FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs v Gui [1999] FCA 1496

 

MIGRATION – appeal from decision of primary Judge allowing respondent’s appeal from decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal refusing protection visa – membership of a social group – homosexuals – respondent’s arrest for homosexual activity in public place in 1993 – respondent departing China in 1996 – evidence of respondent being able to take part in active gay community – evidence of homosexuality, if discreet, being tolerated – whether RRT erred in failing to find objective fear of persecution without “negating or qualifying” earlier findings

 

 

1951 Convention Relating to the Status of Refugees as amended by the 1967 Protocol, Article 1A(2)

Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ss 430, 476(1)(e)

 

 

Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1989) 169 CLR 379 distinguished

Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs v Wu Shan Liang (1996) 185 CLR 259 applied

Morato v Minister for Immigration (1929) 39 FCR 402 cited

Applicant A v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs (1997) 190 CLR 225 cited

 

 

 

 

 

 

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION & MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS v

GUO PING GUI

N 52 OF 1999

 

HEEREY, CARR AND TAMBERLIN JJ

SYDNEY

29 OCTOBER 1999


IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

NEW SOUTH WALES DISTRICT REGISTRY

N 52 OF 1999

 

ON APPEAL FROM A JUDGE OF THE FEDERAL COURT OF AUSTRALIA

 

BETWEEN:

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND

MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

Appellant

 

AND:

GUO PING GUI

Respondent

 

 

JUDGE:

HEEREY, CARR & TAMBERLIN J

DATE:

29 OCTOBER 1999

PLACE:

SYDNEY


CORRIGENDUM

 

On page 3, paragraph 9 of the Reasons for Judgment, the first sentence should read:


The RRT found that the situation in Shanghai is that homosexuals can be and are the subject of police harassment, and that there appear to be intermittent crack-downs on “criminal elements” which also extends to increased harassment of the gay community.


I certify that this is a true copy

of the Corrigendum made to

the reasons for judgment in

this matter by the Court.



Associate:


Date: 4 November 1999