SZHFH v MIAC & Anor [2008] HCATrans 24 (6 February 2008)

Last Updated: 12 February 2008

[2008] HCATrans 024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S270 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHFH

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 9.41 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J: The applicant is a citizen of the People's Republic of China who arrived in Australia on 12 December 2004. On 17 March 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the applicant's application for a protection visa. The Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") affirmed the decision of the delegate of the first respondent on 11 August 2005. On 29 March 2006 the Federal Magistrates Court quashed that decision and remitted the matter for re-determination to the Tribunal.

The Tribunal, differently constituted, rejected the application on 27 July 2006. The applicant claimed to have organised anti-government protests and to have been arrested and mistreated by the Public Security Bureau. The Tribunal found the applicant's claims to be implausible and inconsistent.

On 25 January 2007 Smith FM dismissed the application. The Federal Magistrate was unable to identify any jurisdictional error affecting the Tribunal's decision. There was no basis for the allegation of bias.

Siopis J dismissed the appeal to the Federal Court on 11 May 2007. His Honour agreed with the court below that the Tribunal had not breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Federal Magistrate did not err in his approach to s 425.

The applicant's draft notice of appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal. There was no jurisdictional error in the conclusion of the Tribunal, and no reason to doubt the correctness of the judgment of the Federal 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 Kiefel J and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED