New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal
- Case Law 94
- Afghanistan 3
- Bahrain 1
- Bangladesh 2
- Brazil 1
- Chad 1
- China 8
- Colombia 1
- Czech Republic 1
- Egypt 5
- Fiji 10
- France 1
- Ghana 1
- Iran, Islamic Republic of 12
- Iraq 2
- Jordan 1
- Lebanon 1
- Malawi 1
- Malaysia 2
- Mexico 1
- Myanmar 1
- Nepal 3
- New Zealand 94
- Pakistan 8
- Palestine, State of 1
- Russian Federation 1
- Rwanda 1
- Saudi Arabia 2
- Singapore 1
- Slovakia 1
- South Africa 5
- Sri Lanka 6
- Syrian Arab Republic 4
- Turkey 1
- Tuvalu 2
- Ukraine 2
- Zimbabwe 3
- 1951 Refugee Convention 12
- Abduction 2
- Acts of persecution 2
- Ahmadis 1
- Albinism/Persons with Albinism 1
- Appeal / Right to appeal 4
- Arbitrary arrest and detention 4
- Armed groups / Militias / Paramilitary forces / Resistance movements 1
- Assyrians 1
- Catholic 1
- Cessation clauses 1
- Changes of circumstances in home country 1
- Chinese 1
- Christian 8
- Climate change (including environmental migrants) 1
- Complementary forms of protection 1
- Convention against Torture (CAT) 11
- Corruption 1
- Country of origin information (COI) 4
- Credibility assessment 11
- Criminal justice 1
- Denial of refugee status 1
- Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity 7
- Domestic violence 2
- Effective protection 3
- Elections 1
- Evidence (including age and language assessments / medico-legal reports) 1
- Falun Gong 1
- Family reunification 3
- Forced marriage 1
- Freedom from torture, inhuman and degrading treatment 4
- Freedom of religion 7
- Generalized violence 2
- Grounds for persecution 1
- Hazara 2
- Hindu 1
- Human rights activists 1
- Humanitarian protection (including tolerated stay) 1
- Hutus 1
- Immigration law 3
- Indians 5
- Internal flight alternative (IFA) / Internal relocation alternative (IRA) / Internal protection alternative (IPA) 2
- Internally displaced persons (IDPs) 1
- International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) 12
- International protection 1
- Jurisdiction 2
- Koreans 1
- Kurd 1
- Lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and intersex (LGBTI) 2
- Manifestly unfounded / Clearly abusive claims 1
- Mental health 2
- Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription 4
- Minority rights 5
- Multiple nationality 1
- Muslim 3
- Non-state agents of persecution 8
- Opposition 1
- Palestinian 2
- Persecution based on political opinion 31
- Persecution of family members 2
- Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity 2
- Persons with disabilities 1
- Physical harm 1
- Political asylum 1
- Political parties 1
- Racial / Ethnic persecution 11
- Re-entry 1
- Readmission 1
- Refugee / Asylum law 3
- Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures 1
- Refugees 1
- Religious discrimination 8
- Religious persecution (including forced conversion) 15
- Right to employment 1
- Right to family life 1
- Right to justice 1
- Right to life 2
- Roma 1
- Safe country of origin 1
- Safe third country 1
- Sexual and gender-based violence (SGBV) 3
- Sexual and reproductive rights 1
- Shia 3
- Social group discrimination 1
- Social group persecution 10
- State protection 4
- Tamil 2
- Threats / Intimidation 9
- Uighur 2
- Well-founded fear of persecution 19
- Widowed persons 1
- Women's rights 1
- Women-at-risk 1
|
AJ (Ukraine)
This is an appeal against a decision of a refugee and protection officer declining to grant refugee status or protected person status to the appellants who are a mother (the mother) and son (the son). The mother is a citizen of the Ukraine. She is also a Russian citizen. The son was born in New Zealand. There is some dispute concerning his nationality but, as will be seen below, the Tribunal finds him to be entitled to Ukrainian citizenship. 17 February 2020 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Citizenship / Nationality law - Refugee status determination (RSD) / Asylum procedures - Right to family life | Countries: New Zealand - Ukraine |
|
AC (North Korea) [2019] NZIPT 801589
The Tribunal is not satisfied that there are serious reasons for considering that the appellant “has committed a serious non-political crime outside [New Zealand] prior to his admission to [New Zealand] as a refugee” because any crime he committed was of a political kind. [125] Accordingly, the appellant is not excluded from the protection of the Refugee Convention under Article 1F(b) of that Convention. 18 November 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Serious non-political crime - Trafficking in persons | Countries: China - Korea, Democratic People's Republic of - Korea, Republic of - New Zealand |
|
BP (Turkey)
30 October 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Military service / Conscientious objection / Desertion / Draft evasion / Forced conscription | Countries: New Zealand - Turkey |
|
AB (Hong Kong) [2019] NZIPT 801635
11 October 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Credibility assessment - Mental health - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Hong Kong (Special Administrative Region of China) - New Zealand |
|
FP (Sri Lanka)
The central issue is whether the appellant faces a real chance of being seriously mistreated by the authorities in detention, in the course of their investigation. 9 August 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Police - Tamil - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: New Zealand - Sri Lanka |
|
AE (Lebanon) [2019] NZIPT 801588
The primary issue to be determined by the Tribunal is whether the appellant is excluded from the 1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees (“Refugee Convention”) by the operation of Article 1D which applies, in certain circumstances, to persons being protected or assisted by United Nations (“UN”) organs and agencies other than the Office of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (“UNHCR”). If so, the appellant will not be entitled to recognition as a refugee under section 129 of the Immigration Act 2009 (“the Act”). 28 May 2019 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Legal Instrument: 1951 Refugee Convention | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: Lebanon - New Zealand - Palestine, State of |
|
AD (Palestine)
23 December 2015 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Exclusion clauses - Palestinian | Countries: New Zealand - Palestine, State of |
|
AT (Zimbabwe)
21 December 2015 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Persecution on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - Refugee / Asylum law - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: New Zealand - Zimbabwe |
|
DR (Iran)
22 September 2015 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): Family reunification - Immigration law | Countries: Iran, Islamic Republic of - New Zealand |
|
AB (Slovakia), AF (Czech Republic)
29 June 2015 | Judicial Body: New Zealand: Immigration and Protection Tribunal | Document type: Case Law | Topic(s): 1951 Refugee Convention - Convention against Torture (CAT) - Discrimination based on race, nationality, ethnicity - Generalized violence - International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR) - Non-state agents of persecution - Physical harm - Roma - Threats / Intimidation - Well-founded fear of persecution | Countries: Czech Republic - New Zealand - Slovakia |
