Fang v Refugee Appeal Board and Others (40771/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 101; 2007 (2) SA 447 (T) (15 November 2006)

Fang v Refugee Appeal Board and Others (40771/05) [2006] ZAGPHC 101; 2007 (2) SA 447 (T) (15 November 2006)

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion. His account was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and his actions upon arrival in South Africa did not support a genuine fear. The court further held that contravention of China's one child policy does not establish membership of a particular social group for refugee purposes, as the policy is a law of general application and penalties are imposed for conduct, not for immutable characteristics. Economic consequences alone do not amount to persecution. The decisions of the Refugee Appeal Board and Standing Committee were not unlawful or inconsistent...

Citation
[2006] ZAGPHC 101
Parties
Applicant: Jian-Qiang Fang; Respondent: Refugee Appeal Board; Respondent: Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs; Respondent: Minister of Home Affairs; Respondent: Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs
Court
High Courts - Gauteng
Jurisdiction
South Africa
Judgment Date
15 November 2006
Case Number
40771/05
Procedural Posture
Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion
Outcome
Application dismissed with costs.
Judges
Seriti
Legal Topics
Refugee Status, Well Founded Fear, Membership of Particular Social Group, Promotion of Administrative Justice Act, Bill of Rights Interpretation
Administrative Law Constitutional Law Refugee Status Well Founded Fear Membership of Particular Social Group Promotion of Administrative Justice Act Bill of Rights Interpretation

Case Brief

Summary, issues, holding and outcome

More case intelligence is available

Unlock the full research layer for this judgment.

Full judgment text Downloadable case file Legal principles 2 Authorities cited 11 Party arguments 2
Sign in to unlock

Parties

Jian-Qiang Fang

Applicant

Refugee Appeal Board

Respondent

Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs

Respondent

Minister of Home Affairs

Respondent

Director-General of the Department of Home Affairs

Respondent

Procedural Posture

Review Application / Judgment After Opposed Motion

Legal Issues

  1. 1 Whether the applicant has a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion if returned to China.
  2. 2 Whether the applicant qualifies as a member of a particular social group due to having four children contrary to China's one child policy.
  3. 3 Whether the decisions of the Refugee Appeal Board and Standing Committee for Refugee Affairs were unlawful and inconsistent with the Constitution and PAJA.

Ratio Decidendi

The court found that the applicant failed to discharge the onus of proving a well-founded fear of persecution based on political opinion. His account was inconsistent, lacked corroboration, and his actions upon arrival in South Africa did not support a genuine fear. The court further held that contravention of China's one child policy does not establish membership of a particular social group for refugee purposes, as the policy is a law of general application and penalties are imposed for conduct, not for immutable characteristics. Economic consequences alone do not amount to persecution. The decisions of the Refugee Appeal Board and Standing Committee were not unlawful or inconsistent...

Court Disposition

Application dismissed with costs.

Orders

  • The application is dismissed.
  • The applicant is ordered to pay the costs of the respondents on a party and party scale.