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, and fled. She appealed a finding that she was not a member of a ‘particular social group’.
Held: The considered how to identify a ‘particular social group’, and said that perceptibility or recognition of a group as distinct by the rest of society are only aids to or evidence of the true test, namely whether the separate group is cognisable. Having identified two strands in the jurisprudence, the first as to the defining characteristic of a ‘particular social group’, and the second as to its identification, the court described the second: ‘The second strand relates to how the characteristic and thus the particular social group in question may be identified by discrimination and even in part by means of discrimination amounting to persecution: but that will not matter as long as such persecution is not the sole means of definition or identification. It may be identified by the recognition or perception of the surrounding society in general that the group in question shares a particular characteristic. Or it may be that the distinguishing characteristic and thus the group in question may simply be objectively observable, irrespective of the insight of the general society in which it is placed. It may be said that these concepts have not yet fully been worked out in the jurisprudence.’ A group could be constituted by the particular actions of the alleged persecutors. The laws of china operated sufficiently to identify a group capable of suffering persecution. The appeal tribunal had not considered Lord Steyn’s qualification in Shah. The matter was remitted for rehearing before a different tribunal.
[2005] EWCA Civ 249, Times 15-Apr-2005, [2005] 1 WLR 2858
Bailii
England and Wales
Citing:
Applied – A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs and Another 1997
(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 . .
Applied – 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 . .
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.
Updated: 25 July 2021; Ref: scu.223631
