SZIHM v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 364 (1 August 2007)

Last Updated: 21 August 2007

[2007] HCATrans 364

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S440 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZIHM

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 WEDNESDAY, 1 AUGUST 2007, AT 10.02 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant, a citizen of the People's Republic of China, arrived in Australia on 3 May 2005 and applied for a protection visa shortly thereafter. On 8 September 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the application.

The applicant claims that both his parents were Christians and that he attended religious services with them as a child. He claims that his parents were imprisoned for a year in 1984 by reason of their religious observance. He said that he attended meetings of a church group in Fujian province, and that, in 2004 he too was arrested, tortured and detained for over a year as a result.

The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"), in which the applicant sought review of the delegate's decision, did not accept that the applicant's parents were Christians and that he had ever attended a Christian group meeting in China or in Australia as alleged. He had almost no knowledge of Christian beliefs and practice, and fell far short of a person who had actually grown up in a Christian family and had been a committed Christian for most of his adult life. It did not accept that he had been detained for a year in 2004, pointing out that the applicant's evidence as to how he had spent the three years before his departure from China was inconsistent. He had claimed that he had worked for a foreign trade company for those years. His passport revealed, and he gave oral evidence, that he had obtained an entry permit from Malaysia in August 2004 for business reasons, whereas subsequently he said that he was in detention in August 2004. The Tribunal concluded that the applicant had fabricated his assertions with respect to Christianity in order to support his claim to be a persecuted refugee.

The applicant sought judicial review of that decision from the Federal Magistrates Court (McInnis FM), complaining that the Tribunal did not consider his claims, exhibited bias towards him, and failed to comply with s 424A(1) of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His Honour accepted that s 424A(1) had no application to the information contained in the applicant's passport as it was information provided by the applicant to the Tribunal. His Honour further held that there was no basis upon which it could held that the Tribunal had committed any jurisdictional error. The application was dismissed.

The applicant appealed from that decision to the Federal Court (Middleton J) where he substantially repeated the complaints that he had made to the Federal Magistrates Court. The applicant as unable to demonstrate any error legal or otherwise in the reasoning of the Tribunal or Federal Magistrate. The appeal was dismissed.

The applicant's claims which we have summarized are repeated in his submissions to this Court, with the addition of an unparticularized assertion of jurisdictional error. He does not point to any errors of law to justify a grant of special leave

Special leave to appeal to this Court must be refused.

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 10.05 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED