CCPR/C/127/D/2728/2016 to the extent that it could. The Supreme Court was also not persuaded that there was any risk that a substantial miscarriage of justice had occurred. Nevertheless, the Court did not rule out the possibility that environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could “create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or other protected person jurisdiction”. The complaint 3. The author claims that by removing him to Kiribati, New Zealand violated his right to life under the Covenant. Sea level rise in Kiribati has resulted in the scarcity of habitable space, which has in turn caused violent land disputes that endanger the author’s life, and environmental degradation, including saltwater contamination of the freshwater supply. State party’s observations on admissibility 4.1 In its observations dated 18 April 2016, the State party provided additional facts relating to the communication. In 2007, the author and his wife arrived in New Zealand. They had three children there, though none of the children are entitled to citizenship in New Zealand. The family remained in New Zealand without authorization after their residence permits expired on 3 October 2010. 4.2 On 24 May 2012, with the assistance of legal counsel, the author filed a claim for recognition as a refugee and/or protected person. Under domestic law, refugee and protection officers issue first instance decisions on such claims. Under the Immigration Act 2009, a person must be recognized as a refugee if she or he is a refugee within the meaning of the Convention relating to the Status of Refugees. A person must be recognized as a protected person under the Covenant if there are substantial grounds for believing that the person would be in danger of being subjected to arbitrary deprivation of life or cruel treatment if deported from New Zealand. Arbitrary deprivation of life has the same meaning under the Immigration Act 2009 as it does under the Covenant. The State party’s decision makers have regard to the jurisprudence of the Committee. On 24 August 2012, the author’s claim was denied by a refugee and protection officer. 4.3 The Immigration and Protection Tribunal conducts de novo examination of appeals relating to claims for recognition as a refugee and/or a protected person. On 25 June 2013, the Tribunal denied the author’s appeal of the negative decision of the refugee and protection officer. On 26 November 2013, the High Court denied the author’s application for leave to appeal the decision of the Tribunal. On 8 May 2014, the Court of Appeal denied the author’s application for leave to appeal the decision of the High Court. On 20 July 2015, the Supreme Court denied the author’s application for leave to appeal the decision of the Court of Appeal. All of the author’s applications and appeals were made with the assistance of legal counsel. 4.4 On 15 September 2015, the author was detained and served with a deportation order. On 16 September 2015, an immigration officer interviewed the author, in the presence of his counsel and with the assistance of an interpreter. The author completed a 28-page record of personal circumstances form, which the immigration officer then evaluated through a cancellation assessment. Under domestic law, an immigration officer must perform a cancellation assessment if the individual concerned provides information concerning his or her personal circumstances, and the information is relevant to the State party’s international obligations. The immigration officer assessing the author’s case did not consider that his removal order should be cancelled. On 22 September 2015, the Minister of Immigration denied the author’s request to cancel his removal. On 23 September 2015, the author was removed to Kiribati, and his family left shortly thereafter. They have not returned to New Zealand. 4.5 The State party considers that the communication is inadmissible because the author’s implied claim under article 6 (1) of the Covenant is not sufficiently substantiated to establish a prima facie case. That is because, firstly, there is no evidence of actual or imminent harm to the author. In its decision on Beydon et al. v. France (CCPR/C/85/D/1400/2005), the Committee found that for a person to claim to be a victim of a violation of a Covenant right, she or he “must show either that an act or an omission of a State party has already adversely affected his or her enjoyment of such right, or that such an effect is imminent” (para. 4.3). The Committee considered that the authors had failed to 5