NEW ZEALAND CASES ON COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION Case Decision

1

NEW ZEALAND CASES ON COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION

Last updated 23 August 2013

Notes:

• Although this table is in chronological order, there is sometimes a delay in the publication of decisions so it is prudent to check back

through the table for updates.

• Shaded cases are precedents.

Case Decision

date

Relevant

paragraphs

Comments

AF (Kiribati)

[2013] NZIPT

800413

25 June

2013

77–98 This case relates to:

• climate change-related displacement

• arbitrary deprivation of life

• cruel treatment

The appellant was a citizen of Kiribati. He lived with his wife’s family in their village on South

Tarawa, relying on subsistence agriculture and fishing, supplemented by support from his wife’s

brother. He claimed to be entitled to refugee status or protected person status on the basis of

environmental changes in Kiribati associated with climate change. The Tribunal found that the

limited capacity of South Tarawa to carry its population was being significantly compromised by

the effects of population growth, urbanisation and limited infrastructure development,

particularly in relation to sanitation (para 39). The Tribunal also found that these factors were

exacerbated by the effects of both sudden onset environmental events (storms) and slow-onset

processes (sea level rise) (para 39). However, the Tribunal found that the appellant was not a

refugee or a protected person within the meaning of the Convention against Torture or the

ICCPR.

Refugee claim (paras 42–76)

As a starting point, the Tribunal held that the legal concept of ‘being persecuted’ rested on

human agency (para 53). Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that the requirement of human agency

2

did not mean that environmental degradation, whether associated with climate change or not,

could never create pathways into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction (para

55). The Tribunal acknowledged that persons fleeing natural disaster could not obtain refugee

status, insofar as the effects of natural disasters were felt indiscriminately, rather than for any

Convention reason (para 56). However, the Tribunal observed that there was a complex

relationship between environmental degradation, natural disasters and human vulnerability, and

that this complex relationship could create pathways to international protection, including under

the Refugee Convention (paras 56–70). For example, a state response to a natural disaster might

sideline the recovery needs of marginalised groups, or a state might use environmental

degradation as a direct weapon of oppression against an entire section of the population (paras

58–9).

The Tribunal also observed that natural disasters and environmental degradation could involve

significant human rights issues in the context of the ICCPR (paras 61–2) and the ICESCR (para

63). The Tribunal noted that the ECtHR had found in Oneryildiz v Turkey [2004] ECHR 657 and

Budayeva & Ors v Russia, Application No 15339/02 (20 March 2008) that there was a violation

of the right to life where individuals had been killed due to a state failure to protect life against

risks from known and imminent environmental hazards (para 62). In the context of the ICESCR,

the Tribunal cited General Comment No 14 of the Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural

Rights, in which the Committee stated that Art 12(2)(b) obliged states to take steps aimed at the

prevention and reduction of the population’s exposure to ‘detrimental environmental conditions

that directly or indirectly impact on human health’ (para 63). The Tribunal also cited General

Comment No 12, in which the Committee stated that States had ‘a core obligation to take the

necessary action to mitigate and alleviate hunger … even in times of natural or other disasters’

under Art 11 (para 63).

Nevertheless, the Tribunal held that, for the applicant to be recognised as a refugee, it was

necessary for him to establish ‘a real chance of a sustained or systematic violation of a core

human right demonstrative of a failure of state protection which has sufficient nexus to a

Convention ground’ (para 65).

On the facts of the case, the Tribunal found that there was not a real chance that the appellant

3

would be persecuted if he returned to Kiribati (paras 72–4). The Tribunal accepted that

environmental degradation could cause tension over land, which had given rise to physical

assaults and even deaths in Kiribati (para 72). However, the Tribunal held that the appellant had

not been subjected to any land dispute in the past and was not presently involved in any land

dispute (para 72). Hence, there was no evidence that he faced a real chance of suffering serious

harm linked to land disputes in the future (para 72).

The Tribunal accepted that the house in which the appellant lived was no longer available to him

in the long-term (para 73). However, the Tribunal held that, even assuming that the appellant

could not find a place to live in Tarawa and had to return to one or other of the home islands,

land would be available to him there (para 73). The Tribunal held that such land could provide

the appellant and his family access to sufficient resources to sustain themselves to an adequate

level (para 73). In reaching this conclusion, the Tribunal noted that the appellant’s evidence was

that food had become difficult to grow with salt water intrusion onto the land, not impossible

(para 73). Moreover, the appellant did not claim that he had no access to potable water (para 73).

The Tribunal held that there was no evidence establishing that the environmental conditions

faced by the appellant on his return to Kiribati would be so parlous that his life would be placed

in jeopardy or that he and his family would not be able to resume their prior subsistence life with

dignity (para 74). The Tribunal held that the appellant’s brother-in-law would be able to provide

continued support to the family, as he had done in the past, so as to allow them to continue to

enjoy an adequate standard of living (para 74). Although the appellant’s standard of living would

be less than that which he would enjoy in New Zealand, the Tribunal held that this, in itself, did

not amount to serious harm (para 74).

In any event, the Tribunal held that the appellant’s claim to be a refugee necessarily failed

because the effects of environmental degradation were faced by the population of Kiribati

generally (para 75). It had not been suggested that the Government of Kiribati had failed to take

adequate steps to protect the appellant from such harm for any Convention reason (para 75).

Claim under Convention against Torture (paras 77–8)

The appellant did not argue that the facts of his case raised any claim under section 130 of the

4

Act (para 78). The Tribunal held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the

appellant would be in danger of being subjected to torture (para 78).

Claim under ICCPR: arbitrary deprivation of life (paras 79–92)

The Tribunal held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the appellant would

be in danger of being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life, for two reasons.

First, the Tribunal noted, on the basis of academic commentary, that the right to life protected

against deprivation of life by state action or as a consequence of its omissions (paras 85–6). The

Tribunal held that the prohibition on arbitrary deprivation of life required taking into account

‘the positive obligation on the state to fulfil the right to life by taking programmatic steps to

provide for the basic necessities for life’ (para 87). Having regard to the decisions of the ECtHR

in Budayeva and Oneryildiz, the Tribunal held that states had positive duties to protect life from

risks arising from known natural hazards and that a failure to do so could, in principle, constitute

a relevant omission (para 87). However, the appellant could not point to any act or omission by

the Kiribati Government which might indicate that he was at risk of being arbitrarily deprived of

his life (para 88). The Tribunal held that the Kiribati Government was active on the international

stage concerning the threats posed to the state and its population by climate change-related

events and processes (para 88). The appellant himself acknowledged that the Government had

been taking steps to protect inhabitants and property from sea level rise, including by building

sea walls and providing potable water (para 88).

Second, the appellant could not establish that there was a sufficient degree of risk to his life, or

that of his family, at the present time (para 89). The Tribunal held, on the basis of the Human

Rights Committee’s decision in Aalbersberg & Ors v Netherlands CCPR/C/87/D/1440/2005 (14

August 2006), that there was a requirement for the risk of violation of an ICCPR right to be

‘imminent’ (para 89). The Tribunal held that the concept of an ‘imminent’ risk to life was to be

interpreted in light of the express wording of section 131 of the Act, which required that there

substantial grounds for believing that the applicant would be in danger (para 90). The Tribunal

held that ‘these standards should be seen as largely synonymous requiring something akin to the

refugee “real chance” standard. That is to say, something which is more than above mere

speculation and conjecture, but sitting below the civil balance of probability standard …’ (para

5

90). However, the Tribunal held that the risk to the appellant remained ‘firmly in the realm of

conjecture or surmise’ (para 91). As noted in relation to his refugee claim, the Tribunal held that

there was no evidence that the appellant’s situation in Kiribati would be so precarious that his or

his family’s life would be ‘in danger’ (para 91). The Tribunal noted the fear of the appellant’s

wife, in particular, that their young children could be drowned in a tidal event or a storm surge

(para 91). However, the Tribunal held that there was no evidence provided to establish that

deaths from these events were occurring with such regularity as to raise the prospect of death

occurring to the appellant or his family to a level beyond conjecture and surmise (para 91).

Claim under ICCPR: cruel treatment (paras 93–5)

The Tribunal also held that there were no substantial grounds for believing that the appellant

would be in danger of being subjected to cruel treatment. In reaching this conclusion, the

Tribunal considered, but declined to follow, developments in the ECtHR in which the regional

analogue to art 7 of the ICCPR (namely, art 3 of the ECHR) was held to extend ‘in very

exceptional cases’ to situations where there was no qualifying treatment in the receiving country

(para 93). The Tribunal observed that the rationale behind such a development appeared to be

that it was inhuman to remove someone to a known situation of serious harm (para 93).

However, the Tribunal declined to follow this development because the scope of the application

of this principle was ‘a matter of some doctrinal controversy within the ECtHR given the

absolute nature of the prohibition’ and the Tribunal said it had not been followed more broadly

in the international jurisprudence on the interpretation of art 7 (para 93).

AF (Nepal) [2013]

NZIPT 800292

30 Apr

2013

64–9 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture

ICCPR: no substantial reasons for believing that would be subjected to arbitrary deprivation of

life or cruel treatment

CF (Fiji) [2013]

NZIPT 800502

29 Apr

2013




AD (Ethiopia)

[2013] NZIPT

800438

29 Apr

2013

N/A The Tribunal held that it did not have jurisdiction to hear this appeal.

AH (Egypt) [2013]

NZIPT 800268

29 Apr

2013

210–21 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

6

AV (Sri Lanka)

[2013] NZIPT

800340

17 Apr

2013




AO (Pakistan)

[2013] NZIPT

800322

17 Apr

2013


grounds.

CA (Iran) [2013]

NZIPT 800369

4 Apr

2013


grounds.

AU (Sri Lanka)

[2013] NZIPT

800281

2 Apr

2013


grounds.

AC (Somalia)

[2013] NZIPT

800257

26 Mar

2013

219–21 Torture and ICCPR: not eligible for protection, since applicants were NZ citizens

AU (China) [2013]

NZIPT 800443

11 Mar

2013

69–75 Husband and wife

Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

Children

Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



CE (Fiji) [2013]

NZIPT 800311

12 Mar

2013




BZ (Iran) [2013]

NZIPT 800408

28 Feb

2013




AN (Pakistan)

[2013] NZIPT

800422

21 Feb

2013


grounds.

BY (Iran) [2013] 14 Feb 2–5 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

7

NZIPT 800366 2013 grounds.

AG (Egypt) [2012]

NZIPT 800396

31 Jan

2013


grounds.

AC (Kiribati)

[2013] NZIPT

800005

31 Jan

2013




AF (Iraq) [2013]

NZIPT 800395

30 Jan

2013




AE (Jordan) [2013]

NZIPT 800217

30 Jan

2013




CA (Fiji) [2013]

NZIPT 800328

25 Jan

2013




AM (Pakistan)

[2013] NZIPT

800274

25 Jan

2013


grounds.

AF (Syria) [2012]

NZIPT 800388

20 Dec

2012

92-5 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

AC (Colombia)

[2012] NZIPT

800279

20 Dec

2012

64-70 [First appellant]




[Second appellant]


grounds.

AE (Iraq) [2012]

NZIPT 800133

20 Dec

2012

69 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

AE (Syria) [2012]

NZIPT 800318

18 Dec

2012


grounds.

8

AT (Sri Lanka)

[2012] NZIPT

800265

18 Dec

2012


grounds.

BV (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800310

28 Nov

2012

2-5 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



AK (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800259

28 Nov

2012


grounds.

AC (Turkey) [2012]

NZIPT 800246

28 Nov

2012


grounds.

BW (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800329

27 Nov

2012




BV (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800227

27 Nov

2012




AR (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800315

22 Nov

2012

104-13 Mother


grounds.

Children




BU (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800207

21 Nov

2012


grounds.

BU (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800372

20 Nov

2012




AD (Russia) [2012]

NZIPT 800266

13 Nov

2012

5 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture


9


BT (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800188

9 Nov

2012


grounds.

AQ (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800213

31 Oct

2012




AE (Hungary)

[2012] NZIPT

800325

30 Oct

2012


grounds.

AB (Democratic

Republic of the

Congo) [2012]

NZIPT 800267

30 Oct

2012


grounds.

AD (Chile) [2012]

NZIPT 800346

26 Oct

2012




AE (Bangladesh)

[2012] NZIPT

800303

18 Oct

2012




AS (Sri Lanka)

[2012] NZIPT

800090

9 Oct

2012


grounds.

AL (South Africa)

[2012] NZIPT

800323

3 Oct

2012




AP (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800283

28 Sept

2012


grounds.

AR (Sri Lanka)

[2012] NZIPT

800367

27 Sept

2012


grounds.

BS (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800351

27 Sept

2012


grounds.

10

AQ (Sri Lanka)

[2012] NZIPT

800260

17 Sept

2012




AB (United

Kingdom) [2012]

NZIPT 800362

13 Sept

2012




AB (United States)

[2012] NZIPT

800387

13 Sept

2012




Al (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800374

30

August

2012




BR (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800255

23

August

2012

2,5 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

AB (Germany)

[2012] NZIPT

800107

16

August

2012




BQ (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800165

14

August

2012




BS (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800041

3

August

2012


grounds.

AG (India) [2012]

NZIPT 800337

2

August

2012

7, 11 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



BR (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800319

30 July

2012

120-6 [Mother]


grounds.

[Son and daughter]

11




AG (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800245

30 July

2012


grounds.

AB (Lebanon)

[2012] NZIPT

800247

30 July

2012




AJ (Zimbabwe)

[2012] NZIPT

800262

17 July

2012


grounds.

AB (Mongolia)

[2012] NZIPT

800312

29 June

2012




BO (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800214

29 June

2012

98-106 [Husband and wife]


grounds.

[Daughter]




AD (Hungary)

[2012] NZIPT

800194

29 June

2012




AB (Somalia)

[2012] NZIPT

800140

28 June

2012


grounds.

BN (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800248

28 June

2012

99-105 [Husband and wife]


grounds.

12

[Son]




AD (Jordan) [2012]

NZIPT 800263

28 June

2012


grounds.

BM (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800156

28 June

2012

74-6, 79 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



BK (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800191

27 June

2012


grounds.

BJ (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800205

27 June

2012


grounds.

BI (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800233

27 June

2012


grounds.

AC (Russia) [2012]

NZIPT 800151

26 June

2012

81-116 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture.

ICCPR:

• Substantial grounds for believing that the appellant faces an arbitrary deprivation of life

at the hands of DD if he returns to Russia. [87]

• Given that the appellant’s problems have been localized to the X town region, an issue

arises as to whether the appellant is able to access meaningful domestic protection within

the meaning of s 131(2) of the Immigration Act 2009. The phrase ‘able to access

meaningful domestic protection’ reflects the jurisprudence of the Refugee Status Appeals

Authority in relation to what it had come to term ‘the internal protection alternative’

(‘IPA’). [90]

• Drawing upon the jurisprudence of the Refugee Status Appeals Authority in refugee law

on the IPA inquiry, the Tribunal held that in order for the statutory test under s 131(2) to

be satisfied, it be must be established that:

(a) The proposed site of internal protection is accessible to the individual. This requires

that the access be practical, safe and legal;

(b) In the proposed site of internal protection there are no substantial grounds for

13

believing that the appellant be will arbitrarily deprived of life or suffer cruel,

inhuman or degrading treatment or punishment;

(c) In the proposed site of internal protection there are no new risks of being exposed to

other forms of serious harm or of refoulement; and

(d) In the proposed site of internal protection basic civil, political and socio-economic

rights will be provided by the State. [110]

• The appellant would not be able to access any meaningful domestic protection anywhere

in Russia because of the risk that details of his whereabouts would be passed onto DD.

[113]

AM (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800168

25 June

2012




AB (Tunisia)

[2012] NZIPT

800178

22 June

2012




AL (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800230

21 June

2012




AE (Afghanistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800171

15 June

2012


grounds.

AG (Zimbabwe)

[2012] NZIPT

800206

15 June

2012




BH (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800302

12 June

2012




AC (Chad) [2012]

NZIPT 800254

11 June

2012


grounds.

AP (Sri Lanka)

[2012] NZIPT

800222

8 June

2012


grounds.

14

AF (India) [2012]

NZIPT 800299

5 June

2012




AC (Bahrain)

[2012] NZIPT

800223

31 May

2012


grounds.

AF (Egypt) [2012]

NZIPT 800286

30 May

2012


grounds.

BG (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800167

29 May

2012


grounds.

AF (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800068

18 May

2012




BF (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800199

15 May

2012




AB (Vanuatu)

[2012] NZIPT

800278

11 May

2012

13 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



BE (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800124

9 May

2012




BD (Iraq) [2012]

NZIPT 800238

3 May

2012




BC (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800130

30 April

2012


grounds.

BO (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800284

26 April

2012




BP (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800244

26 April

2012



15


AB (Chile) [2012]

NZIPT 800235

26 April

2012




AE (Egypt) [2012]

NZIPT 800226

24 April

2012


grounds.

AB (Nigeria)

[2012] NZIPT

800220

24 April

2012




AE (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800221

20 April

2012


grounds.

BN (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800293

20 April

2012




AE (Zimbabwe)

[2012] NZIPT

800203

17 April

2012




AK (South Africa)

[2012] NZIPT

800174

16 April

2012

72-86 [Mother and daughter]


grounds.

[Father]

Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture.

ICCPR: substantial grounds for believing that would be subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life

or cruel treatment. ‘In danger of’ threshold is analogous to the ‘real chance’ threshold in refugee

law.

BM (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800291

30

March

2012

31, 34 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture



AC (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

30

March



16

800198 2012 life or cruel treatment

AZ (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800237

29

March

2012




AC (Czech

Republic) [2012]

NZIPT 800183

29

March

2012

75-82 [Mother, father and son]


grounds.

[Daughter]




AK (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800202

28

March

2012


grounds.

AB (Israel) [2012]

NZIPT 800011

27

March

2012


grounds.

AX (Iran) [2012]

NZIPT 800153

21

March

2012




AB (Pakistan)

[2012] NZIPT

800166

16

March

2012

2, 5 Torture and ICCPR: already recognised as refugee so no need to recognise under separate

grounds.

AC (Hungary)

[2012] NZIPT

800143

29 Feb

2012

62-67 Torture: no real chance that would be subjected to racially-motivated serious physical attacks;

could access meaningful domestic protection

ICCPR: availability of meaningful domestic protection means that cannot be recognised as a

protected person under ICCPR

AB (Russian

Federation) [2012]

NZIPT 800181

28 Feb

2012


grounds.

AD (Iraq) [2012] 27 Feb 72-77 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to torture

17

NZIPT 800256 2012 ICCPR: no substantial reasons for believing that would be subjected to arbitrary deprivation of


BK (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800253 23 Feb

2012




BI (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800082

27 Jan

2012




AJ (China) [2012]

NZIPT 800122

26 Jan

2012


grounds.

AB (Chad) [2012]

NZIPT 800200

20 Jan

2012


ICCPR:

• No substantial reasons for believing that would be subjected to arbitrary deprivation of


• Anticipated harm must be serious (see AC (Syria) [2011] NZIPT 800035). Association of

notion of cruel treatment and notion of torture in Article 7 of the ICCPR has an ejusdem

generis quality, in that both require relevant harm to be serious. But this is not to say that

cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment must be seen within the context of torture.

BG (Fiji) [2012]

NZIPT 800091

20 Jan

2012


ICCPR:

• No substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to arbitrary deprivation of life

or cruel treatment

• Considered ECtHR jurisprudence which stated that deportation itself can qualify as

‘treatment’ under the ICCPR, but found that this approach is precluded by the language

of the NZ statute (and it is not a settled part of international law so cannot be followed

under NZ’s general rule of conforming with international legal obligations)

• As a general rule, socio-economic deprivation arising from general policy and conditions

in the receiving state is not to be regarded as a breach of Article 7 of the ICCPR as there

is no relevant ‘treatment‘ (it may, however, in the refugee jurisdiction amount to a breach

of a relevant ICESCR right)

• In the context of humanitarian appeals, something more than exposure by deportation to

a lower standard of living than is being enjoyed in New Zealand must be shown

18

AB (Bahrain)

[2011] NZIPT

800219

21 Dec

2011


grounds.

AC (Iraq) [2011]

NZIPT 800212

21 Dec

2011


grounds.

AE (Nepal) [2011]

NZIPT 800160

19 Dec

2011

62-67 Torture and ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to cruel

treatment.

AD (Egypt) [2011]

NZIPT 800177

15 Dec

2011


grounds.

BE (Fiji) [2011]

NZIPT 800239

13 Dec

2011


treatment.

AI (China) [2011]

NZIPT 800154

12 Dec

2011


grounds.

AB (Jordan) [2011]

NZIPT 800093

9 Dec

2011


treatment.

AZ (Fiji) [2011]

NZIPT 800232

1 Dec

2011


treatment.

Torture requires more than ‘minor discrimination’. ‘[S]uch circumstances do not meet the

required standard in terms of the level of harm or the intentional purposes of torture, nor do

generalised assertions about a lack of democracy, state protection, and respect for human rights

in Fiji’. [36]

The ICCPR is only engaged on the basis of cruel, inhuman or degrading treatment or

punishment if there is a requisite degree of harm (following AC (Syria) [2011] NZIPT 800035)

which is not satisfied here. [40]

AC (Egypt) [2011]

NZIPT 800015

25 Nov

2011


grounds.

AP (Iran) [2011]

NZIPT 800012

29 Sept

2011


grounds.

AI (Sri Lanka)

[2011] NZIPT

800149

15 Sept

2011

64-73 Torture and ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be tortured.

AD (South Africa) 15 Sept 77-85 Torture and ICCPR: appellants may be at risk of cruel treatment, but that would not be at the

19

[2011] NZIPT

800034, 800106

2011 hands of the South African state and they could obtain state protection.

AB (Egypt) [2011]

NZIPT 800018

15 Sept

2011

49-56 Torture and ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be tortured.

AD (Zimbabwe)

[2011] NZIPT

800142

31 Aug

2011


treatment.

AL (Iran) [2011]

NZIPT 800029

25 Aug

2011


treatment.

AC (Bangladesh)

[2011] NZIPT

800010

25 Aug

2011


treatment.

AB (Rwanda)

[2011] NZIPT

800019

24 Aug

2011


grounds.

AC (Malaysia)

[2011] NZIPT

800126

22 Aug

2011


ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to cruel treatment or arbitrary

deprivation of life (as state protection is available).

AC (Afghanistan)

[2011] NZIPT

800161

16 Aug

2011


grounds.

AH (Sri Lanka)

[2011] NZIPT

800020-800024

16 Aug

2011


treatment.

AK (Iran) [2011]

NZIPT 800152

12 Aug

2011


grounds.

AV (Fiji) [2011]

NZIPT 800162

10 Aug

2011


treatment.

AB (Brazil) [2011]

NZIPT 800144-

800146

1 Aug

2011


treatment.

AF (South Africa) 29 July 67-71 Torture and ICCPR: not a real chance that would be harmed in home state. (NB: most other

20

[2011] NZIPT

800100-800102

2011 cases refer to ‘substantial grounds’, whereas this case uses the real chance standard.)

AG (China) [2011]

NZIPT 800043

27 July

2011


treatment.

AF (China) [2011]

NZIPT 800158

26 July

2011



deprivation of life. The discrimination risks were remote or speculative only.

AD (Singapore)

[2011] NZIPT

800148

30 June

2011

34-45 Torture: acknowledged that previous detention may have violated human rights, but there is no

risk of those events recurring. Allegations of food poisoning: mere speculation that this was

anything more than random or that the state authorities were involved at all. Insufficient

evidence that state was involved in any of the other events giving rise to the complaint.


deprivation of life.

AI (Iran) [2011]

NZIPT 800069

30 June

2011


grounds.

AB (Afghanistan)

[2011] NZIPT

800017

30 June

2011


grounds.

AB (Saudi Arabia)

[2011] NZIPT

800080

28 June

2011


grounds.

AB (Ghana) [2011]

NZIPT 800155

27 June

2011


treatment.

AD (China) [2011]

NZIPT 800141

21 June

2011


treatment.

AG (Sri Lanka)

[2011] NZIPT

800092

21 June

2011


grounds.

AB (South Africa)

[2011] NZIPT

800036-800037

21 June

2011


treatment.

AE (Iran) [2011] 7 June 48-53 Torture and ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to cruel

21

NZIPT 800071 2011 treatment.

AC (Syria) [2011]

NZIPT 800035

27 May

2011

126-134 Torture: no substantial grounds for believing that would be tortured.

ICCPR: no substantial grounds for believing that would be subject to cruel treatment. Discusses

standard of proof for complementary protection grounds. Lays out UK and Canadian standards

(real chance and balance of probabilities, respectively) but does not settle which NZ will follow.

AB (Bangladesh)

[2011] NZIPT

800125

25 May

2011


treatment.

AB (Iraq) [2011]

NZIPT 800014

4 May

2011


grounds. Provides some explanation of what would happen if the appellant’s refugee status were

terminated for some reason, but says that the chance of that happening is so remote that it is

unnecessary to address it.

AA (Iran)

[2010] NZIPT

800056

22 Dec

2010

74-80 Torture and ICCPR: already a NZ citizen so no need for protection on complementary protection

grounds. Provides some explanation of what would happen if the appellant’s citizenship were

revoked for some reason, but says that the chance of that happening is so remote that it is

unnecessary to address it.

Contact: Professor Jane McAdam, [email protected]

Documents

NEW ZEALAND CASES ON COMPLEMENTARY PROTECTION Case Decision