Case: Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259
Outcome: cited
The reasons of an administrative decision-maker, such as the tribunal, are not to be scrutinised minutely and finely with an eye keenly attuned to perception of error. Rather their function is to express in the decision-maker's own language the findings and reasons which s 430(1) of the Act requires him or her to give: see Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang [1996] HCA 6 ; (1996) 185 CLR 259 at 272 per Brennan CJ and Toohey, McHugh and Gummow JJ. I am of opinion that read in have regard its context, the passage which I have extracted reveals that the tribunal gave consideration to the way in which the appellant had explained her role and found that it was not as significant as her earlier claim had asserted. By saying that she had failed to repeat her earlier claim at the second hearing, the tribunal was doing no more than saying that she had not satisfied it that the claim as originally framed had been made out. 21 The tribunal ultimately was satisfied that although the appellant had had what it described, with justification if not understatement, as 'some unpleasant non-Convention related experiences in the past in her village', she was not a refugee. It found that if for any reason the appellant has subjective fear of returning to her village more than 11 years after she ceased to occupy her position in the women's welfare group, it would be reasonable for her to go elsewhere in the province in which she lived in China, or to some other location in that country, to live, and that in those other places there was no real chance of her experiencing serious harm amounting to persecution for any Convention-related reason. 22 The tribunal did not accept that the appellant would not be able to obtain the protection of the authorities if she needed it. Although that is a factual finding that seems to be in the teeth of the evidence, which it did accept, of the substantial number of instances of harm which had befallen the appellant, nonetheless I am unable to see how the tribunal committed a jurisdictional error in its assessment that the appellant could relocate within China to a place away from any danger that might have been occasioned to her from any activity she had undertaken in her village. 23 While persecution is selective harassment, and in appropriate cases can include single acts of oppression or measures in disregard of human dignity ( Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Guo [1997] HCA 22 ; (1997) 191 CLR 559 at 570 per Brennan CJ and Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron, McHugh and Gummow JJ, approving what McHugh J had said in Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs [1989] HCA 62 ; (1989) 169 CLR 379 at 429-430), the activities of the individuals, which the tribunal accepted had affected the appellant and her family in her village, were not found to be activities which had a real risk of repetition elsewhere in China away from the appellant's home area. 24 Unfortunate and terrifying as the assaults and intimidating behaviour found by the tribunal to have been suffered by the appellant were, I am not able to detect any jurisdictional error in the way in which the tribunal characterised that activity as not having been suffered by her for a Convention reason. 25 In those circumstances I am unable to perceive a basis upon which the tribunal committed a jurisdictional error, or it could be said that his Honour failed to identify one. It follows that the appeal must be dismissed with costs. I certify that the preceding twenty-five (25) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Rares. Associate: Dated: 4 May 2007 The Appellant: In person Counsel for the Respondent: T Reilly Solicitor for the Respondent: Sparke Helmore Date of Hearing: 1 May 2007 Date of Judgment: 1 May 2007 AustLII: Copyright Policy | Disclaimers | Privacy Policy | Feedback URL: http://www.austlii.edu.au/au/cases/cth/FCA/2007/661.html