SZDCF v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 223

[2007] HCATrans 223

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S321 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZDCF

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 9.23 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant, a national of India, arrived in Australia in September 2003 and sought a protection visa on the basis that he was a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol, to whom Australia owed protection obligations under its law.  The applicant claimed a well‑founded fear of persecution because of his Sikh identity and imputed political opinions.  He acknowledged that he was a supporter of Akali Dal, to whom he had made financial donations.  He asserted that in 2003 he was suspected by Indian police of smuggling weapons into Kashmir.  He said that this was what prompted him to seek protection in Australia. 

In November 2003 a delegate of the first respondent refused the application, a decision subsequently affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal rejected the applicant's propounded fear of persecution and gave detailed factual reasons for reaching its conclusion. 

The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court. Emmett FM rejected the complaint of procedural unfairness and failure to conform with s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). Her Honour pointed out that the reason why the Tribunal had dismissed the applicant's claim was not on the basis of adverse material but rather on the basis of the applicant's failure to convince it of the specific nature of his claims as Convention related.

An appeal was taken to the Federal Court of Australia where the appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Dowsett J.  His Honour rejected the appeal.  He regarded it as an attempt to relitigate the factual merits.  As to the complaint of procedural unfairness in the Tribunal, he affirmed the decision and approach of the Federal Magistrate.

In this Court, in his written case, the applicant has repeated his arguments below, adding unparticularised complaints of excess of jurisdiction; failure to exercise jurisdiction; and procedural unfairness of the kind described in the Muin litigation. 

We have carefully considered the applicant's written case.  However, none of his arguments has reasonable prospects of success.  The application for special leave must be refused.

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

AT 9.25 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED