//
© 2026 Zoe. All rights reserved.
Zoe is a legal information platform. Always consult the Federal Register of Legislation for authoritative text.
[2000] FCA 506
Federal Court of Australia
2000-04-19
Heerey J
Original judgment source is linked above.
The application for review 11 The written contentions of fact and law filed on behalf of the applicant were, insofar as they advanced legal argument, in exactly the same terms as those in the case of Hai Yan Wang which was heard immediately before the present case. Counsel said that the case was "on all fours" with Hai Yan Wang. He did not seek to advance any separate argument. Accordingly the conclusion on this application must be the same.
Orders 12 The application is dismissed with costs, including reserved costs. I certify that the preceding twelve (12) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Heerey.
Solicitor for the Respondent: Australian Government Solicitor
Chen
Minister for Immigration & Multicultural Affairs
The RRT's decision 7 As to religion, the RRT considered the applicant's answers in general "displayed a marked ignorance of even the most basic concepts of the religion he claimed to belong to, especially given his alleged long-standing and prominent involvement in the church". One example of this was the applicant's initial affirmative answer to the question whether he had been baptised, but after questioning about how the rite had been conducted, he eventually declared he had not been baptised. The RRT found that his claims were fabricated. It did not accept that he belonged to the Catholic Church and as such was persecuted. 8 As to political opinion, the RRT thought there was nothing in the applicant's description of his activities that support his having taken the role of leading students to Fuzhou for a demonstration. He was working in Fuqing and had no stated contact with students or the student movement. The RRT considered that inconsistencies in the applicant's version of events indicated that he was not a credible witness. Discrepancies included the applicant's failure to state what he had earlier claimed, that is that he was detained for three months from the end of November 1989. The RRT did not accept the applicant's claims relating to his political activity and demonstrations in 1989. There was no real chance therefore that the applicant would be persecuted for reason of his political opinion should he return to China. But even if the RRT were to accept his claims in their totality, the RRT noted that the applicant had been punished and released and he did not report any further interest in him by the authorities. The RRT said "Country information available to the Tribunal indicates that many people were caught in security sweeps after the 4 June 1989 demonstrations but were released when it was determined that they were not key players. [Reference to DFAT cable 7 December 1990] Even if the Applicant's claims were accepted in toto it cannot be concluded that he was a key player." 9 As to family background, the RRT concluded that the applicant's own history after the Cultural Revolution led to the conclusion that, whatever sanctions were imposed on the family, the issue had become irrelevant. The RRT referred to the same publications as it had in the case of Hai Yan Wang [2000] FCA 505. 10 In conclusion, the RRT found that considering the applicant's claims individually and cumulatively there was not a real chance now or in the foreseeable future that he would be persecuted for any Convention reason if he returned to China. Accordingly his fear of persecution for any Convention reason was not well-founded.