SZIFF v MIAC & Anor

[2008] HCATrans 37

[2008] HCATrans 037

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S225 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZIFF

Applicant

and

MINISTER FOR IMMIGRATION AND CITIZENSHIP

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, 7 FEBRUARY 2008, AT 9.07 AM 

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of India.  He arrived in Australia in July 2005 and promptly made an application for a protection visa.  He claimed to be a "refugee" within the Refugees Convention and Protocol, given effect by the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act").

The applicant's claim was rejected by a delegate of the Minister.  This led to an application to the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  The Tribunal invited the applicant to give oral evidence before it.  However, he indicated that he did not wish to do so.  The Tribunal then stated that it could not be satisfied that he had been persecuted in India or feared persecution on return.

An application for judicial review to the Federal Magistrates Court (Cameron FM) unsurprisingly failed.  So did an appeal to the Federal Court of Australia (Branson J exercising the appellate jurisdiction of that Court).

The applicant's initial claim was based upon his being a member of a "low caste of Hindus" who had sought to establish a committee to uphold their rights. He asserted that this brought him into conflict with political groups such as the BJP and RSS in India. On the basis of untested assertions that were unclear and lacking in detail, the Tribunal was not satisfied that the claim of persecution was made out. The matter was decided, essentially, on the footing that the applicant had failed to establish his case. It was competent, under s 426A of the Act, for the Tribunal to proceed in the absence of the applicant in the circumstances. No jurisdictional or legal error has been demonstrated. There are no prospects of success, were special leave to appeal to this Court granted.

Because the applicant is unrepresented and has filed a written case, his application has been dealt with in accordance with rule 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  In accordance with 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 Heydon J and myself.

AT 9.09 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED