SZICT v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 343

[2007] HCATrans 343

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S322 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZICT

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, 1 AUGUST 2007, AT 8.51 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant, a citizen of Pakistan, arrived in Australia in June 2005 and promptly applied for a protection visa.  On 18 August 2005 a delegate of the first respondent refused the application.  The applicant claimed to fear persecution by reason of his membership of the Pakistan Muslim League and that a false case had been lodged against him in May 1998 arising out of an incident at an election during which a member of a rival political party had been killed.  He claimed to have had to go into hiding thereafter.  He said that members of his family had been arrested and tortured.

The applicant sought a review of the delegate's decision by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal did not accept as credible the applicant's claim that he had effectively gone into hiding for seven years as a result of the alleged charge brought against him.  The party to which the applicant claimed to belong was in power at the time at both the national level and in the Punjab where he then resided.  Even if, as the applicant claimed, the rival party's candidate did win the relevant local election, the Tribunal was not satisfied that any local influence that the successful candidate had would outweigh the fact that the applicant's party was in power both nationally and in the Punjab.  It did not accept that the applicant would have been able to evade the authorities for over seven years.  It noted that twice he went to Iran, and on both occasions voluntarily returned to Pakistan.  Furthermore, it did not accept that the documents the applicant produced to corroborate his claims (a political membership card and a letter purportedly from a lawyer) were genuine.  His claims were rejected.

The applicant then applied to the Federal Magistrates Court (Smith FM) for review of the Tribunal's decision.  He contended there that the Tribunal had acted in a way that was unfair, that it did not look at the evidence in a balanced way, that it failed to take into account his fear for his life, and that it "committed jurisdictional error".  He provided no particulars of "unfairness" and identified no jurisdictional error.  The Federal Magistrate found that there was no arguable case for relief and accordingly dismissed the application.

The applicant appealed against that decision to the Federal Court (Jacobson J, exercising the powers of the Full Court). The applicant complained that the Federal Magistrate did not take into account an error made by the Tribunal, said to be a failure to have regard to the serious harm contemplated under s 91R of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). His Honour held that this ground was no more than an invitation to the Court to reconsider the facts alleged by the applicant. The applicant further contended that the Federal Magistrate erred in failing to find that the Tribunal made an adverse finding on credibility without a proper basis for it. Jacobson J found that the Tribunal had given reasons for the findings which were open on the material before the Tribunal. The applicant required leave to appeal from summary dismissal of his case by the Federal Magistrate, and that leave was refused.

The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court from the decision of Jacobson J.  He submits that the Federal Court wrongly failed to find errors of law, made jurisdictional errors and did not afford him "procedural fairness".  No particularization of these grounds is provided: the applicant's written case merely asserts that the decision of the Federal Court was not in his favour.

The applicant has not advanced any arguments that would justify a grant of special leave.  No error of law is demonstrated.  Special leave to appeal must be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, this application for special leave falls to be dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules 2004. Pursuant to rule 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing this application and I publish the disposition signed by Justice Callinan and myself.

AT 8.55 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED