Australia Refugee Review Tribunal RRT Reference: N 93/01843
Australia Refugee Review Tribunal
RRT Case No. N 93/01843 [1994] RRTA 1419 (7 July 1994)
- Written by Mary Katherine Cunningham, JD
Facts
The anonymous applicant (defendant) arrived in Australia from the Peoples Republic of China and applied for religious asylum. The Australian government (plaintiff) opposed this application. The applicant asserted that after he was caught in middle school with a religious leaflet, he was detained and exiled to a commune in the rural areas of the country for two years. In 1982, the applicant’s uncle set up an underground church, and the applicant testified that he was a leader in the church. However, the Chinese government’s policy only allowed worship in government-sanctioned churches. The applicant claimed that if the authorities found out that the applicant was in an underground church, he would be treated as a political dissident. The applicant also testified that after the Tiananmen Square Massacre in June 1989, the Chinese government began arresting pro-democracy leaders and Christians like him. The applicant testified that he was detained for 12 days in September 1989 and that he curtailed his religious practice until he left in June 1992. The applicant claimed that he will face persecution if he returns to China because he intends to practice his Christianity and that the authorities will target him because of his affiliation with the underground church.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Fong, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.