[ ]

Tag: RefugeeConvention

Posted on

AV (Nepal) [2017] NZIPT 801125, 26 

Date: 22 September 2017 

Court: New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal 

Citation(s): [2017] NZIPT 801125, 26 

Short summary 

Appellants, suffering from PTSD, claimed that they could not return to Nepal due to fear induced by the deadly 2015 earthquake. The Tribunal denied them leave to remain as they had not suffered from persecution resulting from actions of the State and did not meet the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Refugee Convention.  

Summary by: Lucas Robinson  

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision 

The New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal (NZPT) is an independent judicial body that was established under § 127 of the Immigration Act 2009. The Tribunal has jurisdiction to hear appeals against immigration and refugee decisions made by State bodies. As appealing to the High Court can only be made on a point of law, the NZPT decisions carry substantial weight in domestic law. 

Key facts 

Appellants, a married Nepalese couple, appealed the decision made by a refugee and protection officer that they were not to be granted refugee status in New Zealand. They argued that following the April 2015 earthquake in Nepal, they had been diagnosed with post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) and feared the prospect of returning to Kathmandu. The earthquake rendered their home unhabitable and for a period of time they slept in tents. However, although they partly repaired their home, evidence was offered that they often slept on the veranda due to the fear of aftershocks. Appellants argued that they both felt much safer residing in New Zealand where their son and his family had been granted residence status and had purchased a home. Additionally, the Appellants’ General Practitioner gave evidence indicating that the wife did in fact suffer from PTSD and that both of the Appellants suffered from physical injury on account of the earthquake, which had left them in chronic pain for some time.  

Summary of holding 

The Tribunal determined that the relevant tests were set out in the Immigration Act 2009 under § 194(1)(c). Namely, it must be found that appellants are refugees under the 1951 Refugee Convention, protected persons under the 1984 Convention Against Torture, or protected persons under the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) to receive asylum.  

In regard to the 1951 Refugee Convention, it was necessary for the Appellants to show, as per Article 1A(2), that “owing to a well-founded fear of being persecuted,” they were unable to return to Nepal on account of their “race, religion, nationality, or membership of a particular social or political group”.  The Tribunal followed the view in DS (Iran) [2016] NZIPT 800788, that “being persecuted” required serious harm arising from the sustained or systemic violation of internationally recognised human rights, demonstrative of a failure of state protection. Additionally, a fear of being persecuted is established as well-founded when there isa real, as opposed to a remote or speculative, chance of it occurring (Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379). The Appellants acknowledged that they did not fear the Nepalese state itself, but rather the fear of future earthquakes and the prospect of returning to Kathmandu without the support of their children. In light of this, the Tribunal cited AF (Kribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413, a case that set out whilst natural disasters could involve human rights issues, the definition set out in the 1951 Refugee Convention still had to be satisfied.  

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Posted on

AF (Tuvalu) [2015] NZIPT 800859

Date: 20 October 2015

Court: New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal

Citation: [2015] NZIPT 800859

Short summary

This case was heard before the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal. It is an appeal against the decision taken by a refugee and protection officer to deny refugee status or protected person status to the appellant, a 25-year-old man of Tuvaluan nationality who had been served with a deportation order. The appellant based his appeal on the claim that he had a real chance of being persecuted if returned to his country of nationality in relation to an infringement of his right to work and of his right to safe drinking water. The appellant also claimed that his deportation to Tuvalu would be a violation of his daughters’ rights under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child. The Tribunal dismissed the appeal on the ground that the appellant could reasonably access clean drinking water and reasonably attempt to gain employment in Tuvalu.

Summary by: Lucas Robinson

Link to original judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

The New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal is an independent judicial body and has jurisdiction to hear appeals against deportations, refugee claims, and other immigration decisions. A decision from the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal can be reviewed by the High Court only if an appeal is made on a point of law. In that sense, the New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal’s decisions carry substantial weight in New Zealand domestic law.

Key facts

The appellant was a citizen of Tuvalu, who was 25 years old at the time of the hearing. In 2003, he moved to New Zealand with his mother. This event forced him to drop out of school in Tuvalu. He has been living in New Zealand since then and never went back to school.  In 2008, he married a New Zealand citizen and they had two daughters together. Between 2008 and 2014, the appellant was convicted of multiple offences/crimes in New Zealand. As a result, in July 2014, the appellant was served with a deportation order. In December 2014, the appellant submitted a claim to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. A refugee and protection officer denied his claim. This case is the appeal against the aforementioned refusal.

The appellant appealed the decision on three grounds. First, the appellant fears returning to Tuvalu because of the lack of employment opportunities. Indeed, he fears that the government of Tuvalu will discriminate against him due to his criminal convictions and lack of formal education, therefore violating his right to work. Second, the appellant claims that, if returned to his country of nationality, he would not be able to exercise his right to access safe drinking water due to the effects of climate change. Third, the appellant claims that his deportation to Tuvalu would violate his daughters’ rights under the 1989 Convention on the Rights of the Child.

Previous instances

In July 2014, the appellant was served with a deportation order as a result of his convictions for crimes he committed between 2008 and 2014. His attempt to get this deportation order revoked was unsuccessful. Facing deportation, the appellant submitted an application to be recognised as a refugee or protected person. A refugee and protection officer declined to grant the appellant’s application.

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

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
Posted on

Refugee Appeal No. 76374

Date: 28 October 2009

Court: New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority

Citation: Refugee Appeal No. 76374

Short summary  

A refugee applicant from Burma claimed to have a well-founded fear of persecution by her home government because of her involvement with groups adverse to the government’s interests and aiding cyclone victims. She was granted asylum in part due to her disaster relief assistance activity. 

Summary by: Lucas Robinson

Link to Original Judgement

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision  

This decision holds moderate weight in New Zealand with respect to cases in which an individual is persecuted for their political opinion as expressed via assistance following a climate disaster.  

Key facts 

The applicant was a woman from Rangoon/Yangon, Burma/Myanmar with children. She was a self-employed businesswoman until she went to New Zealand. While in her home country, the applicant became part of the pro-democracy movement. She helped Buddhist monks communicate about the situation in Burma during the late 90s into the 2000s. She would arrange the meetings and help the monks get to the location of the meetings. The applicant was also tasked with exchanging money on the black market multiple times.  

When Burma was hit by Tropical Cyclone Nargis in 2008, the applicant had to get more money from the black market to buy food rations and other disaster relief materials. The applicant assisted in distributing the disaster relief materials. 

The applicant moved to New Zealand in late 2008 and began speaking with family through videochat. While in New Zealand, associates of the applicant were arrested and given harsh sentences for their political activities. Also, while taking to her sister on video-chat, the applicant learned the government was arresting people who helped with disaster relief and that the government was inquiring about her.  

Previous instances

 The applicant was denied refugee status at her initial hearing because of a lack of well-founded fear of persecution. 

Summary of holding

The main issues presented were: Does the appellant-applicant have a well-founded fear of being persecuted? And, if so, is that fear recognized under the Refugee Convention?  

The appeals court found that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution because of the documented unjust punishments of other members of groups she belonged to. In particular, the government’s demonstrated interest in the applicant, and the likelihood she would suffer an unjust arrest and punishment if returned home, constituted this well-founded fear. Further, the court found that the applicant’s political opinion – one ground for relief under the Convention – encompassed her actions in aiding disaster relief efforts. As such, the applicant was granted refugee status.

By failing to take all these factors into consideration, the Prefect disregarded Provision 11 in its decision to deport Mr. Sheel.  

Potential takeaways for future climate migration litigation 

  • This case involves an individual who feared return to her home because of state persecution of individuals who assisted in disaster relief. It therefore shows how a government’s response, or lack thereof, to a natural disaster can indirectly trigger a ground for refugee protection. 
  • The Burmese government actively rejected support from outside entities for disaster relief after the cyclone. The government then began to punish those who tried to provide disaster assistance themselves, opening the door for claims of political opinion persecution in the context of climate disasters.  
  • The appeals court did not address whether suffering from the cyclone itself, and the government’s lack of adequate response, might constitute persecution, but, as in other cases in the region, the answer likely would have been no under the Refugee Convention.  
Posted on

Hagi-Mohamed v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [2001] FCA 1156

Date of judgement: 23 August 2001

 Court: Federal Court of Australia

Citation(s): [2001] FCA 1156

Short summary 

The Federal Court of Australia confirmed that internal relocation must be considered separately from the question of whether a well-founded fear of persecution exists in evaluating claims for protection under the 1951 Refugee Convention.

Summary by: Joseph Lavelle Wilson            

Link to original judgement 

Click here to open the case in PDF format

Weight of decision

This decision of the Federal Court bears moderate weight in the Commonwealth of Australia. 

Key facts

Ahmed Dahir Hagi-Mohamed, a citizen of Somalia, arrived in Australia on 15 September 1995. He filed an application for a protection visa under s. 36 of the Australian Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in November 1995, claiming that the Australian government had an obligation to protect him under the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (the Convention). The basis of his application was that he had a well-founded fear of persecution in his home country of Somalia, due to his membership of several social groups. 

Hagi-Mohamed claimed that he was a member of the particular social group (that of homosexual men), as well as a member of two clans – the Geledi clan and the Hawadle clan.

Previous instances

The Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs and the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) rejected the application for protection. The RRT accepted that each group identified by Hagi-Mohamed was in fact a particular social group, and that he belonged to each one. The RRT found that the motivating reason for the persecution of Geledi clan members by Somalian militias was to take resources from the Geledi clan, specifically arable land and crops, rather than for the reason that they were members of the Geledi clan. The RRT also found that Hagi-Mohamed’s association with his mother’s clan, the Hawadle, did not put him at risk of persecution because there was evidence that other parts of Somalia were controlled by the Hawadle and he could be safe there. With respect to Hagi-Mohamed’s claim based on his homosexuality, the RRT found that although he did belong to the cognisable social group, that group did not face danger rising to the level of persecution under the Convention.

Hagi-Mohamed appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. Justice Stone issued a decision in favour of the government, which was subsequently appealed by Hagi-Mohamed and heard by Justices Wilcox, Weinberg, and Hely in the Federal Court of Australia. 

Continued on the next page…

Pages: 1 2
Proudly powered by WordPress