SZHUY v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 216 (22 May 2007)

Last Updated: 31 May 2007

[2007] HCATrans 216

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S308 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZHUY

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON TUESDAY, 22 MAY 2007 AT 9.43 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of India. She arrived in Australia in July 2005 and promptly applied for a protection visa. She claimed to be entitled to protection as a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol. The application was rejected by a delegate of the Minister. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") dismissed an application for review. A request for judicial review was rejected by the Federal Magistrates Court. An appeal from that decision was dismissed by the Federal Court of Australia, whose appellate jurisdiction was exercised by French J, sitting alone.

The applicant has now applied to this Court for special leave to appeal.

The applicant claimed to have a "well-founded fear of persecution" by referring to antagonistic and oppressive conduct, including kidnap and detention, which she attributed to members of the Muslim community in the part of India from which she derived. The Tribunal rejected the applicant's claim largely for factual reasons, which included especially the serious inconsistency of the applicant's claims with objectively recorded events and the absence of any confirmation of the applicant's asserted involvement in those events.

We see no error in the approach adopted by French J in the Federal Court. No reasonably arguable basis of jurisdictional or other legal error has been demonstrated. There is no prospect of success in an appeal to this Court. There is no merit in the applicant's reliance on s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). In effect, the applicant is simply attempting to reargue the factual merits of her claim. This is not the proper function of judicial review, as the courts below correctly held. The application to this Court must therefore be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules. Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.45 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED