SZEPM v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 88

[2007] HCATrans 088

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S70 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZEPM

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND MULTICULTURAL AFFAIRS

First Respondent

REFUGEE REVIEW TRIBUNAL

Second Respondent

Publication of reasons and pronouncement of orders

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 1 MARCH 2007, AT 9.29 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a citizen of China who arrived in Australia on 26 February 2004.  In 2004 she applied for, and was refused, a protection visa.  She sought review of that refusal in the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”).  The Tribunal rejected the application in her absence pursuant to section 426A of the Migration Act (“the Act”) upon her failure to attend and respond to an invitation to give oral evidence.

The applicant claimed to be a member of the Falun Gong and to have been one of its key leaders in Tieling.  She said that she had been arrested several times, had been imprisoned, had suffered violent abuse during her imprisonment, and had even been tortured.  She also claimed to have been unfairly harassed in her employment.

Both a Federal Magistrate and the Federal Court rejected the submission that the Tribunal had made any errors that would warrant their intervention.

The former pointed out in his reasons for judgment that the Tribunal had made it clear that there were matters about which he was not satisfied, essentially as to the applicant’s fundamental claim of having been a Falun Gong practitioner.  Absent any convincing evidence to satisfy the Tribunal of this fact, the inevitable consequence was that the Tribunal would, and must, conclude that the applicant had not suffered the persecution of which she complained, and that there was not a real chance that she would suffer persecution for that reason if she were to return to China.

Neither the Federal Magistrate nor the Federal Court could discern any jurisdictional or other error on the part of the Tribunal, and nor can we.  Accordingly, the application to this Court for special leave to appeal must be dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the 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 9.31 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED