SZGEU v MIMA & Anor [2007] HCATrans 731 (6 December 2007)

Last Updated: 12 December 2007

[2007] HCATrans 731

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S132 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZGEU

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
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 DECEMBER 2007, AT 9.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J: The applicant is a national of Nepal. She arrived in Australia on 16 October 2004. On 12 November 2004 she applied for a protection visa, claiming to be a "refugee" within the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"), and thus entitled to protection by Australia. In December 2004, a delegate of the respondent Minister refused her application. The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal"). The Tribunal rejected the application and affirmed the decision of the delegate.

Thereafter, the applicant sought judicial review in the Federal Magistrates Court. Scarlett FM, in November 2006, dismissed the application, concluding that no jurisdictional error was established. The applicant then appealed to the Federal Court of Australia. That court's appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Heerey J. In February 2007, his Honour dismissed the appeal. He concluded that no legal error, still less jurisdictional error, had been established by the applicant, to warrant interference in the decision of the Tribunal.

The applicant then sought special leave to appeal to this Court. In our view, special leave should be refused.

The foundation for the applicant's claim for relief is her suggested entitlement to protection on the ground of a "well-founded fear of being persecuted for reasons of ... political opinion". The applicant said that, in Nepal, she had refused to cooperate with demands of Maoist insurgents that she teach Maoism at a school where she and her husband were teachers. She claimed that her husband had thereafter been abducted by Maoists. She said that she had gone into hiding when she learned that the Maoists had wished to punish her for complaining to police. She contended that the authorities had suspected her of being a Maoist collaborator. The Tribunal did not accept her evidence as credible. It pointed to the lack of supporting testimony; apparent inconsistencies in the evidence; the apparent ease of her departure from Nepal; and the circumstances of her entry into Australia.

The Federal Magistrate and, later, Heerey J, closely examined complaints of bias, of non-compliance with the Act and other objections to the Tribunal's decision. Because the applicant was unrepresented in the courts below, we have carefully examined the record. However, there is no reasonable prospect of success in this Court, given the factual conclusions which the Tribunal arrived at and which are undisturbed. Although, in this Court, added arguments addressed to alleged procedural unfairness, illogicality or irrationality of reasoning and a suggested additional basis for protection (membership of a "particular social group") are raised, they do not attract the intervention of this Court.

The application for special leave must therefore be dismissed.

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

AT 9.27 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED