SZFCC v MIMA

[2006] HCATrans 560

[2006] HCATrans 560

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S118 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZFCC

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, 5 OCTOBER 2006, AT 9.36 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of the People’s Republic of China who claims to fear persecution as a practitioner of Falun Gong. The decision of a delegate of the first respondent to refuse his application for a protection visa was affirmed by the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”). In a hearing conducted in the absence of the applicant pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) (“the Act”), the Tribunal rejected the claim that the applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner as based on “untested assertions”. The Tribunal noted that “if his claims were genuine and could be substantiated”, it would be expected that details would have been provided, either in written or in oral evidence, about the applicant’s practice of Falun Gong in Egypt where he had resided for 16 months, his current practice in Australia and why he had experienced no difficulty in leaving China legally.

The applicant’s application for judicial review was dismissed by the Federal Magistrates Court, which found no error in the Tribunal proceeding in the applicant’s absence pursuant to s 426A of the Act, or in the conclusions it reached. Smith FM rejected a claim that the Tribunal’s procedures had miscarried because it did not take into account the evidence given by the applicant’s wife at the hearing of her separate application; the applicant had not requested that this should happen. An appeal to the Federal Court was dismissed by Stone J.

The applicant’s summary of argument is very brief and seeks to re‑agitate the merits of the case, as well as making unparticularised allegations of breach of s 424A of the Act and bias. It does not point to any error in the decision of Stone J. There are no prospects of success on any appeal. Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.38 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED