(High Court of Australia) A Chinese asylum seeker was not entitled to refugee status on the basis of well-founded fear of persecution by forcible sterilisation by reason of his membership of a ‘particular social group’, namely all fathers of families who had already produced one child, if returned to China under that country’s ‘One Child Policy’
Held: ‘By including in its operative provisions the requirement that a refugee fear persecution, the convention limits humanitarian scope and does not afford universal protection to asylum seekers. No matter how devastating may be epidemic, natural disaster or famine, a person fleeing them is not a refugee within the terms of the convention. And by incorporating the five convention reasons the convention plainly contemplates that there will even be persons fleeing persecution who will not be able to gain asylum as refugees.’
Judges:
Dawson, McHugh and Gunmow JJ; Brennan CJ and Kirby J (dissenting)
Citations:
(1997) 2 BHRC 143, [1997] HCA 4
Cited by:
Cited – Fornah v Secretary of State for the Home Department CA 9-Jun-2005
The applicant sought refugee status, saying that if returned home to Sierra Leone, she would as a young woman be liable to be circumcised against her will.
Held: Female sexual mutilation ‘is an evil practice internationally condemned and in . .
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Commonwealth, Immigration, Human Rights
Updated: 09 May 2022; Ref: scu.228504
