SZHNQ v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 580

[2007] HCATrans 580

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S25 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZHNQ

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
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 4 OCTOBER 2007, AT 9.18 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant requires a dispensation from the requirements of the Rules of this Court as to time for bringing her application.  We will consider that application in the context of the merits of the matters which the applicant wishes to argue.

The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia in January 2005 and in February 2005 sought a protection visa on the ground of persecution in China for reasons of religion.  She stated that she was a member of an underground Christian church ("Shouters") which had led to her being investigated by the Public Security Bureau.

On the refusal of a visa by the delegate, the applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  That Tribunal was not prepared to accept that the applicant was truthful or had an association with a church in China.  It rejected her substantive claim.  The Tribunal concluded that the applicant would not be subject to persecution by reason of imputed religious belief, were she to return to China.

The applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  That Court in July 2006 (Scarlett FM) refused review, addressing itself, in turn, to each of the applicant's specific complaints about the approach and conclusions of the Tribunal.  An appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Rares J) was dismissed.  Although there were arguments addressed to suggested breaches of the procedural requirements of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act"); of the obligation to provide accurate recording; and of the requirement to afford the applicant a fair chance to comment on negative issues, the Federal Court found no jurisdictional errors to be established. It rejected claims of bias in the decision-making.

From the written case, most of the complaints of the applicant in this Court appear to be concerned with questions of fact. So far as a complaint is made of breach by the Tribunal of the requirements of s 424A of the Act, such complaints are not reasonably arguable. So far as complaints of deficiency in recording are concerned, the applicant has not demonstrated that the hearing before the Tribunal miscarried by virtue of any such deficiencies. Although we would grant the applicant an extension of time, the application must therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented in this Court, her application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  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 signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.21 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED