Hui Quin Li v Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs

[1999] FCA 751

FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Hui Quin Li v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs [1999] FCA 751

HUI QUIN LI v MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS
N 293 OF 1999

DOWSETT J
1 JUNE 1999
SYDNEY

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 293 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	HUI QUIN LI Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent
JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE OF ORDER:	1 JUNE 1999
WHERE MADE:	SYDNEY

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

1.        The application be dismissed.

2.        The applicant pay the 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
NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY	N 293 OF 1999

BETWEEN:	HUI QUIN LI Applicant
AND:	MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS Respondent

JUDGE:	DOWSETT J
DATE:	1 JUNE 1999
PLACE:	SYDNEY

REASONS FOR JUDGMENT

1. This is an application for an order of review of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal upholding a decision to decline a protection visa to the present applicant.  The relevant facts are, as far as I can see, accurately canvassed in the reasons given by the Tribunal, and no basis for challenging the correctness of those reasons has been advanced.  The applicant’s only suggestion in argument has been that because she fears persecution by her husband, she should be treated as a refugee.

2. It is clear from the decision of the High Court in Applicant A v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 that such a fear is not within the ambit of the meaning of the relevant convention. It is well-established that the persecution must be by government or at least tolerated by government, or beyond the control of government. There seems no reason to believe that such is the case in present circumstances.

3. The applicant has also been unable to identify any social group to which she claims to belong.  There is some suggestion in the material that she belongs to a group of the kind sometimes described in this country as “battered wives” but again, the decision in Applicant A makes it clear that such a group cannot be a social group for the purposes of the convention.

4. The application must be dismissed.

5. The Department asks for an order for costs against the applicant.  I order the applicant to pay the respondent's costs of the application.

I certify that the preceding five (5) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Dowsett.

Associate:

Dated:             1 June 1999

The Applicant appeared in Person.
Counsel for the Respondent:	B Skinner
Solicitor for the Respondent:	Australian Government Solicitor
Date of Hearing:	1 June 1999
Date of Judgment:	1 June 1999