![cover image](https://wikiwandv2-19431.kxcdn.com/_next/image?url=https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/f/f8/Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg/640px-Coat_of_Arms_of_Australia.svg.png&w=640&q=50)
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs
Judgement of the High Court of Australia / From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Dear Wikiwand AI, let's keep it short by simply answering these key questions:
Can you list the top facts and stats about Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs?
Summarize this article for a 10 year old
Chan Yee Kin v Minister for Immigration & Ethnic Affairs (Chan) is a decision of the High Court of Australia.
Chan v MIEA | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Court | High Court of Australia |
Full case name | Chan v Minister for Immigration and Ethnic Affairs |
Decided | 1989 |
Citation | 169 CLR 379 |
Court membership | |
Judges sitting | Mason C.J., Dawson, Toohey, Gaudron and McHugh JJ |
Case opinions | |
Appeal allowed The delegate's decision was unreasonable, and should be set aside Mason J Dawson J Toohey J Gaudron J McHugh J |
The case is an important decision in Australian refugee law, as it is relevant to the legal tests for refugee status. In particular, the case is authority for the High Court's view; that under the 1951 Refugee Convention and 1967 Status of Refugees protocol; a 'well founded fear' of persecution may be found to exist if there is a 'real chance' they will suffer that harm. aka; the 'real chance' test.
According to LawCite, Chan has been cited more times than any other decision of the High Court.[1][2]