SZCFI v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 229

[2007] HCATrans 229

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S273 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZCFI

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
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007 AT 9.43 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicants are husband and wife and citizens of India.  The husband claims that, as a supporter of the Congress Party in India, he faced violence and other harm.  The harm he alleged included demands for money from members of the Bharatiya Janata Party ("the BJP"), the party then in government, allegations of failure to pay tax, persistent searches of his home and the factory and offices in which he worked, and a death threat.  He provided no particulars of these claims or of when they took place.

On 25 January 2003 the applicant husband applied for a protection visa.  On 4 March 2003 a delegate of the first respondent refused that application.  The applicants sought review of that refusal by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  Before the Tribunal the applicant was unable to provide any documentary evidence of his claims, or any evidence that there had been investigations into his affairs, or assaults upon him.  In these circumstances, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the applicant had a well-founded fear of persecution.  It affirmed the delegate's decision.

In the Federal Magistrates Court (Driver FM), the arguments presented by the applicant were, in substance, arguments against the merits of the Tribunal's decision, and not with respect to any jurisdictional or like error.  Accordingly, the decision of the Tribunal was affirmed.

The applicant appealed to the Federal Court (Emmett J).  There he argued that the Federal Magistrate had erred by failing to consider the merits of his application when it was, or should have been, aware that there had been a number of errors made by the Tribunal.  He argued that this amounted to a denial of natural justice.  The Federal Court held that these arguments were unsustainable and affirmed the decision of the Magistrate.  The appeal was dismissed.

In this Court the applicants seek to argue that the Tribunal failed to comply with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to provide a proper hearing. That section requires the provision of certain information to the applicant before the Tribunal.

They also argue that the Tribunal failed to take into account a relevant consideration (that the husband was persecuted for a political reason) and that its decision was unreasonable and illogical.  No particulars of these claims were advanced.

The arguments made by the applicant in the notice of appeal and written case in reality seek a review of the decision on its merits and the facts.  No question of law has been identified that would justify a grant of special leave to appeal.  No reason has been provided to doubt the correctness of the decision of the Federal Court. 

Any appeal to this Court would have no prospects of success.  The application must, therefore, be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application. I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.46 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED