress