Howdy cati,
Thanks for the interesting follow-up question!
1. What exactly was the final outcome in the case A v Min.
For Immigration, after it went through all the courts
jurisdictionally possible?
According to the Australian Parliamentary Library - Research
Note 31 1996-97 entitled "China's One Child Policy and Refugee
Status in Australia" by Max Spry of the Politics and Public
Administration Group:
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/rn/1996-97/97rn31.htm
"On 24 February 1997, in Applicant A v Minister for
Immigration and Ethnic Affairs, the High Court, in a 3:2
decision, dismissed the applicants' claim for refugee
status."
1. (continued) What made a particular social group so hard
to establish in that case?
In this situation, the majority of the Justices agreed in
concept that "the applicants could not demonstrate that they
feared persecution for reason of membership of a particular
social group." Justice Dawson, part of the majority, stated
"members of a 'particular social group' must be united by
some common characteristic that makes them a 'cognisable group
within their society.' However, the shared characteristic
cannot itself be the fear of persecution."
Chief Justice Brennan, within his minority statement, said "The
characteristic of being the parent of a child and not having
voluntarily adopted an approved birth-preventing mechanism
distinguished the appellants as members of a social group that
shares that characteristic."
It appears that the concept of "particular social group" is
just not easily defined, as is race or religion, as shown
by the opposing statements of the majority and minority
statements of the High Court.
2. I find it difficult to comprahend legal terms, could you
please tell me how china's on child policy relates to the
difficulty in proving the existance of a particular socail
group? and just please give me a little summary, on how the
article Dept of the parlimertary library article titled
"china's one child policy and refugee Status in Australia",
is concearned with th fact that a patricular social group
is the least transparent of the 5 convention reasons.(the
article which is included as part of ur answer)
Let me try to put what the Australian Parliamentary Library
research note is saying in non-legalese terms. Essentially,
the decision is that a "particular social group" is not an
easily defined category, at least not as easily defined as
the other four reasons of race, religion, nationality, and
political opinion. These four are straight forward; Asian
versus African, Catholic versus Baptist, French versus
Italian, Communism versus Socialism, as examples.
The fifth reason of "particular social group" is not a
reason that is easily recognizable (and thus the "least
transparent") as evidenced by court decisions such as
"‘Applicant A’ & Anor v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic
Affairs & Anor" and the High Court's inability to come up
with an unanimous decision.
The essential question of what makes up "particular social
group" is the one that no one seems to be able to decide.
What has happened is that if a person is seeking refugee
status and does not fit within the first four reasons, then
people tend to seek refugee status under the "particular
social group" section as a "catch all" reason. At times
their circumstances do not readily fit what the courts
consider to be any "particular social group" at all, but
rather people that happen to be in circumstances that are
"just" shared by others.
When the question is whether someone is part of a "particular
social group" is asked, and the answer comes back "Maybe,"
due to (as an example) a changing social structure, or
differing laws in different countries, then the reason of
"particular social group" will never be an obvious
(transparent) one.
Search Strategy:
Reviewed articles referenced in the previous question at:
http://answers.google.com/answers/main?cmd=threadview&id=195156
If you need any clarification, feel free to ask!
Looking Forward, denco-ga |
