SZFQP v Minister for Immigration & Citizenship & Anor [2008] HCATrans 106 (29 February 2008)

Last Updated: 4 March 2008

[2008] HCATrans 106

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S296 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZFQP

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders
GUMMOW J
KIEFEL J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON FRIDAY, 29 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.38 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China. On 12 August 2004 a delegate of the first respondent refused his application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to fear persecution as a member of an underground Christian church and to have been detained and mistreated on that account. The Refugee Review Tribunal dismissed his application on 7 December 2004. Whilst it was unable to determine the applicant's claim to membership of the church, it found that the church in the region from which the applicant came was tolerated.

Barnes FM found that the Tribunal had not breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). There was no support for the applicant's claims that the conduct of the hearing involved breaches of s 425. Her Honour found that the Tribunal had dealt with all necessary aspects of the applicant's claims, that its decision was not unreasonable and was open to it on the evidence. No jurisdictional error was shown. The Federal Court (Cowdroy J) dismissed the appeal. His Honour confirmed as correct that s 424A had not been breached and that no jurisdictional error was disclosed. A new claim, of apprehended bias on the part of the Tribunal, was without merit.

The applicant has not advanced any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. No error is identified in the reasons of the courts below. There is no reason to doubt their correctness.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish the disposition signed by Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.39 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED