"Persecution" or fear of "serious harm" if returned home are among the key words when it comes to nations granting newcomers refugee status under their own laws or international law. The grounds for such potential harm can be religion, ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, fear of genital mutilation, violence, torture, and a host of other elements.

Being consumed by rising sea levels at home, however, isn't one of the factors to win refugee status. In a Monday ruling, the New Zealand Supreme Court set aside a refugee application from a man from Kiribati, a tiny Pacific island nation 3,500 miles away from New Zealand that is suffering environmental degradation linked to climate change. The nation of 100,000 people, with some 30 atolls, is suffering from water contamination, flooding, and storm surges. Currently it's only a few meters above sea level.

The former British colony has purchased about 5,000 acres of land in Fiji for crops, and its citizenry may have to relocate altogether if predicted rising sea levels continue. But none of those circumstances were enough for New Zealand to grant Ioane Teitiota, 38, refugee status. Had he won his case, Teitiota, his wife, and family could stay in New Zealand as climate change refugees under what would have been a first-of-its-kind decision for the international community.

But New Zealand's top court said the father does not face immediate persecution or "serious harm" if sent back to Kiribati. The court said that neither international law nor New Zealand law immediately warrants granting the refugee status.

"In relation to the Refugee Convention, while Kiribati undoubtedly faces challenges, Mr. Teitiota does not, if returned, face 'serious harm' and 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," the New Zealand Supreme Court ruled.

The high court, however, left open the door that climate change could be a "pathway" to New Zealand in the future.

The high court noted that the lower courts "emphasized their decisions did not mean environmental degradation resulting from climate change or other natural disasters could never create a pathway into the Refugee Convention or protected person jurisdiction. Our decision in this case should not be taken as ruling out that possibility in an appropriate case."

Teitiota and his wife came to New Zealand in 2007 and had three children. Because the kids were born after 2006, immigration law bars the children citizenship unless one of their parents resides in the country lawfully, the court said.

The father was apprehended in New Zealand following a 2011 traffic stop and sought refugee status, the court said.