Lin v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 1793
The applicant did not establish any ground under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) justifying review. The RRT's factual findings were open to it, and it did not err in concluding that the applicant was not persecuted for reason of membership of a particular social group, because a group defined as those who have had more than one child in contravention of the PRC one-child policy and fear sanctions is not a particular social group for Convention purposes.
- Jurisdiction
- Australia
- Judgment Date
- 20 December 1999
- Procedural Posture
- Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders
- Outcome
- Application dismissed with costs.
- Legal Topics
- ['protection Visa' 'well Founded Fear of Persecution' 'particular Social Group' 'one Child Policy' 'judicial Review Under Migration Act 1958 (cth), S 476(1)']
Case Brief
Summary, issues, holding and outcome
More case intelligence is available
Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.
Procedural Posture
Application for Judicial Review of a Refugee Review Tribunal Decision Affirming Refusal of a Protection Visa / Federal Court Reasons for Judgment and Final Orders
Legal Issues
- 1 ['Whether the applicant established a ground of review available under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth).' 'Whether the Refugee Review Tribunal made a reviewable error in its findings of fact.' 'Whether the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution for a Convention reason by reason of membership of a particular social group.' "Whether persons who have had more than one child in contravention of the PRC's one child policy and fear sanctions constitute a particular social group for Convention purposes."]
Ratio Decidendi
The applicant did not establish any ground under s 476(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) justifying review. The RRT's factual findings were open to it, and it did not err in concluding that the applicant was not persecuted for reason of membership of a particular social group, because a group defined as those who have had more than one child in contravention of the PRC one-child policy and fear sanctions is not a particular social group for Convention purposes.
Court Disposition
Application dismissed with costs.
Orders
- ['The application be dismissed.' "The applicant pay the respondent's costs of the proceedings."]
Full Case Text
Judgment text and source record
Sign in to read
Sign in to read the full judgment text
Sign in to read the full judgment text. Downloads and additional research tools may depend on your plan.
Sign in to read the full judgment