SZIFS v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 577

[2007] HCATrans 577

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S18 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZIFS

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 9.13 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  She arrived in Australia in 2005 and her application for a protection visa was promptly refused by a delegate of the Minister.  Review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal") resulted in rejection of the applicant's claims of persecution and confirmation of the delegate's decision.  The Federal Magistrates Court (Scarlett FM) found no jurisdictional error and dismissed an application for judicial review.  That decision was confirmed on appeal by the Federal Court of Australia (Cowdroy J).  The applicant now seeks special leave to appeal to this Court.

The applicant's initial application was based on her Christian beliefs and the consequent interest in her of the Public Security Bureau.  The Tribunal was prepared to accept that the applicant was truthful about her Christian conversion and experiences in China, including a brief deprivation of liberty.  However, it noted that she had been able to travel from China to Japan and return without difficulty.  It dismissed her claim of persecution, on the basis of its assessment of the facts.

The subsequent applications for judicial review have concerned allegations of bias and failure to disclose country information.  These allegations have been rejected below for entirely persuasive reasons.

The applicant has not identified any questions of law or error of jurisdiction to attract the intervention of this Court.  The case is purely one of objection to the merits of the decisions at first instance.  There are no prospects of success, were special leave granted.

Special leave must therefore be refused.

Because the applicant is unrepresented, her application has been dealt with in accordance with r 41.10 of the High Court Rules.  Pursuant to r 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.

I publish that disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.14 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED