SZFHL v MIMIA & Anor

[2006] HCATrans 176

[2006] HCATrans 176

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S557 of 2005

B e t w e e n -

SZFHL

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 TUESDAY, 11 APRIL 2006, AT 2.04 PM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

HAYNE J:   The applicant, a citizen of Indonesia, seeks special leave to appeal against the orders of a single judge of the Federal Court of Australia (Graham J) exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court. By those orders, Graham 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 applicant claimed persecution as a result of his Chinese ethnicity. He did not respond to an invitation by the Tribunal to give oral evidence and his application was determined in his absence. The Tribunal found that the applicant had not provided sufficient evidence to substantiate his claims. In particular, it expressed doubt that he genuinely feared ethnic persecution because he had failed to explain why he did not depart from Indonesia for nearly 12 months after obtaining a passport. In the absence of such evidence the Tribunal was not satisfied that there was any foundation to the applicant’s claims. On appeal to the Federal Court the applicant argued that there was no evidence or other material to justify the Tribunal’s decision, but Graham J rejected this argument, holding that it was clear that the Tribunal was not satisfied of the matters required by s 65 of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) in the absence of relevant evidence from the applicant.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, the application falls to be dealt with unde r 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004.

The applicant’s draft notice of appeal states that he met the refugee criteria and that there was no evidence to justify the making of the decision.  The applicant’s written submissions are brief, reiterating his factual claims.  The applicant has not raised any question of law which would warrant the grant of special leave.  There is no jurisdictional error apparent in the Tribunal’s decision.  We see no reason to doubt the correctness of the conclusion reached in the courts below.

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 2.06 PM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED