SZIBD v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 532 (6 September 2007)

Last Updated: 17 September 2007

[2007] HCATrans 532

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S1 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZIBD

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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.25 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of the Russian Federation who claims to fear persecution on the basis of his political activities and his association with the Nash Dom Rossiya Party (“NDR”). His claim for a protection visa was rejected by a delegate of the first respondent on 26 July 2005.

The Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) found that the applicant’s evidence lacked credibility and was inconsistent with the country information in several important respects. The applicant claimed to be involved in NDR until he left Russia in 2005, and that NDR joined in a coalition with other parties to contest the 2003 elections. The Tribunal referred to country information indicating that NDR was officially disbanded in 2001 and did not contest the 2003 elections. The Tribunal found that the applicant had fabricated his claims and his application was rejected.

An application for judicial review of the Tribunal’s decision was refused by Smith FM on 27 July 2006.

In the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant claimed that the Tribunal refused his application on the basis that he did not have a good knowledge of the policy of NDR and that accordingly he was not an active member. He stated that he had never claimed to be an active member of NDR, only that the party had supported his nomination for the position of governor. Smith FM found that it was open to the Tribunal to address the applicant’s claims on the basis that he had been actively involved in NDR.

The applicant appeared to contend that s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) obliged the Tribunal to put to him its view that because he did not have a good knowledge of NDR he was not an active member. Smith FM held that the information relied on by the Tribunal was captured by the exceptions in s 424(3)(a) and (b). The application was dismissed.

In the Federal Court, Mansfield J dismissed the applicant’s appeal on 4 December 2006 as the applicant did not demonstrate any error in the Federal Magistrate’s assessment of the material before the Tribunal, or in the manner in which the Tribunal dealt with that information.

The applicant's case before this Court discloses no question of law that would justify a grant of special leave, and shows no cause to doubt the correctness of the decisions below. There would be insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court. Special leave 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 Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.27 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED