Federal Court of Australia
FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SBGC v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural & Indigenous Affairs [2005] FCA 1207 SBGC v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL & INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS AND REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL No S 122 of 2005 FINN J ADELAIDE 30 AUGUST 2005
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 122 OF 2005
BETWEEN: SBGC
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: FINN J
DATE OF ORDER: 30 AUGUST 2005
WHERE MADE: ADELAIDE
THE COURT ORDERS THAT: 1. The application be dismissed. 2. The applicant pay the first respondent's costs of the application. Note: Settlement and entry of orders is dealt with in Order 36 of the Federal Court Rules.
IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
SOUTH AUSTRALIA DISTRICT REGISTRY SAD 122 OF 2005
BETWEEN: SBGC
APPLICANT
AND: MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS
FIRST RESPONDENT
REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL
SECOND RESPONDENT
JUDGE: FINN J
DATE: 30 AUGUST 2005
PLACE: ADELAIDE
REASONS FOR JUDGMENT 1 The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, applies to this Court under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) to review a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal ("Tribunal") affirming the decision of a delegate of the respondent Minister not to grant a protection visa. The applicant arrived in Australia on 9 January 1998 travelling on Hong Kong identity documents. 2 In her application for a protection visa she claimed that: (i) she had been appointed as a social worker in a village in Fujian province, China, and given responsibility for matters such as birth control, one child policy and family planning; (ii) she came into conflict with the village head over his disregard for the one child policy in application to his own family and later he blamed her for criticism by the Country Women's Association of the village's poor adherence to the one child policy; (iii) the village head directed the applicant to arrange a very late-term abortion for one Mrs Wang, and Mrs Wang was forced into this. Mrs Wang and her unborn child died as a result of the operation; (iv) Mrs Wang's family blamed the applicant, who feared for her life and had to leave the village; (v) the applicant then fled to Hong Kong in November 1985, where she was granted permanent residency in May 1989; (vi) while in Hong Kong she actively participated in democratic movements and protested against the Chinese government; and (vii) she left Hong Kong following the handover to China, and fears persecution by the Hong Kong Government on the basis of her protests against the Communist Party Committee's (CPC) rule and the 'Provisional Legislative Council' in Hong Kong.
We try to embed the page this law was scraped from. If the site blocks framing, you still get the link and a local excerpt.
Last checked with source on —
Checking whether the official page can be embedded…
Plain-English simplify of this law: a short summary, key points, and both sides of the argument. Generated on first view via Replicate, then cached. Vote on what helps your study.
No study brief is cached for this law yet. Sign up to generate a plain-English brief.
Sign up to generate