SZIGG v MIAC

[2007] HCATrans 732

[2007] HCATrans 732

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S133 of 2007

B e t w e e n -

SZIGG

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, 6 DECEMBER 2007, AT 9.27 AM

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

KIRBY J:   The applicant is a national of the People's Republic of China.  He arrived in Australia in July 2005 and a month later applied for a protection visa.  He contended that he was entitled to protection under the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) ("the Act") as a "refugee".

In September 2005, a delegate of the respondent Minister refused the application.  The applicant sought review by the Refugee Review Tribunal ("the Tribunal").  That body rejected his application and affirmed the decision of the delegate.

In February 2006, the applicant sought judicial review from the Federal Magistrates Court.  McInnis FM refused relief.  The applicant appealed from that decision to the Federal Court of Australia.  Its appellate jurisdiction was exercised by Jessup J who, on 27 February 2007, dismissed the appeal.  It is from his Honour's orders that the application for special leave now comes before this Court.

The applicant's case before the Tribunal was that he had been a political activist in China and had, for that reason, become a target for persecution by the authorities. He claimed that he had been detained by police. The Tribunal wrote to the applicant indicating that it was unable to make a favourable decision on the material before it. It invited the applicant to give oral evidence. The applicant did not attend the Tribunal hearing on the date appointed. Thereupon, pursuant to s 426A of the Act, the Tribunal proceeded to make a decision on the review without taking further action to enable the applicant to appear before it. It concluded that there was insufficient detail in the written materials provided by the applicant to persuade it that Australia owed protection obligations to him.

McInnis FM examined the record carefully, given that the applicant was unrepresented before him. He rejected assertions that the Tribunal had exhibited bias, contravened s 424A of the Act and had failed to consider independent information in assessing the application. He could find no jurisdictional error and it was on that basis that he dismissed the application. In the Federal Court, Jessup J likewise found no jurisdictional error. He also rejected the applicant's reliance on s 91R of the Act.

There is no basis for intervention by this Court as no error has been shown in the approach or conclusions either of the Federal Court or of the Federal Magistrate.  On the footing of the findings of fact recorded by the Tribunal and undisturbed, any appeal to this Court would enjoy no reasonable prospect of success.  The application for special leave is therefore refused.

Because the applicant was unrepresented in this Court and filed a written case, his application has been dealt with in accordance with Rule 41.10.  Pursuant to Rule 41.10.5 of the High Court Rules, 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 9.29 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED