SZIGV v MIMA & Anor

[2007] HCATrans 530

[2007] HCATrans 530

IN THE HIGH COURT OF AUSTRALIA

Office of the Registry
  Sydney  No S482 of 2006

B e t w e e n -

SZIGV

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

GUMMOW J
HEYDON J

TRANSCRIPT OF PROCEEDINGS

AT CANBERRA ON THURSDAY, 6 SEPTEMBER 2007, AT 9.21 AM  

Copyright in the High Court of Australia

GUMMOW J:   The applicant is a citizen of South Korea.  She sought a protection visa because she claimed to fear persecution from criminal gangs and from the police on account of her involvement with a trade union. A delegate of the first respondent refused to grant the applicant a protection visa. The applicant applied to the Refugee Review Tribunal (“the Tribunal”) for review of that decision.

The Tribunal wrote to the applicant informing her that it was unable to make a decision favourable to her on the materials before it, and inviting her to give oral evidence. After the applicant failed to appear at the hearing the Tribunal decided the application in her absence, pursuant to s 426A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth). The Tribunal concluded that there was no persuasive evidence enabling it to be satisfied that she faced a real chance of persecution for a Convention reason and rejected the application.

In the Federal Magistrates Court the applicant alleged that the Tribunal had breached s 424A of the Migration Act 1958 (Cth) by failing to provide details of the information which would be the reason or part of the reason for affirming the decision under review, and that the Tribunal misapplied s 426A. Scarlett FM dismissed the application on 28 June 2006 as there was no breach of s 424A or s 426A. The Tribunal was entitled to exercise its discretion not to reschedule the hearing.

In the Federal Court, Marshall J upheld the reasoning of Scarlett FM and dismissed the appeal to that Court on 24 November 2006.

The applicant's case before this Court discloses no question of law that would justify a grant of special leave, and shows no cause to doubt the correctness of the decisions below. There would be insufficient prospects of success on any appeal to this Court. Special leave is refused.

Pursuant to r 41.10.5 we direct the Registrar to draw up, sign and seal an order dismissing the application for special leave.  I publish the disposition signed by Justice Heydon and myself.

AT 9.23 AM THE MATTER WAS CONCLUDED