(Australia) A claim to refugee status was made by a husband and wife who had come from China to Australia. They said that they feared sterilization under the ‘one child policy’ of China if they were returned.
Held: There is a general principle that there can only be a ‘particular social group’ within the Convention if the group exists independently of the persecution, ‘ . . If it were otherwise, Art. 1(A)(2) would be rendered illogical and nonsensical. It would mean that persons who had a well founded fear of persecution were members of a particular social group because they feared persecution. The only persecution that is relevant is persecution for reasons of membership of a group which means that the group must exist independently of, and not be defined by, the persecution . . .’ and ‘Nevertheless while persecutory conduct cannot define the social group, the actions of the persecutors may serve to identify or even cause the creation of a particular social group in a society.’ (McHugh)
Judges:
Dawson, McHugh, Kirby and Gummow JJ
Citations:
(1997) 142 ALR 331
Statutes:
Geneva Convention and Protocol relating to the Status of Refugees 1951 (1951) (Cmd 9171) 1A(2), Asylum and Immigration Appeals Act 1993 8(2)
Jurisdiction:
Australia
Cited by:
Cited – Regina v Immigration Appeal Tribunal and Another ex parte Shah HL 25-Mar-1999
Both applicants, Islam and Shah, citizens of Pakistan, but otherwise unconnected with each other, had suffered violence in Pakistan after being falsely accused them of adultery. Both applicants arrived in the UK and were granted leave to enter as . .
Applied – Chun Lan Liu v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 17-Mar-2005
The applicant for refugee status said she had a well founded fear of persecution if returned to China, saying that as a pregnant mother of a third child, the foetus had been removed at eight months against her will. She had refused sterilisation, . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Immigration
Updated: 25 November 2022; Ref: scu.194497