SZDYI v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 375

[2006] HCATrans 375

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S559 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZDYI

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AND INDIGENOUS AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Application for special leave to appeal

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

HAYNE J
CRENNAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 2 AUGUST 2006, AT 9.58 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Cambodia, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Gyles J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Gyles J dismissed the applicant’s appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court dismissing an application for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth), in respect of a decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal affirming the decision of a delegate of the Minister to refuse to grant the applicant a protection visa.

The evidence of the applicant was described by the decision‑makers below as “inconsistent” and “contradictory”.  The applicant contended that the Refugee Review Tribunal had failed to give consideration to, or gave insufficient weight to, the relevant fact that the applicant had used a false passport in leaving Cambodia.  The applicant also contended that the Tribunal had not set out its reasoning in relation to her use of a false passport.  Justice Gyles determined that, in the circumstances of this case, and when considered against other factors weighing against the applicant, any error, if there was such an error in the Tribunal’s reasoning relating to the false passport, did not amount to jurisdictional error.

The applicant’s written submissions raise a number of arguments which were not raised in the courts below, but do not raise any arguable question of law suitable to a grant of special leave.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the courts below.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application with costs.  I publish that disposition.

AT 10.00 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED