New Zealand: 

"Climate Change Refugee" 

Case Overview

July 2015

The Law Library of Congress, Global Legal Research Center

(202) 707-6462 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • law@loc.gov • http://www.law.gov
This report is provided for reference purposes only. 

It does not constitute legal advice and does not represent the official 

opinion of the United States Government. The information provided 

reflects research undertaken as of the date of writing. 

It has not been updated.
I. Introduction 

A New Zealand case involving an application for refugee status based on the effects of climate 

change in the Pacific Island nation of Kiribati has received media attention around the world. 

The proceedings in the case came to a close in July 2015, when the Supreme Court of New 

Zealand, the highest court in the country, dismissed an application for leave to appeal the Court 

of Appeal’s decision in which it ruled against the applicant.

This report summarizes the decisions of the different courts that issued rulings in the case and 

provides information on other Australian and New Zealand cases that involved refugee claims 

based on the impacts of climate change in different countries. Links to media articles and 

academic writings that include discussion of the New Zealand case are provided at the end of this 

report.

II. Case Summary

Mr. Ioane Teitiota and his wife moved to New Zealand from Kiribati in 2007. They 

subsequently had three children, who were born in New Zealand but not entitled to New Zealand 

citizenship under the Citizenship Act 1977. The family remained in the country illegally 

following the expiration of their visas in October 2010. To avoid deportation, Mr. Teitiota 

applied for refugee status under Part 5 of the Immigration Act 2009. This legislation 

incorporates into domestic law the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees. 

Mr. Teitiota claimed that he was entitled to be recognized as a refugee “on the basis of changes 

to his environment in Kiribati caused by sea-level-rise associated with climate change.”1

 A 

refugee and protection officer declined to grant refugee status, and this decision was upheld by 

the Immigration and Protection Tribunal. Mr. Teitiota subsequently sought leave from the High 

Court to appeal the Tribunal’s decision on questions of law under section 245 of the Immigration 

Act 2009. His application for leave to appeal to the High Court was declined by both the High 

Court and Court of Appeal in 2013 and 2014, respectively. On July 20, 2015, the Supreme Court 

upheld the decisions of the lower courts and dismissed Mr. Teitiota’s application for leave to 

appeal.

1 AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413 (25 June 2013), at [2], 

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/IPT/Documents/RefugeeProtection/pdf/ref_20130625_800413.pdf. The 

decision is also available in the New Zealand Legal Information Institute (NZLII) databases, at 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZIPT/2013/800413.html. 

(202) 707-6462 (phone) • (866) 550-0442 (fax) • law@loc.gov • http://www.law.gov

New Zealand: "Climate Change Refugee" 

Case Overview 

Kelly Buchanan

Chief, Foreign, Comparative, International Law Divison I
III. Court Decisions

A. Immigration and Protection Tribunal 

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) is an independent body that hears appeals from 

decisions made by Immigration New Zealand, including those of refugee and protection officers 

within the Refugee Status Branch. Immigration New Zealand is part of the Ministry of Business, 

Innovation and Employment (MBIE).

The IPT dismissed Mr. Teitiota’s appeal in a decision issued in June 2013. It noted that “the 

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

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

particularly in relation to sanitation. The negative impacts of these factors on the carrying 

capacity of the land on Tarawa atoll are being exacerbated by the effects of both sudden onset 

environmental events (storms) and slow-onset processes (sea-level-rise).”2

 However, the IPT 

considered that the appellant “has undertaken what may be termed a voluntary adaptive 

migration,” and that his decision to migrate to New Zealand could not be seen as “forced.”3

 

In examining the concept of persecution under New Zealand and international refugee law, the 

IPT stated that it involves either failure of the state to control its own agents who commit human 

rights violations, or failure to take steps to reduce the risk of harm being perpetrated by non-state 

actors.4 However, it did note that “this requirement of some form of human agency does not 

mean that environmental degradation, whether associated with climate change or not, can never 

create pathways into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction.”5

 

The IPT went on to consider international law with respect to natural disasters and environmental 

degradation, stating that while these can involve significant human rights issues, the claimant 

must still establish that they meet the legal criteria set out in the Refugee Convention. In the 

New Zealand context, this means showing “a real chance of a sustained or systemic violation of 

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

to a Convention ground.”6

 

The IPT found that the evidence did not show that the environmental conditions faced, or likely 

faced, by the appellant should he return to Kiribati “are so parlous that his life will be placed in 

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

dignity.”7

 In any event, it considered that the effects of environmental degradation on his 

standard of living were being faced by the population generally, and it had not been suggested 

that the Kiribati government has failed to take adequate steps to protect the appellant from 

2 AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413 at [39].

3 Id. at [49].

4 Id. at [54].

5 Id. at [55].

6 Id. at [65].

7 Id. at [74].
harm.8

 Therefore, the IPT found that the appellant was not a refugee within the meaning of the 

Refugee Convention.9

B. High Court 

Mr. Teitiota applied to the High Court for leave to appeal the IPT’s decision on points of law. In 

refusing to grant leave to appeal, the High Court called the appellant’s arguments “novel and 

optimistic” but found them “unconvincing.”10 In essence, the judge agreed with the IPT’s 

findings and stated that it was not for the Court to alter the scope of the Refugee Convention so 

as to entitle people facing medium-term economic deprivation or the immediate consequences of 

natural disasters or warfare to protection.11 He stated that “a ‘sociological’ refugee or person 

seeking to better his or her life by escaping the perceived results of climate change is not a 

person to whom Article 1A(2) of the Refugee Convention applies.”12 

C. Court of Appeal 

Mr. Teitiota sought to overturn the High Court’s decision by applying to the Court of Appeal. 

The Court of Appeal also held that the IPT’s reasoning had not been erroneous in law and 

declined to grant leave to appeal, stating that 

the Tribunal essentially applied well developed law, which it correctly understood, to the 

undisputed facts of Mr Teitiota’s case. The short point is that the effects of climate 

change on Mr Teitiota, and indeed on the population of Kiribati generally, do not bring 

him within the Convention. That is the position even if the most sympathetic, ambulatory 

approach permissible to interpreting the Convention is taken. The Convention is quite 

simply not the solution to Kiribati’s problem.13 

The Court further stated that, although it has “every sympathy with the people of Kiribati, Mr. 

Teitiota’s claim for recognition as a refugee is fundamentally misconceived. It attempts to stand 

the Convention on its head.”14 

8 Id. at [75].

9 Id. at [97].

10 Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3125 (26 

November 2013), at [51], https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/ 

jdo/56/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/6f4d600a-373f-4ff8-8ba1-500fb7cc94b0/6f4d600a373f-4ff8-8ba1-500fb7cc94b0.pdf. The High Court decision is also available through NZLII, at 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZHC/2013/3125.html. 

11 Id.

12 Id. at [54].

13 Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2014] NZCA 173 (8 May 

2014), at [21], https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/Documents/pdf/jdo/ 

b8/alfresco/service/api/node/content/workspace/SpacesStore/70056dfa-a205-4baf-9d8d-e97 ed5244899/70056dfaa205-4baf-9d8d-e97ed5244899.pdf. The Court of Appeal’s decision is also available through NZLII, at 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZCA/ 2014/173.html. 

14 Id. at [40].
D. Supreme Court

Mr. Teitiota subsequently applied to the Supreme Court for leave to appeal against the decision 

of the Court of Appeal. According to news reports, on June 10, 2015, the Supreme Court ruled 

that it had jurisdiction to consider the application and ordered the appellant to file and serve 

submissions by June 26, 2015, and that the MBIE file and serve its submissions by July 3, 

2015.15 

The Supreme Court’s decision was subsequently issued on July 20, 2015.16 In agreeing with the 

courts below, the five-member panel held that “in the particular factual context of this case (even 

with the addition of the new evidence), the questions identified raise no arguable question of law 

of general or public importance.”17 The new evidence referred to was the November 2014 

Synthesis Report of the Fifth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate 

Change, as well as the original MBIE decision. It confirmed the lower courts’ findings that, in 

relation to the Refugee Convention, Mr. Teitiota does not face “serious harm” and further that 

“there is no evidence that the Government of Kiribati is failing to take steps to protect its citizens 

from the effects of environmental degradation to the extent that it can.”18

The Supreme Court did note, however, the statements of the IPT and High Court that their 

decisions “did not mean that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other 

natural disasters could never create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person 

jurisdiction.”19 The Court similarly explicitly stated that its decision in this particular case 

“should not be taken as ruling out that possibility in an appropriate case.”20

15 Supreme Court to Hear Climate Refugee’s Appeal, RADIO NEW ZEALAND (June 11, 2015), 

http://www.radionz.co.nz/news/national/275955/supreme-court-to-hear-climate-refugee%27s-appeal.) (Supreme 

Court Reserved Decisions (As at 26 June 2015): Case Number SC 7/2015, COURTS OF NEW ZEALAND,

https://www.courtsofnz. govt.nz/from/reserved-decisions-supreme (last visited July 8, 2015).) Case Summaries 

2015: Case Number SC 7/2015, COURTS OF NEW ZEALAND, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/ about/supreme/casesummaries/case-summaries-2015 (last visited July 8, 2015).)

16 Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2015] NZSC 107 (20 July 

2015, https://www.courtsofnz.govt.nz/cases/ioane-teitiotoa-v-the-chief-executive-of-the-ministry-of-businessinnovation-and-employment/at_download/fileDecision. The decision is also available through NZLII, at 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZSC/2015/107.html. 

17 Id. at [12].

18 Id. 

19 Id. at [13].

20 Id.
IV. Other Refugee Cases Involving Climate Change

The decision of the IPT in the Teitiota case notes that there were a number of cases in 2000 that 

involved claimants from Tuvalu seeking recognition as refugees in New Zealand due to various 

environmental factors, including “inundation, coastal erosion, salination of the water table, 

combined with factors at the individual and household levels.”21 The IPT lists the following 

seven such cases, in which all of the claims were dismissed by the New Zealand Refugee Status 

Appeals Authority, the predecessor of the IPT, “because the indiscriminate nature of these events 

and processes gave rise to no nexus to a [Refugee] Convention ground”:

22 

• Refugee Appeal No 72185 [2000] NZRSAA (10 August 2000)

• Refugee Appeal No 72186 [2000] NZRSAA 336 (10 August 2000)

• Refugee Appeal Nos 72189–72195 [2000] NZRSAA 355 (17 August 2000)

• Refugee Appeal Nos 72179–72181 [2000] NZRSAA 385 (31 August 2000)

• Refugee Appeal No 72313 [2000] NZRSAA 491 (19 October 2000)

• Refugee Appeal No 72314 [2000] NZRSAA 492 (19 October 2000)

• Refugee Appeal No 72315 [2000] NZRSAA 493 (19 October 2000)

• Refugee Appeal No 72316 [2000] NZRSAA 464 (19 October 2000)

In the High Court, Mr. Teitiota’s lawyer “candidly submitted” that he had been unable to find 

“any New Zealand, Australian, Canadian, United Kingdom, United States, or European authority 

which had extended the protection of the Refugee Convention to a person adversely affected by 

climate change.”23 The High Court judge noted that “[t]o the contrary, there are many decisions 

rejecting claims by people from Kiribati, Tuvalu, Tonga, Bangladesh, and Fiji on the grounds 

that the harm feared (environmental problems in low-lying countries attributable to climate 

change) does not amount to persecution and there were no differential impacts on the 

applicants.”24 Among the cases he cited were the following:25 

• Mohammed Matahir Ali v Minister of Immigration [1994] FCA 887 (Federal Court of

Australia)

• 0907346 [2009] RRTA 1168 (10 December 2009) (Kiribati) (Refugee Review Tribunal of

Australia)

• 1004726 [2010] RRTA 845 (30 September 2010) (Tonga) (Refugee Review Tribunal of

Australia)

21 AF (Kiribati) [2013] NZIPT 800413, at [67].

22 Id.

23 Teitiota v Chief Executive of the Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment [2013] NZHC 3125, at [45]. 24 Id.

25 Id. at note 22.
• Refugee Appeal No 70965/98, NZRSAA (27 August 1998) (Fiji) (New Zealand Refugee

Status Appeals Authority)

In the Australian Refugee Review Tribunal Decision in 0907346 [2009] RRTA 1168, the 

Tribunal affirmed the decision to decline a refugee visa to an applicant from Kiribati, finding that 

“[t]here appears no doubt that the circumstances the applicant, and others living in Kiribati, face 

are serious and deserving of significant Governmental consideration and attention. They are not 

matters against which, however, the Refugees Convention as it applies in Australia is able to 

provide protection.”26 

In a 2010 paper on climate change displacement, in addition to some of the cases referred to 

above, an Australian expert on refugee law cited the following Australian refugee or protection 

visa cases, decided by the Refugee Review Tribunal of Australia, that refer to the impacts of 

climate change in Tuvalu:

27

• N00/34089 [2000] RRTA 1052 (17 November 2000)

• N95/09386 [1996] RRTA 3191 (7 November 1996)

• N96/10806 [1996] RRTA 3195 (7 November 1996)

• Ν99/30231 [2000] ΡΡΤΑ 17 (10 January 2000)

• V94/02840 [1995] RRTA 2383 (23 October 1995)

More recently, in 2014, the IPT similarly dismissed an appeal from a Tuvalu family that had 

sought refugee status in New Zealand on the basis of the effects of climate change in their home 

country.28 However, in a separate decision, the IPT allowed the family to remain in New 

Zealand due to “exceptional circumstances of a humanitarian nature, which would make it unjust 

or unduly harsh for the appellants to be removed from New Zealand.”29 The relevant 

circumstances involved close family ties within the country that would be severely disrupted by 

removal. This case received some media coverage outside of New Zealand and is discussed in 

an article by the same Australian legal expert referred to above.

30 

26 0907346 [2009] RRTA 1168, at [54].

27 Jane McAdam, Climate Change Displacement and International Law, at note 6 (Side Event to the High 

Commissioner’s Dialogue on Protection Challenges, Dec. 8, 2010, Geneva), http://www.refworld. 

org/pdfid/4d95a1532.pdf

28 AC (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 800517-520 (4 June 2014), https://forms.justice.govt. 

nz/search/IPT/Documents/RefugeeProtection/pdf/ref_20140604_800517.pdf; http://www.nzlii. 

org/nz/cases/NZIPT/2014/800517.html. 

29 AD (Tuvalu) [2014] NZIPT 501370-371, at [30] (4 June 2014), 

https://forms.justice.govt.nz/search/IPT/Documents/Deportation/pdf/rem_20140604_501370.pdf; 

http://www.nzlii.org/nz/cases/NZIPT/2014/501370.html. 

30 Jane McAdam, No “Climate Refugees” in New Zealand, BROOKINGS (Aug. 13, 2014), 

http://www.brookings.edu/blogs/ planetpolicy/posts/2014/08/13-climate-refugees-new-zealand-mcadam. 
V. Media Reports and Other Commentary 

Mr. Teitiota’s case has been the subject of reports published by multiple media organizations 

around the world. The following are a selection of articles published by various Englishlanguage news outlets in the past two years:

A. 2013 Articles 

• Gyles Beckford, Pacific Man Seeks Climate Change Asylum in New Zealand, REUTERS (Oct.

16, 2013).

• World’s First Climate Change Refugee Fights to Stay in NZ, NEW ZEALAND HERALD (Oct.

17, 2013).

• Elliot Hannon, Man Attempts to Become World’s First Climate Change Refugee, SLATE (Oct.

17, 2013).

• Man Seeks ‘Climate Change Asylum’ in New Zealand, BBC NEWS (Oct. 17, 2013).

• Pacific Islander Ioane Teitiota Fails in Bid to Be First Climate Change Refugee, ABC NEWS

(Nov. 26, 2013).

• Nick Perry, Ioane Teitiota, Kiribati Man, Sees Climate Change Refugee Claim Rejected by

New Zealand Judge, HUFFINGTON POST (Nov. 26, 2013).

• Nora Caplan-Bricker, Climate Change Will Force Pacific Islanders to Flee. Should the U.S.

be Forced to Take Them In?, NEW REPUBLIC (Dec. 2, 2013).

B. 2014 Articles 

• Morgan Godfrey, New Zealand Refuses Climate Change Refugees – Mass Action is Now

Needed, THE GUARDIAN (May 11, 2014).

• Kathy Marks, World’s First ‘Climate Change Refugee’ Has Appeal Rejected as New Zealand

Rules Ioane Teitiota Must Return to South Pacific Island Nation of Kiribati, THE

INDEPENDENT (May 12, 2014). 

• James Eng, Man Loses Bid in New Zealand to Become First ‘Climate Change Refugee’, NBC

NEWS (May 12, 2014),

• Hannah Osborne, Kiribati: World’s First ‘Climate Change Refugee’ Ioane Teitiota Loses

New Zealand Asylum Bid, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES (May 13, 2014).

C. 2015 Articles 

• Kenneth R. Weiss, The Making of a Climate Refugee, FOREIGN POLICY (Jan. 28, 2015),

• Emma O’Brien, An Islander’s Bid to be the World’s First Climate Refugee, BLOOMBERG

(Mar. 30, 2015).

• Jonathan Pearlman, Pacific Islander Loses Bid to be World’s First ‘Climate Change

Refugee’, THE TELEGRAPH (July 21, 2015).
• Pierre Longeray & Pierre-Louis Caron, New Zealand Supreme Court Rejects Kiribati Man’s

Bid to Become a ‘Climate Refugee’, VICE NEWS (July 21, 2015).

• Kiribati Man Faces Deportation After New Zealand Court Rejects His Bid to be First

Climate Change Refugee, ABC News (July 21, 2015).

• Sean Martin, World’s First ‘Climate Change Refugee’ Loses Appeal to Stay in New Zealand,

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES (July 22, 2015).

• Kalyan Kumar, New Zealand Rejects Climate Refugee’s Appeal: Top Court Says Persecution

the Sole Ground to Grant Refugee Status, INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS TIMES (July 23, 2015).

D. Other Publications

The Teitiota case has also been discussed by academics and analysts in a range of other 

publications, for example:

• Margaretha Wewerinke, A Right to Enjoy Culture in the Face of Climate Change:

Implications for “Climate Migrants” (CGHR Working Paper 6/4MCR Working Paper 7,

University of Cambridge, Dec. 2013).

• Feature: Should International Refugee Law Accommodate Climate Change?, UN NEWS

CENTRE (July 3, 2014).

• Xing-Yin Ni, A Nation Going Under: Legal Protection for “Climate Change Refugees”,

38(2) B.C. INT’L & COMP. L. REV 329 (2015).

• Jane McAdam, The Emerging New Zealand Jurisprudence on Climate Change, Disasters

and Displacement, 3(1) MIGRAT. STUD. 131 (2015).