SZEGR v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 912 (9 November 2005)

--

SZEGR v MIMIA [2005] HCATrans 912 (9 November 2005)

Last Updated: 18 November 2005

[2005] HCATrans 912

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S311 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZEGR

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

GUMMOW J
KIRBY J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 9 NOVEMBER 2005, AT 9.53 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant claims to be a national of the People’s Republic of China (“the PRC”). He arrived in Australia early in 2004, travelling on a United Kingdom and Northern Ireland passport that appeared genuine and without any obvious signs of tampering, leading to an early belief that he may have been a Hong Kong resident. However, he claimed that this passport was false, had been procured for him in Taiwan and that he was a national of the PRC. He also claimed entitlement to refugee status on the ground of a well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of religion. He claimed that he was a member of Falun Gong and had suffered police harassment in Gaoshan Town, Fuqing City in the PRC because of his religion. He alleged serious maltreatment in prison and elsewhere which had occasioned his flight to Taiwan on a fishing boat, from where he came to Australia.

A delegate of the Minister refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal affirmed this decision. The Tribunal accepted, ultimately, that the applicant was a national of the PRC. However, it expressed reservations as to his credibility and truthfulness in respect of his claimed Falun Gong beliefs. The Tribunal suggested that the practice of Falun Gong had been embraced solely to bolster the applicant’s chances of remaining in Australia.

An application for review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court (Nicholls FM). That Court considered and rejected the assertions of bias on the part of the Tribunal, a suggested failure or refusal to consider evidence in the applicant’s case, and a claimed failure to provide reasons for the decision. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Emmett J) was dismissed.

We have reviewed the applicant’s written case together with the decisions of the Tribunal, the Federal Magistrates Court and the Federal Court. The case turned essentially on the credibility of the applicant who, in material respects, was not accepted as a truthful witness. There is no substance in the complaints of bias, failure to consider the evidence or to provide adequate reasons. There are no reasonable prospects of success in any appeal to this Court. Accordingly, special leave to appeal is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave. I publish the disposition signed by Kirby J and myself.

AT 9.55 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED