SZFUA v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 357 (1 August 2007)

Last Updated: 21 August 2007

[2007] HCATrans 357

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S424 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZFUA

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

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 WEDNESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2007, AT 9.35 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. He arrived in Australia on 2 June 2004 and immediately applied for a protection visa. That application was refused by a delegate of the first respondent on 23 June 2004. The applicant sought review of the decision of the first respondent by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").

The applicant claimed to fear persecution on the basis of his being a Falun Gong practitioner. He claimed that he had been detained for more than six months during 2002, and that he had to bribe a police officer to obtain a passport to allow him to leave the country.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant to inform him that on the basis of the written material that he had supplied, it was unable to make a decision in his favour, and invited him to attend an oral hearing. He made no reply to that communication. Pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), the Tribunal then made a decision on the application, holding that the applicant had not provided any adequate evidence to substantiate his claims: the information that he had provided was general and lacking in sufficient detail of claims of persecution.

The applicant sought judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court (Lloyd-Jones FM). The grounds of appeal there were vague, and despite being granted an opportunity to amend them, were not improved. The applicant also failed to file submissions or any authorities in support of his case. Although the Court attempted to obtain more detail about his claims, particularly in relation to previous travel by him to and from Australia, the applicant declined or failed to provide any further information. The Federal Magistrate independently considered whether any arguments based on the material could be sustained but ultimately held that there were no grounds for intervention by the Court in his favour.

The applicant appealed from that decision to the Federal Court (Cowdroy J). That Court dismissed his application. There he had argued that the Tribunal exhibited bias, and that it failed properly to consider his circumstances. The Court could however discern no such error of law or of approach in the decision of the Federal Magistrate or the Tribunal, or any basis for a claim of bias.

The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court. The grounds raised are, in substance, identical to those earlier presented to the Federal Magistrate and Federal Court. The application advances no question of law for this Court to address, and points to no error in the decision of the Courts and Tribunal below. Any appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success. The application must, therefore, be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED