Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment
COURT OR TRIBUNAL
Court of Appeal of New Zealand, New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal
DATE FILED (OR FIRST HEARING DATE)
16/10/2013
LITIGATION TYPE
Access to Justice, Constitutional and Human Rights / State Accountability
SUBJECT MATTER
Costs, Human rights and refugee claims
REVIEW TYPE
Judicial review
SUMMARY
(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)
Citizenship and migration — Refugees — Protected person — Climate change
Application for leave to appeal to New Zealand High Court (NZHC). Applicant citizen of Kiribati. Applicant and wife had three children born in New Zealand but not New Zealand citizens. Upon expiration of permits, continued to live in New Zealand illegally. Applied for refugee status on ground inhabitants of Kiribati obliged to leave islands because of rising ocean levels and environmental degradation. Refugee and protection officer declined to grant applicant refugee status and/or protected person status.
Applicant appealed in New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal (NZIPT) and held applicant neither refugee or protected person. Established applicant chose to remain illegally in New Zealand, and, under current law, precluded from applying for immigration permit on humanitarian grounds. Established untenable for New Zealand High Court by interpretation to fundamentally alter intended scope of Refugee Convention in order for people facing medium term economy deprivation. Established refugee or person seeking to better life by escaping climate changes in own country was not person to whom Refugee Convention art 1A(2) applied. Application dismissed.
(Excerpt from Linxplus case summary on Lexis)
COSTS - successful application for costs - applicant unsuccessfully challenged a decision of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal on basis he was a "climate change refugee" and entitled to refugee status in New Zealand - respondent, as successful party sought costs calculated on a 2B basis ($5,970) - applicant suggested costs should be reserved as the case had been funded on a pro bono basis and was "expected to proceed up the appeal process as the question was of world wide interest" - appropriate costs - in the administration of the Court's costs regime was important to ensure impecunious parties, particularly self-represented litigants (which applicant was not in this case) were not exempt from costs awards when filing appeals bound to fail
HELD: applicant's eligibility to have Court fees waived was not a ground for refusing costs and nor was the fact the substantive judgment received worldwide coverage in the news media - the appeal, despite its news interest, was bound to fail - applicant to pay costs to respondent of $5,970
(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)
Citizenship and migration — Refugees — Recognition as refugee — Misconceived
Application for leave to appeal against decision of New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal (NZIPT). Applicant unlawfully resided in New Zealand and none of applicant's children entitled to New Zealand citizenship. Sought refugee status because of difficulties faced due to combined pressures of over-population and sea-level-rise. NZIPT held environmental degradation could involve significant human rights issues but applicant still needed to establish criteria set out in Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees United Nations 1954 (Convention) had been met. Found no evidence applicant faced real chance of suffering serious physical harm from violence in Kiribati in future and environmental degradation faced by population generally. Applicant claimed NZIPT erred in finding applicant sociological refugee as distinguished from refugee covered by Convention. Established NZIPT did not err in finding effects of climate change and population of Kiribati in general did not bring applicant within provisions of Convention. Accordingly, applicant's claim for recognition as refugee fundamentally misconceived. Application dismissed.
(Lexis Catchwords & Digest)
Practice and procedure — Applications — Leave to appeal — No arguable issue
Application for leave to appeal against decision of New Zealand Court of Appeal (NZCA). Applicant sought refugee status or protected person status. Claimed homeland, Kiribati, faced steady rising sea water levels as result of climate change, and over time, said environmental degradation would force inhabitants to leave Kiribati. New Zealand Immigration and Protection Tribunal (NZIPT) found applicant neither refugee nor protected person on basis of effects of climate change on homeland. Applicant claimed New Zealand's refugee law extended protection to person who faced environmental displacement. New Zealand High Court (NZHC) declined applicant's leave to appeal against decision of NZIPT on grounds none of applicant's issues raised arguable question of law of general or public importance. NZCA refused applicant's leave to appeal to NZHC against decision of NZIPT. Applicant identified same questions of law raised before NZHC and NZCA. Established questions identified raised no arguable question of law of general or public importance. Established no evidence Government of Kiribati failed to take steps to protect own citizens from effects of environmental degradation. Accordingly, no risk justice miscarried. Application dismissed.
CASE DOCUMENTS
Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3125
Teitiota v Chief Executive, Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3401
Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173
Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZSC 107
RELATED CASES
JUMP TO CASE: