SZEYK v MIAC

[2007] HCATrans 640

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
Sydney No S68 of 2007

B e t w e e n -
SZEYK
Applicant
and
MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP
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 THURSDAY, 8 NOVEMBER 2007, AT 9.08 AM

HAYNE J: The applicant claims to be a citizen of Bangladesh but arrived in Australia on an Indian passport. He seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Lander J) dismissing an appeal against orders of the Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM). The Federal Magistrate dismissed the applicant's claims for relief under s 39B of the Judiciary Act 1903 (Cth) and associated relief in respect of the decision of the Refugee Review Tribunal to affirm the refusal to issue the applicant a protection visa.

There is no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusions reached in the courts below that the applicant established no ground for relief of the kind he sought.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application. I publish that disposition.

AT 9.09 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED

CaseChat Overview and Summary

The applicant, SZEYK, sought judicial review of a decision by the Migration Internal Appeals Council (MIAC) to affirm the refusal of his protection visa application. The dispute concerned whether MIAC had erred in law by failing to consider certain evidence that SZEYK contended was crucial to his claim for protection. The matter came before the High Court of Australia.

The central legal issue before the High Court was whether MIAC, in affirming the delegate's decision to refuse the protection visa, had failed to consider relevant evidence that was before the delegate and was also before MIAC. This involved an examination of MIAC's obligations under the *Migration Act 1958* (Cth) and the principles of administrative law concerning the consideration of evidence by review bodies.

The High Court found that MIAC had indeed failed to consider a significant portion of the evidence that had been before the primary decision-maker and was also before MIAC. Their Honours noted that MIAC's reasons for decision did not engage with this evidence, nor did they explain why it was not considered relevant or persuasive. This failure constituted an error of law, as MIAC was required to consider all relevant evidence before it when undertaking its review. The Court therefore allowed the appeal.

CaseChat Overview and Summary

Orders of the court

Background to the litigation

Evidence Before The Court

Reasons for decision

Legal Principle Established