SZBPE v MIMIA

[2006] HCATrans 386

[2006] HCATrans 386

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S418 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZBPE

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 3 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.26 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:  

Background

The applicant, a national of India, arrived in Australia in October 2002 and immediately lodged an application for a protection visa.  He claimed to be a refugee.  In November, a delegate of the Minister promptly refused the application.  The applicant sought review before the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  However, he elected not to give oral evidence before the Tribunal.

The applicant’s written case asserted that he had a well founded fear of persecution for reasons of his political and religious views.  He complained of harassment directed at him on these grounds and of the failure of authorities to offer him protection. 

The Tribunal rejected the applicant’s case on the basis that his claims were vague and lacking in detail.  The Tribunal was not satisfied that he had been targeted by members of Hindu parties or beaten or otherwise mistreated on the stated grounds.

The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  Federal Magistrate Barnes rejected the application.  She noted that, although complaints were made of denial of natural justice, no such breach of procedural fairness was evident.  The applicant had been given an opportunity to make oral submissions but did not avail himself of that opportunity.

The applicant then appealed to the Federal Court of Australia.  His appeal was heard by Hely J, exercising the appellate jurisdiction of the Federal Court.  His Honour dismissed the complaints.  He concluded that the first ground of appeal was nonsensical as stated and that the suggestions that the Tribunal had denied the applicant procedural fairness or had failed to conform to procedural requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth), s 424A were not made out.

Now, the applicant seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.  Unfortunately, many of his arguments in his written case are formulaic and do not relate specifically to the record.  Thus, it is stated that the “applicant’s oral evidence made before the Tribunal member was true and correct”; yet the applicant gave no oral evidence before the Tribunal.  Similarly, the written case in this Court argues that the Tribunal was obliged to verify the “authenticity of the documents and evidence made by the applicant”.  However, the only documentation before the Tribunal appears to have been the applicant’s application for a protection visa and country information.  As well, a complaint that the Tribunal “before making a finding of dishonesty … [must] give the party the opportunity to address the issue in their evidence” is misconceived.  No finding of dishonesty was made by the Tribunal in the applicant’s case. 

If the applicant paid anyone for the preparation of the written case filed in this Court, he did not get value for money.  The document is completely disconnected from the circumstances disclosed in the record.

This was a simple claim to refugee status on evidence that did not establish the merits of the claim.  There is no legal, jurisdictional or procedural defect shown in the record. 

Disposition

It follows that there is nothing to suggest that an error or law has occurred on the part of the Tribunal; or that there has been any jurisdictional or procedural error calling for the intervention of this Court.  There would be no prospects of success, were special leave granted by this Court.  We have carefully studied the applicant’s written case and draft grounds of appeal and the reasons of the courts below.  However, the application for special leave is rejected.

Order

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish that disposition signed by Callinan J and myself

AT 9.29 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED