SZFOG v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 17 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 18 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 017

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S231 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZFOG

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 WEDNESDAY, 6 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.27 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of Russia. On 26 June 2000 a delegate of the first respondent refused the applicant's application for a protection visa. The applicant claimed to have joined the Russian Democratic Party and been required to report to the Federal Security Service ("the FSB") on activities within the party. He claimed that he provided false reports and that the FSB learned of this, detaining him and beating him. The Refugee Review Tribunal did not accept that the applicant had been involved with the Democratic Party or pressured by the FSB.

On 26 July 2005 Raphael FM dismissed an application for review of the Tribunal's decision. An appeal to the Federal Court from that decision was allowed by Edmonds J and the matter remitted to the Federal Magistrates Court.

On the rehearing, Raphael FM held that whilst The Tribunal had considered an irrelevant matter, in considering whether the applicant faced persecution by virtue of his membership of the Democratic Party, this did not amount to jurisdictional error. Accordingly, the application was dismissed.

Dowsett J dismissed the applicant's appeal to the Federal Court on 30 April 2007. His Honour held that there was no error in the Federal Magistrate's decision. It was clear that the Federal Magistrate and the Tribunal had both fully understood that the appellant's claim to fear persecution was not based on his membership of a political party, but on his prior dealings with the FSB.

The applicant has not identified any questions of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. Each aspect of the applicant's case was considered by the Tribunal and it did not fall into jurisdictional error in reaching its conclusion. There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the Federal Court.

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 9.29 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED