SZGER v MIMA

[2007] HCATrans 222

[2007] HCATrans 222

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S320 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZGER

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

KIRBY J
CALLINAN J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON WEDNESDAY, 23 MAY 2007 AT 9.21 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of China.  He arrived in Australia on 28 November 2004 and promptly applied for a protection visa.  This was sought on the basis that he was a refugee to whom Australia owed protection obligations under the Australian law adopted following the Refugees Convention and Protocol.  The applicant asserted that he was a practitioner of Falun Gong and, on that ground, had a well‑founded fear of persecution were he to be returned to China.

A delegate of the Minister rejected the application for a protection visa and the applicant sought review in the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").

The Tribunal was not convinced on the written material provided that the applicant was a Falun Gong practitioner, as he claimed.  It invited the applicant in writing to attend a hearing to give oral evidence.  The applicant did not attend on the appointed day.  On the basis of the "lack of detail in the claims" the Tribunal was not prepared to accept the applicant's assertions.  It rejected the application for review.

The applicant then sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court. Barnes FM rejected the application, relevantly concluding that the applicant's reliance on s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) was unavailing. An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia, constituted by Besanko J, was dismissed. His Honour rejected complaints about bias, procedural unfairness and failure to comply with the Act.

We have carefully considered the applicant's written case.  No error has been shown in the approach or conclusions of the Federal Court.  There are no reasonable prospects of success in this matter, were special leave to appeal granted by this Court.  Specifically, the applicant's assertion of bias against the Tribunal and of its failure to consider his claim is contradicted by the record.  The application is therefore dismissed.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application.  I publish that disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 9.23 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED