Immigration and Protection Tribunal

Last updated

The Immigration and Protection Tribunal is a specialist, independent tribunal established in New Zealand under the Immigration Act 2009 with jurisdiction to hear appeals and applications regarding residence class visas, deportation, and claims to be recognised as a refugee or as a protected person. The Tribunal is administered by the Ministry of Justice and is chaired by a District Court Judge, appointed by the Governor General on the recommendation of the Attorney-General. [1]

Contents

History

Refugee Status Claims in New Zealand

Since 1978, procedures have been in place for determining refugee status claims which, until October 1990, were vetted by Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration, acting on advice from a committee of government officials known as the Inter-departmental Committee on Refugees. [2] In the decision of Benipal v Ministers of Foreign Affairs and Immigration [3] the Court recognised that the existing procedures were insufficient and, as a consequence, on 17 December 1990 new procedures were approved to deal with applications for refugee status. This led to the incorporation of procedures into the Terms of Reference and established the right of appeal to the Refugee Status Appeals Authority.

In August 2014, the Immigration and Protection Tribunal granted refugee status to Tuvalu residents due to climate change, making it the first body in the world to grant refugee status because of climate change. The news raises questions about whether other nations will follow suit. [4]

The Refugee Status Appeals Authority

The RSAA approached issues of substantive refugee law with a wide eye, drawing on definitions from the Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees, case law from other States, and respected academics. [5] In 1999, the Immigration Amendment Act paved the way for a larger degree of independence for refugee related appeal bodies, and subsequently the RSAA was given statutory recognition and the powers of a Commission of Inquiry. [6]

Significant Issues Addressed by the RSAA

Civil War

In 1999 the RSAA was asked to investigate claims that refugee status officers had adopted an approach to civil war claims which required the claimant to establish that he or she was more at risk of persecution for an identifiable Convention reason than others. [7] This approach derived from a number of judicial decisions. In one of such cases, Adan v Secretary of State for the Home Department, Lord Lloyd stated: [8]

“...where a state of civil war exists, it is not enough for an asylum-seeker to show that he would be at risk if he were returned to his country. He must be able to show what Mr Pannick calls a differential impact. In other words, he must be able to show fear of persecution for Convention reasons over and above the ordinary risks of clan warfare.”

The RSAA reviewed these claims and affirmed its long standing position that there are only four situations which equate to a failure of state protection: persecution committed by the state; persecution condoned by the state; persecution tolerated by the state and persecution not condoned and not tolerated by the state but nevertheless present because the state either refuses or is unable to offer adequate protection. [9] However, the RSAA also looked at how, in a civil war situation, a claimant can connect their anticipated harm with their race, religion, nationality, membership of a particular social group or political opinion. [10] The RSAA said that a distinction must be made between equality of risk of harm with equality of reason for that harm. The view of the RSAA was that a person at real risk of serious harm for reason of his or her religion should not have to establish that he or she is more at risk of serious harm for reason of religion than others who are equally at real risk of serious harm for reason of their religion. [11] In other words, the RSAA believed there was no requirement for a differerential impact as suggested by Lord Lloyd above.

The Immigration (Transit Visas) Regulations 1998

Following the May 1998 riots of Indonesia, the Minister of Immigration announced new regulations surrounding the requirement for visas for citizens travelling from certain countries. [12] This was an attempt to prevent Indonesians of Chinese ethnicity from seeking refugee status in New Zealand in the aftermath of the violence that was taking place, particularly in Java. The RSAA ruled on a refugee claim in 1999 where it was held that any claim based on the assertion that Chinese Indonesians are at risk of persecution by virtue of their race alone is bound to fail and that the discrimination experienced by Chinese Indonesians does not rise to the level of persecution. [13] The RSAA left open questions surrounding whether an atmosphere of insecurity is a violation of the rights to personal security as guaranteed by Article 9(1) of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. [14]

Internal Protection Alternative

Throughout the 1990s, the RSAA looked at whether a person who otherwise satisfies the refugee definition can be denied recognition as a refugee on the grounds that effective state protection is available in his or her country of origin. The RSAA formulated a series of issues they would employ to deal with such cases: [15]

1. Objectively, on the facts as found, is there a real chance of the refugee claimant being persecuted if returned to their country of nationality?
2. If the answer is yes, is there a Convention reason for that persecution?

Where the issue of an internal protection alternative arises, the third and final issue to be addressed is:

3. Can the refugee claimant genuinely access domestic protection which is meaningful?

An internal protection alternative will exist only where the answer to the following is yes:

(a) In the proposed site of internal protection, is the real chance of persecution for a Convention reason eliminated?
(b) Is the proposed site of internal protection one in which there is no real chance of persecution, or of other particularly serious harms of the kind that might give rise to the risk of return to the place of origin?
(c) Do local conditions in the proposed site of internal protection meet the standard of protection prescribed by the Refugee Convention?
The Case of Ahmed Zaoui

Ahmed Zaoui, an Algerian national, moved to New Zealand in 2002. Zaoui previously stood as a candidate for the Islamic Salvation Front in 1991, before fleeing to Europe in 1993 after the outbreak of the Algerian Civil War. He was convicted in absentia by the Algerian government of a number of crimes, leading to his claim that there was six life sentences against him, as well as two death sentences. [16] He was later charged and convicted in absentia by Belgium and France for criminal related activities before arriving in New Zealand. Upon arrival in New Zealand, Zaoui sought refugee status. The RSAA dealt with his appeal but his application was opposed by the Security Intelligence Service.

In August 2003 the RSAA declared previous trials held against Zaoui to be “unsafe” and granted him refugee status. The case was highly publicised and attracted significant media and political attention. In 2007, the head of the Security Intelligence Service withdrew opposition to Zaoui’s refugee application and the New Zealand Government in turn withdrew objections.

The Formation of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal

The National Government passed the new Immigration Act in 2008, calling it “the most comprehensive review of immigration law in almost quarter of a century.” [17] The creation of an independent Immigration and Protection Tribunal (IPT) was one of the salient achievements of this new Act.

The IPT was established via combined work by the Department of Labour and the Ministry of Justice and replaces four separate appeal bodies: the Refugee Status Appeals Authority (RSAA); the Removal Review Authority (RRA); the Residence Review Board (RRB); and the Deportation Review Tribunal (DRT). Any outstanding appeals against decisions made under the Immigration Act 1987 are heard by the IPT. [18]

Composition

The IPT consists of 16 members who must have legal training and experience. They should have a practicing certificate for at least five years or the equivalent experience. The chair of the IPT is appointed by the Governor-General on the advice of the Attorney-General, given after consultation with the Minister of Justice. [19] Every member of the IPT can hold office for a period of five years and may be reappointed. Prior to appointment, each member must swear an oath before a Judge of the High Court. [20]

Judge Bill Hastings is the current Chair while Allan Mackey, David Plunkett, Melissa Poole and Martin Treadwell have been designated deputy chairs. [21]

Jurisdiction

The IPT was established as an independent, specialist judicial body under s217 of the Immigration Act 2009 to consider all immigration, deportation, refugee, and protection appeals in New Zealand. [22] The Tribunal hears and determines appeals against: [23]

- Decisions in relation to residence class visas
- Decisions in relation to the recognition of a person as a refugee or a protected person
- Decisions to cease to recognise a person as a refugee or a protected person
- Decisions to cancel the recognition of a New Zealand citizen as a refugee or a protected person
- Liability for deportation

A Refugee

A person will be recognised as a refugee if they fulfil the definition of a refugee under the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as well as its 1967 Protocol. This is established in the Immigration Act 2009 and in accordance with New Zealand’s status as a party to both the Convention and the Protocol. [24]

Protected Person

A person may seek to be recognised as a protected person in New Zealand under the 1984 Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment; the Convention Against Torture; or the 1966 International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. This is established in the Immigration Act 2009 and in accordance with New Zealand’s status as a party to the aforementioned international agreements. [25]

Tribunal Process

Notice of Appeal

Notice of Appeal or matter made to the IPT must be on one of the approved Tribunal forms (found on the Ministry of Justice website). This form must be completed in English, signed by the claimant and filed in the IPT office in Auckland, along with all relevant materials. [26]

Notice of Hearing

Where an oral hearing is necessary, a Notice of Hearing will be sent to the claimant which will state the date, time and place of the hearing. This notice will also detail the procedure for submitting further evidence. Any evidence that the claimant wishes to produce on appeal must be filed within 14 days before the hearing date.

Appeals relating to residence class visas and humanitarian appeals against deportation are decided solely on the information and evidence provided, without an oral hearing being held. [27]

Oral Hearings

Oral hearings will normally be conducted for refugee and protection status appeals, deportation appeals by residents/permanent residents, and for deportation appeals resulting from cancelled refugee and/or protection status persons (if involving a resident/permanent resident). The IPT may allow an oral hearing in other cases at its absolute discretion. [28]

Hearings are open to the public, except where the appeal involves a claimant for refugee and protection status, a refugee or protected person, a person formerly recognised as a refugee or protected person and in certain other cases at the discretion of the Tribunal. [29] A claimant can represent themselves, or be represented by a lawyer or licensed immigration adviser or person exempt from licensing under the Immigration Advisers Licensing Act 2007. Applications can be made for legal aid.

The IPT may receive as evidence any statement, document, information or matter that may assist it in the proceedings, whether or not it would be admissible in a court of law. The hearings will be conducted in an investigative manner and a decision will be reached on the facts as found at the time of the appeal.

Decisions and Further Appeals

The majority decision of the IPT shall prevail, and where there is an even split the appeal will be decided in favour of the claimant. [30]

Appeals are restricted to questions of law. Any party to an appeal that has been decided by the IPT who is dissatisfied with the outcome can, on a point of law with the leave of the High Court, appeal to the High Court on that point of law. [31]

See also

Related Research Articles

Naturalization Process by which a non-citizen in a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country

Naturalization is the legal act or process by which a non-citizen of a country may acquire citizenship or nationality of that country. It may be done automatically by a statute, i.e., without any effort on the part of the individual, or it may involve an application or a motion and approval by legal authorities. The rules of naturalization vary from country to country but typically include a promise to obey and uphold that country's laws and taking and subscribing to an oath of allegiance, and may specify other requirements such as a minimum legal residency and adequate knowledge of the national dominant language or culture. To counter multiple citizenship, some countries require that applicants for naturalization renounce any other citizenship that they currently hold, but whether this renunciation actually causes loss of original citizenship, as seen by the host country and by the original country, will depend on the laws of the countries involved.

An asylum seeker is a person who leaves their country of residence, enters another country and applies for asylum in this other country. An asylum seeker is an immigrant who has been forcibly displaced and might have fled their home country because of war or other factors harming them or their family. If their case is accepted, they become considered a refugee. The terms asylum seeker and refugee are often confused.

Ahmed Zaoui is an Algerian member of the Islamic Salvation Front. He arrived in New Zealand on 4 December 2002 where he sought refugee status. Objections from the Security Intelligence Service were withdrawn in September 2007, allowing him to remain in New Zealand. He was granted New Zealand citizenship in 2014.

Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada

The Immigration and Refugee Board of Canada, established in 1989 by an Act of Parliament, is an independent administrative tribunal that is responsible for making decisions on immigration and refugee matters. As one of their responsibilities, the IRB decides on applications for refugee protection made by individuals.

<i>Singh v Canada</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Singh v Canada , [1985] 1 S.C.R. 177 is a 1985 case of the Supreme Court of Canada.

The New Zealand Refugee Status Appeals Authority or RSAA, was an independent authority that heard the appeals of people who had been declined refugee status by the Refugee Status Branch of the New Zealand Immigration Service. It was established in 1991, and was replaced by the Immigration and Protection Tribunal in 2010. New Zealand established the RSAA as part of its responsibility to uphold the right of asylum as a result of being a signatory of the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol. The decisions of the RSAA are not binding, but have had a significant impact on refugee jurisprudence.

Canadian immigration and refugee law

Canadian immigration and refugee law concerns the area of law related to the admission of foreign nationals into Canada, their rights and responsibilities once admitted, and the conditions of their removal. The primary law on these matters is in the Immigration and Refugee Protection Act, whose goals include economic growth, family reunification, and compliance with humanitarian treaties.

<i>Suresh v Canada (Minister of Citizenship and Immigration)</i> Supreme Court of Canada case

Suresh v Canada is a leading decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in the areas of constitutional law and administrative law. The Court held that, under the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, in most circumstances the government cannot deport someone to a country where they risk being tortured, but refugee claimants can be deported to their homelands if they are a serious security risk to Canadians.

Asylum in the United States Overview of the situation of the right for asylum in the United States of America

The United States recognizes the right of asylum for refugees as specified by international and federal law. A specified number of legally defined refugees who are granted refugee status outside the United States are annually admitted under 8 U.S.C. § 1157 for firm resettlement. Other people enter the United States as aliens either lawfully or unlawfully and apply for asylum under section 1158.

Refugees in Hong Kong have formed historic waves arriving in the city due to wars in the region and Hong Kong's historical role as a trading and transit entrepôt. More recently those seeking asylum or protection based on torture claims are a fast growing part of the city's population, increasing since 2004 due to changes in the legal system for considering asylum and torture claims mandated by local courts.

Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement

The Canada–United States Safe Third Country Agreement (STCA) is a treaty, entered into force on 29 December 2004, between the governments of Canada and the United States to better manage the flow of refugee claimants at the shared land border.

Child migration or "children in migration or mobility" is the movement of people ages 3–18 within or across political borders, with or without their parents or a legal guardian, to another country or region. They may travel with or without legal travel documents. They may arrive to the destination country as refugees, asylum seekers, or economic migrants.

A Special Advocate is a lawyer, usually a barrister or advocate, sometimes a solicitor, who is appointed to represent the interests of a party in closed proceedings, i.e. proceedings from which that party has been excluded. Special advocates are generally prohibited from discussing any evidence that has been the subject of closed proceedings with the excluded party. They are most often used in the context of cases involving national security but have also been used in other matters, including parole board hearings and data protection claims.

<i>Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment</i>

Teitiota v Chief Executive Ministry of Business, Innovation and Employment concerned an application by a Kiribati man, Ioane Teitiota, for leave to appeal against a decision of New Zealand's Immigration and Protection Tribunal that declined to grant him refugee and/or protected person status. Teitiota's case became a cause célèbre for environmentalists and human rights activists as it made its way towards the Supreme Court. Teitiota was declined application for leave to appeal to the Supreme Court in July 2015. In September 2015 Teitiota was placed in police custody and deported back to Kiribati.

Particular social group (PSG) is one of five categories that may be used to claim refugee status according to two key United Nations documents: the 1951 Convention relating to the Status of Refugees and the 1967 Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees. The other four categories are race, religion, nationality, and political opinion. As the most ambiguous and open-ended of the categories, the PSG category has been the subject of considerable debate and controversy in refugee law. Note that just as with the other four categories, membership in a PSG is not sufficient grounds for being granted refugee status. Rather, to be granted refugee status, one must both demonstrate membership in one of the five categories and a nexus between that membership and persecution one is facing or risks facing.

<i>Zaoui v Attorney-General</i> (No 2)

Zaoui v Attorney-General was the final judicial decision concerning Algerian refugee Ahmed Zaoui before the objections of the Security Intelligence Service concerning Zaoui's alleged threat to national security were withdrawn in September 2007, allowing him to remain in New Zealand. The judgment of the Supreme Court of New Zealand was concerned with the proper interpretation of article 33 of the United Nations Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 and section 72 of the Immigration Act 1987.

LGBT refugees and asylum seekers in Canada

In Canada, Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, or Transgender (LGBT) or Gender and Sexual Minority (GSM) refugees and asylum-seekers are those who make refugee claims to Canada due to their sexual orientation or gender identity.

<i>Chen Shi Hai v MIMA</i>

Chen Shi Hai v MIMA, also known as 'Chen' is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Haji Ibrahim</i> Court decision

MIMA v Haji Ibrahim is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

<i>MIMA v Respondents S152/2003</i>

MIMAvRespondents S152/2003 is a decision of the High Court of Australia.

References

  1. ↑ "Immigration and Protection Tribunal". Ministry of Justice.
  2. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  3. ↑ "[1988] 2 NZLR 222 (CA)".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  4. ↑ Noack, Rick. "Has the era of the 'climate change refugee' begun?". The Washington Post. Retrieved 8 August 2014.
  5. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  6. ↑ "Immigration Act 1987, s 129N(1) and Schedule 3C".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  7. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  8. ↑ "Immigration Act 1987, s 129N(1) and Schedule 3C".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  9. ↑ "Refugee Appeal No. 11/91 Re S (5 September 1991) p 16; Refugee Appeal No. 71462/99 (27 September 1999) para 46".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  10. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  11. ↑ "Refugee Appeal No. 71462/99 (27 September 1999)".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  12. ↑ "Immigration Amendment Regulations (No. 4) 1998 (SR 1998/320) Reg 2(b); Immigration (Transit Visas) Amendment Regulations (No. 2) 1998 (SR 1998/321), Reg 2".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  13. ↑ "Refugee Appeal No. 71404/99 (29 October 1999)".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  14. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  15. ↑ Haines, Rodger. "An Overview of Refugee Law in New Zealand". International Association of Refugee Law Judges.
  16. ↑ "Refugee Appeal No 74540, Refugee Status Appeals Authority".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  17. ↑ "Establishment of the Immigration and Protection Tribunal". National Party. Archived from the original on 7 September 2012. Retrieved 1 May 2012.
  18. ↑ "Immigration Act 2009: Immigration and Protection Tribunal". Immigration New Zealand.
  19. ↑ "s219, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  20. ↑ "Schedule 2, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  21. ↑ "Members Appointed to new Immigration and Protection Tribunal". New Zealand Government.
  22. ↑ "Members Appointed to new Immigration and Protection Tribunal". New Zealand Government.
  23. ↑ "s217, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  24. ↑ "About the Tribunal". Ministry of Justice.
  25. ↑ "About the Tribunal". Ministry of Justice.
  26. ↑ "s225, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  27. ↑ "S234, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  28. ↑ "S233, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  29. ↑ "Hearing Process". Ministry of Justice.
  30. ↑ "Schedule 2, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
  31. ↑ "s245, Immigration Act 2009".{{cite web}}: Missing or empty |url= (help)
This page is based on this Wikipedia article
Text is available under the CC BY-SA 4.0 license; additional terms may apply.
Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.