SZEIV & Ors v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 293

[2007] HCATrans 293

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S32 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZEIV

First Applicant

SZEIW

Second Applicant

SZEIX

Third Applicant

SZEIY

Fourth Applicant

SZEIZ

Fifth 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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 14 JUNE 2007, AT 9.40 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

__________________

GUMMOW J:   The applicants are Fijian citizens of Indian ethnicity who claim to fear harassment amounting to persecution at the hands of indigenous Fijians, arising out of a dispute about the ownership of land in Fiji.  The applicants were represented in the Refugee Review Tribunal and the courts below.  Before the Minister's delegate, the applicants pursued their claims of persecution both on the basis of race and on the basis of the first applicant's political beliefs.  However, the claim with respect to political belief was not pursued in the Refugee Review Tribunal.  On 3 October 2003, the Tribunal affirmed the decision of a delegate of the respondent to refuse the applicant's application for a protection visa.

An application for judicial review by the Federal Magistrates Court was dismissed as incompetent by Emmett FM on 22 November 2005 as the application was filed well out of time and in any event no jurisdictional error had been shown.  The applicants had not been denied procedural fairness; the Tribunal had not misapplied the "real chance" test; and the Tribunal did not err in failing to consider the claim with respect to political beliefs, as that claim had not been put to the Tribunal by the applicants.

An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Bennett J on 21 December 2006. In addition to the matters pursued before the Federal Magistrate, the applicants also alleged that the Tribunal breached ss 424A and 425 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). That allegation was correctly rejected by her Honour.

The application for special leave to appeal does not advance any question of law that would justify the intervention of this Court.  In essence, the applicant's complaint turns on the adverse findings made by the Tribunal which were not tainted by jurisdictional error.  There are no prospects of success on any appeal to this Court.  Special leave is refused with costs.

Pursuant to r 41.11.1 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.43 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED