VAQ v MIMA

The applicant, VAQ, sought judicial review of a decision by the Minister for Immigration and Multicultural Affairs (MIMA) to refuse to grant a protection visa. The dispute concerned whether VAQ was a "member of a particular social group" for the purposes of the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the *Migration Regulations 1994* (Cth). The matter was heard by Gummow and Heydon JJ of the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was the proper interpretation of the phrase "member of a particular social group" as a ground for claiming refugee status. Specifically, the court had to determine whether the group to which VAQ claimed to belong, namely "women who have been subjected to domestic violence in their country of origin," constituted a "particular social group" within the meaning of the relevant legislation. This involved considering the criteria for defining such a group and whether the shared characteristic of experiencing domestic violence was sufficient to establish membership in a particular social group for the purposes of protection visa claims.

The High Court held that the concept of a "particular social group" requires a characteristic that is immutable or fundamental to identity, or one that is so significant that individuals should not be compelled to shed it. Their Honours reasoned that while women subjected to domestic violence share a common experience, this experience alone does not necessarily coalesce into a "particular social group" in the way contemplated by the refugee convention and the *Migration Act*. The court distinguished between a group defined by a shared experience and a group defined by an inherent characteristic or a fundamental aspect of identity. The court found that the group as defined by the applicant did not meet the necessary threshold for recognition as a "particular social group."

The High Court dismissed the application for judicial review.