This case was an appeal against a decision of an officer, declining to grant refugee and/or protected status to the appellant. The appellant was a citizen of Kiribati and claimed refugee status on the basis of changes to his environment in Kiribati caused by sea level rise associate with climate change. Sea level rise had caused regular flooding, coastal erosion, drinking water contamination, and crop failure, which had contributed to social issues including overcrowding in residential areas, increased risk of disease and insecure employment and income.
The Tribunal did not accept the relevance of the Guiding Principles on Internal Displacement and the Pinheiro Principles on Housing and Property Restitution for Refugees and Displaced Persons, as submitted by the appellant’s lawyer. The Tribunal also rejected the appellant’s lawyer’s broad conception of ‘persecution’, and confined it to Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal stressed that the legal, not sociological, definition was applicable.
The Tribunal found that the Appellant could not be recognized as a refugee under Article 1(A)(2) of the Refugee Convention. The Tribunal found that there was no evidence that the appellant’s life would be in jeopardy due to the environmental conditions on Kiribati, or that he would be subject to any particular interpersonal threats due to disputes over land. By the appellant’s own evidence, the effects of environmental degradation were faced by the population generally, not by members of particular groups as require by the Refugee Convention definition. (§75) The tribunal articulated the standard for “imminent risk” pursuant to section 131 of the New Zealand Immigration Act 2009: it “requires no more than sufficient evidence to establish substantial grounds for believing the appellant would be in danger...something which is more than above mere speculation and conjecture, but sitting below the civil balance of probability standard.” (§90)
The Tribunal also found that the appellant was not a protected person under the ICCPR. The appellant failed to establish that there was a sufficient degree of risk to his life, or that of his family, at the time of the decision. Since the Kiribati government is active in international negotiations about climate change, and is clearly cognizant of and trying to ameliorate the threats posed to its population, there is no indication the appellant will be ‘arbitrarily deprived’ of his right to life pursuant to Article 6 of the ICCPR. (§88) Similarly, the Tribunal found the appellant did not establish that he would be subjected to cruel treatment if returned to Kiribati, pursuant to Article 7 of the ICCPR. (§91-95)
Case Documents:
No case documents are available.