Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multiculutral Affairs

The case of Wang v Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs involves the applicant, Wang, who sought a review of a decision made by the Refugee Review Tribunal (RRT) affirming a delegate's refusal of her application for a protection visa. The applicant argued that she faced persecution in China due to her family's history of being classified as 'counter-revolutionaries' during the Cultural Revolution, her alleged Christian faith, and her participation in the 1989 pro-democracy demonstrations. The court was tasked with determining whether the RRT's decision to affirm the delegate's refusal was legally sound and whether the applicant's claims were credible.

The court had to assess the credibility and sufficiency of the applicant's claims regarding her family's persecution, her alleged Christian faith, and her involvement in the 1989 demonstrations. Specifically, the court examined the RRT's reliance on various documents, including the Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade Country Profile – China and Professor Merle Goldman's book, to conclude that the policies from the Cultural Revolution era had been repudiated by the PRC government. The court also had to consider whether the applicant's claims about her religious persecution and her participation in the demonstrations were genuine and supported by credible evidence.

The court found that the RRT's decision was based on a comprehensive assessment of the applicant's claims and the relevant documentary evidence. The RRT concluded that the applicant's claims about her family's persecution were no longer relevant as the policies from the Cultural Revolution period had been repudiated. Regarding her religious claims, the RRT found inconsistencies in her statements and concluded that her claims were fabricated. The RRT also determined that the applicant's involvement in the 1989 demonstrations did not indicate she was a key player or of adverse interest to the authorities, as evidenced by her continued employment and lack of further action against her. The court upheld the RRT's findings, affirming that the applicant's claims were not credible and that she did not face persecution if she returned to China.

ORDERS:
1. The application is dismissed.
2. The applicant pay the respondent’s costs, including reserved costs.